I'm interested in people's attitude to risk and "guaranteed" income in retirement.
I voted yes (assuming it was a reasonable lump sum) for two reasons: (1) with 2 pensions and rentals covering 70% of our spend, we already have enough "guaranteed" income; and (2) I believe that SS will eventually be watered down through some combination of additional income taxes on benefits, means testing, reduced COL adjustments, increased retirement age, or they'll just allow the mandated reductions to happen.
My retirement spreadsheet includes a "factor" to reduce SS benefits. It's currently set at 70%, but I've had it as low at 50%. During the accumulation phase, I never thought SS would be a reality for us at all. I'm now beginning to think it will be, but not at the levels currently promised. If I'm wrong, my kids will make out like bandits.
I'm a big believer in having some level of "guaranteed" income, especially in early retirement to help mitigate sequence of returns risk. Both our pensions had attractive lump sum options, but we elected the annuity for this reason. One of them has no COLA and the other is partially COLA'd. For the same reason (sequence of returns risk), we also paid off the mortgage, bought 2 rental houses, increased cash allocation to 5%, and tilted the taxable portfolio to high dividends.
If the next 30 years is anything like the last 30, then these actions probably sacrificed some long-term growth potential. But we like the risk/reward trade-off in this case. With pensions, rentals, and dividends, our expenses are 85% covered (basic, non-discretionary is over 100% covered). The 5% cash allocation covers the remaining gap for many years. There's still a large portfolio to cover other risks, like inflation, longevity, LTC. Later on when SS comes around, I'd be less concerned about sequence of returns and thus more inclined to take the OP's theoretical lump sum. I doubt that would ever be an option though. If it was, I'd jump all over it.