Retirement 20/20: Innovation in Pension Design
AbstractToday, both the United States and Canada are experiencing a decline in Single-Employer Sponsored Defined Benefit (DB) Pension plans. In some instances, they are being replaced by Defined Contribution (DC) or Individual Account [e.g., 401(k)] plans; in other cases, by nothing. It appears that traditional sponsors of DB plans have concluded that their cost (or its variability) is larger than the rewards (e.g., a loyal work force). At the same time, two stock market meltdowns in less than a decade have indicated to all the frailties of Individual Account DC systems. What we need is a new pension system that brings most of the advantages of the DB and DC plans to the participants, while minimizing their disadvantages. We must also recognize the skill set of the participants (e.g., do not expect a blue collar worker to be an investment professional) and not anticipate or require anomalous markets (e.g., ever-stronger equity returns). Size matters. Larger plans can run at lower per unit expense ratios, and can also achieve entry into a wide variety of investment products (e.g., private placements) not available to a small plan. Larger funds also benefit from risk sharing through “Law of Large Numbers”. The model proposed is a “Jointly Governed Target Benefit Pension plan”. Such plans would have many features in common with today’s Ontario Multi-Employer Pension Plans (MEPPs), the Canada/Quebec Pension Plans (C/QPP), TIAA-CREF in the United States and the Dutch national plan. For the plan sponsor, this is a DC plan. Inherent in the concept are that smaller plans (and even individual plans) could commingle their assets to achieve “size” (e.g. a minimum investment portfolio of $10B). Investment management would be at arm’s length from the plan itself.
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 McMaster University in its series Social and Economic Dimensions of an Aging Population Research Papers with number 267.
Length: 27 pages
Date of creation: May 2010
Date of revision:
Contact details of provider:
Postal: 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4M4
Phone: (905) 525-9140 ext. 22765
Fax: (905) 521-8232
Web page: http://www.mcmaster.ca/economics/
More information through EDIRC
Target Benefit; Joint Governance; Commingled Assets;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- 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-2010-07-10 (All new papers)
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.:
- Gary Burtless, 2009.
"Lessons of the Financial Crisis for the Design of National Pension Systems,"
CESifo Working Paper Series
2735, CESifo Group Munich.
- Gary Burtless, 2010. "Lessons of the Financial Crisis for the Design of National Pension Systems," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo, vol. 56(3), pages 323-349, September.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ().
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.