Paying for pensions: An international comparison of administrative charges in funded retirement-income systems
AbstractHigh charges for personal pensions were one factor in the personal pensions mis-selling debacle in the United Kingdom. They continued to arouse concern among politicians and commentators. The Labour government, with its new flagship ‘stakeholder’ pension, chose to regulate both the structure of charges and their level. This paper assesses the international experience of charges in funded retirement-income systems, drawing on evidence from fourteen countries with very diverse policies. Measuring the price of financial services is more difficult than comparing the cost of other goods or services. Providers can levy many different kinds of charges. These can include one-off and ongoing charges; proportional and fixed-rate fees; some based on contributions, some on the value of assets in the fund and some on investment returns. These different charges accumulate and interact in Complicated ways over the membership of a pension plan. The most familiar summary measure of charges is the ‘reduction in yield’. This adds together all the charges over the lifetime of an example pension policy and expresses them as a percentage of assets. Measuring charges as a proportion of contributions is the alternative. This turns out to be the same as calculating lifetime charges as a proportion of the balance accumulated at retirement. This second measure is known as the ‘reduction in premium’ or the charge ratio. The fourteen countries surveyed (Section 2) adopt very different approaches. At one end of the spectrum, Australia and the United Kingdom (with personal pensions) have completely liberal policies on charge levels and structures, but require providers to set out the effect of charges in a standard format. Most Latin American countries, including Argentina and Chile, restrict the charge structure: in these cases, allowing a fixed fee plus a charge as a proportion of contributions. Poland, too, limits the types of fee that can be levied, but also limits funds to charging 0.6 per cent of assets, while other charges are uncapped. Sweden, Kazakhstan and the United Kingdom (with stakeholder pensions) restrict both the charge structure and the charge level. In the last two, there is a fixed ceiling while Sweden varies the cap using a complex formula based on the amount that providers charge to manage voluntary savings. Finally, Bolivia auctioned the rights to manage its mandatory pension fund assets to international fund managers. The empirical evidence from these countries charge levels. In countries with systems based on individual accounts and individual choice among competing pension providers, average charges vary from under 15 to above 30 per cent. The paper assesses the options and the arguments for ontrolling charges. Measures to increase transparency comprise requirements for providers to disclose the level of charges, public provision of information in charge ‘league tables’ and allowing charges to be levied on top of rather than out of mandatory pension contributions. If governments choose to restrict charge structures, to facilitate comparisons between different providers, the most important policy choice is between contribution-based levies and asset-based fees. Latin American countries have tended to opt for the former, the United Kingdom has chosen the latter for stakeholder pensions. The main issues in this choice are the time profile of providers’ revenues, fund managers’ incentives to maximise returns and the incidence of the charges on different providers. Restricting charge levels raises some important concerns, particularly about governments’ ability to choose the ‘right’ level for the ceiling and the trade-offs in terms of restricting competition and individual choice of fund. Many of these policies to limit charges are aimed particularly at protecting low-income workers. But some countries have adopted alternative policies: for example, excluding low-income workers from the requirement to contribute and protecting them with safety-net pensions in old-age or cross-subsidising low-income workers directly with a minimum contribution from the government. Some commentators have suggested alternative institutional structures for managing funded pension assets to reduce costs. However, empirical evidence shows that publicly managed pension funds have generated poor returns. Also, the evidence on economies of scale in fund management suggests that the minimum efficient scale is relatively small and does not imply the presence of efficiency gains from a monopoly in managing funded pensions except in small economies. Again, there are important trade-offs in these policies, including corporate governance problems and the restriction of competition and individual choice.
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 University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 14171.
Date of creation: Nov 2000
Date of revision:
pensions; administrative charges; administrative costs;
Find related papers by JEL classification:
- G23 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Non-bank Financial Institutions; Financial Instruments; Institutional Investors
- D14 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Personal Finance
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.:
- Estelle James & Gary Ferrier & James H. Smalhout & Dimitri Vittas, 2000.
"Mutual Funds and Institutional Investments -- What Is the Most Efficient Way to Set Up Individual Accounts in a Social Security System?,"
in: Administrative Aspects of Investment-Based Social Security Reform, pages 77-136
National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- James, Estelle & Ferrier, Gary & Smalhout, James & Vittas, Dimitri, 1999. "Mutual funds and institutional investments - what is the most efficient way to set up individual accounts in a social security system?," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2099, The World Bank.
- Estelle James & Gary Ferrier & James Smalhout & Dimitri Vittas, 1999. "Mutual Funds and Institutional Investments: What is the Most Efficient Way to Set Up Individual Accounts in a Social Security System?," NBER Working Papers 7049, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Peter S. Heller, 1998. "Rethinking Public Pension Reform Initiatives," IMF Working Papers 98/61, International Monetary Fund.
- Iglesias, Augusto & Palacios, Robert J., 2000. "Managing public pension reserves - Part I : evidence from the international experience," Social Protection Discussion Papers 21311, The World Bank.
- Palacios, Robert & Whitehouse, Edward, 1998.
"The Role of Choice in the Transition to a Funded Pension System,"
14176, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Palacios, Robert & Whitehouse, Edward, 1998. "The role of choice in the transition to a funded pension system," Social Protection Discussion Papers 20109, The World Bank.
- Chlon, Agnieszka & Gora, Marek & Rutkowski, Michal, 1999. "Shaping pension reform in Poland : security through diversity," Social Protection Discussion Papers 20852, The World Bank.
- Demarco, Gustavo & Rofman, Rafael & Whitehouse, Edward, 1998.
"Supervising mandatory funded pension systems: issues and challenges,"
16348, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- DeMarco, Gustavo & Rofman, Rafael & Whitehouse, Edward, 1998. "Supervising mandatory funded pension systems : issues and challenges," Social Protection Discussion Papers 20113, The World Bank.
- Zvi Bodie & Alan J. Marcus & Robert C. Merton, 1985.
"Defined Benefit versus Defined Contribution Pension Plans: What are the Real Tradeoffs?,"
NBER Working Papers
1719, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Zvi Bodie & Alan J. Marcus & Robert C. Merton, 1988. "Defined Benefit versus Defined Contribution Pension Plans: What are the Real Trade-offs?," NBER Chapters, in: Pensions in the U.S. Economy, pages 139-162 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Shah, Ajay & Fernandes, Kshama, 2000. "The relevance of index funds for pension investment in equities," Policy Research Working Paper Series 2494, The World Bank.
- Ball, Ray & Kothari, S. P. & Shanken, Jay, 1995. "Problems in measuring portfolio performance An application to contrarian investment strategies," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(1), pages 79-107, May.
- Richard Disney & Edward Whitehouse, 1994. "Choice of private pension plan and pension benefits in the UK," IFS Working Papers W94/02, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
- Disney, Richard & Whitehouse, Edward, 1999.
"Pension plans and retirement incentives,"
Social Protection Discussion Papers
20851, The World Bank.
- Olivia S. Mitchell, 1996.
"Administrative Costs in Public and Private Retirement Systems,"
NBER Working Papers
5734, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Olivia S. Mitchell, 1998. "Administrative Costs in Public and Private Retirement Systems," NBER Chapters, in: Privatizing Social Security, pages 403-456 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Olivia S. Mitchell, . "Administrative Costs in Public and Private Retirement Systems," Pension Research Council Working Papers 96-4, Wharton School Pension Research Council, University of Pennsylvania.
- Mervyn A. King & Louis Dicks-Mireaux, 1982. "Asset Holdings and the Life Cycle," NBER Working Papers 0614, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Paul A. Samuelson, 1958. "An Exact Consumption-Loan Model of Interest with or without the Social Contrivance of Money," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 66, pages 467.
- Amanda Gosling & Stephen Machin & Costas Meghir, 1994.
"The changing distribution of male wages in the UK,"
IFS Working Papers
W94/13, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
- Gosling, Amanda & Machin, Stephen & Meghir, Costas, 2000. "The Changing Distribution of Male Wages in the U.K," Review of Economic Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 67(4), pages 635-66, October.
- Malhotra, D K & McLeod, Robert W, 1997. "An Empirical Analysis of Mutual Fund Expenses," Journal of Financial Research, Southern Finance Association & Southwestern Finance Association, vol. 20(2), pages 175-90, Summer.
- Arrau, Patricio & Schmidt-Hebbel, Klaus, 1995. "Pensions systems and reform : country experiences and research issues," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1470, The World Bank.
- Carhart, Mark M, 1997. " On Persistence in Mutual Fund Performance," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 52(1), pages 57-82, March.
- Ferson, Wayne E & Schadt, Rudi W, 1996. " Measuring Fund Strategy and Performance in Changing Economic Conditions," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 51(2), pages 425-61, June.
- King, M A & Dicks-Mireaux, L-D L, 1982. "Asset Holdings and the Life-Cycle," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 92(366), pages 247-67, June.
- Disney, Richard & Whitehouse, Edward, 1996. "What Are Occupational Pension Plan Entitlements Worth in Britain?," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 63(250), pages 213-38, May.
- Whitehouse, Edward, 1999.
"The tax treatment of funded pensions,"
14173, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Elton, Edwin J & Gruber, Martin J & Blake, Christopher R, 1996. "Survivorship Bias and Mutual Fund Performance," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 9(4), pages 1097-1120.
- Richard Disney & Robert Palacios & Edward Whitehouse, 1999. "Individual choice of pension arrangement as a pension reform strategy," IFS Working Papers W99/18, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
- Meghir, Costas & Whitehouse, Edward, 1996.
"The Evolution of Wages in the United Kingdom: Evidence from Micro Data,"
Journal of Labor Economics,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 14(1), pages 1-25, January.
- Meghir, C.H.D. & Whitehouse, E., 1996. "The evolution of wages in the United Kingdom: evidence from micro data," Open Access publications from University College London http://discovery.ucl.ac.u, University College London.
- Blake, David & Lehmann, Bruce N & Timmermann, Allan G, 1997. "Performance Measurement using Multiple Asset Class Portfolio Data," CEPR Discussion Papers 1618, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Elton, Edwin J & Gruber, Martin J & Blake, Christopher R, 1996. "The Persistence of Risk-Adjusted Mutual Fund Performance," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 69(2), pages 133-57, April.
- Vittas, Dimitri, 1998. "Regulatory controversies of private pension funds," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1893, The World Bank.
- Whitehouse, Edward, 1998.
"Pension reform in Britain,"
Social Protection Discussion Papers
20053, The World Bank.
- Brown, Stephen J, et al, 1992. "Survivorship Bias in Performance Studies," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 5(4), pages 553-80.
- Lynch, Anthony W & Mendenhall, Richard R, 1997. "New Evidence on Stock Price Effects Associated with Changes in the S&P 500 Index," The Journal of Business, University of Chicago Press, vol. 70(3), pages 351-83, July.
- Michael Fuchs & Aaron George Grech & Asghar Zaidi, 2006. "Pension Policy in EU25 and its Possible Impact on Elderly Poverty," CASE Papers case116, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, LSE.
- Luciano Greco, 2005. "The Optimal Design of Funded Pension Plans: Unbundling Financing and Investment," "Marco Fanno" Working Papers 0003, Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche "Marco Fanno".
- Grech, Aaron George, 2007. "Pension policy in EU25 and its impact on pension benefits," MPRA Paper 33669, University Library of Munich, Germany.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.