What I was thinking was, a SPIA could loosely be compared to SS or a pension, we typically do not add the lump sum value of SS or a pension to our SS. So, I would be inclined to reduce our NW by the investment amount, although I suppose it really is debatable based on personal preference.
This. But it is more complicated and actually depends on the type of SPIA.
When we refer to SPIAs we are typically talking about life-contingent SPIAs... you have to be alive in order to receive the benefit payment. As a result from an accounting theory perspective is it s contingent asset with each benefit payment contingent on your being alive. If you are alive on a specific date then you have a legal contractual right to collect the benefit and that month's benefit is then recognized as an asset.
The dilemma is that unless you are on your death bed you could probably sell that right to life-contingent cash flows for a substantial sum which would make one think that it should be recognized as an asset. That is just where the accounting standard setters decided to draw the line back in the 1970s. Just because it is "generally" accepted doesn't mean it is "universally" accepted, ergo the periodic debates we have on the topic on this forum.
While not universally true, more often than not the recognition of an asset is based on legal rights and you don't have the legal right to the benefit unless you are alive on a certain date. Die the day before and you don't get the benefit, die the day after and you do... it works the same for pensions, SS and life-contingent SPIAs.
As a result, pensions, SS and life-contingent SPIA's are not recognized as assets because they are life contingent.
OTOH, there are period-certain annuities, SPIAs that pay for a defined term, like 5, 10, 15 or 20 years and since those benefit payments are assured then those SPIAs represent rights to contractual cash flows similar to a bond and would be recognized as assets.
There is also an in-between category of life-contingent SPIAs with a guaranteed number of payments that would be recognized as assets for the guaranteed benefit period and not recognized as an asset during the life-contingent period.
Because this is not subject to review by CPA or falling under GAAP rules, you are free to count it how you feel comfortable. Some folks count their home in NW, others do not. Some count the "value" of their pension, others do not. ..
+1 While all of the above theory applies to CPAs opining on personal financial statements being presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles or GAAP, that situation is very rare. The financial statements we are prepareing are "for internal management purposes" so they can be whatever we want them to be... similar to the plethora of "non-GAAP" measure used by many publicly held companies.