An institutional evaluation of pension funds and life insurance companies
AbstractThis paper compares two different types of annuity providers, i.e. defined benefit pension funds and life insurance companies. One of the key differences is that the residual risk in pension funds is collectively borne by the beneficiaries and the sponsor while in the case of life insurers, it is borne by the external shareholders. This paper employs a contingent claim approach to evaluate the risk return trade-off for annuitants.For that, we take into account the differences in contract specifications and in regulatory regimes. Mean-variance analysis is conducted to determine annuity choices of consumers with different preferences. Using realistic parameters we find that under linear and quadratic utility, life insurance companies always dominate pension funds, while under other utility specifications this is only true for low default probabilities. Furthermore, we find that power utility consumers are indifferent if the long term default probability of pension funds exceeds that of life insurers by 2 to 4%.Â
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Netherlands Central Bank, Research Department in its series DNB Working Papers with number 227.
Date of creation: Nov 2009
Date of revision:
Pension plans; barrier options; contingent claim approach; mean-variance analysis.;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- G11 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets - - - Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
- G23 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Non-bank Financial Institutions; Financial Instruments; Institutional Investors
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2010-01-10 (All new papers)
- NEP-IAS-2010-01-10 (Insurance Economics)
- NEP-RMG-2010-01-10 (Risk Management)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Dirk Broeders & An Chen, 2008.
"Pension regulation and the market value of pension liabilities - a contingent claims analysis using Parisian options,"
DNB Working Papers
183, Netherlands Central Bank, Research Department.
- Broeders, Dirk & Chen, An, 2010. "Pension regulation and the market value of pension liabilities: A contingent claims analysis using Parisian options," Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 34(6), pages 1201-1214, June.
- An Chen & Michael Suchanecki, 2006.
"Default Risk, Bankruptcy Procedures and the Market Value of Life Insurance Liabilities,"
Bonn Econ Discussion Papers
bgse8_2006, University of Bonn, Germany.
- Chen, An & Suchanecki, Michael, 2007. "Default risk, bankruptcy procedures and the market value of life insurance liabilities," Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(2), pages 231-255, March.
- Zvi Bodie, 1989.
"Pensions as Retirement Income Insurance,"
NBER Working Papers
2917, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Jacob A. Bikker & Peter J.G. Vlaar, 2006. "Conditional Indexation in Defined Benefit Pension Plans," DNB Working Papers 086, Netherlands Central Bank, Research Department.
- Jeffrey R. Brown & Peter R. Orszag, 2006. "The Political Economy of Government-Issued Longevity Bonds," Journal of Risk & Insurance, The American Risk and Insurance Association, vol. 73(4), pages 611-631.
- David Blake, 1999. "Portfolio Choice Models of Pension Funds and Life Assurance Companies: Similarities and Differences," The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 24(3), pages 327-357, July.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Rob Vet).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.