IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/jpenef/v3y2004i03p339-354_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Potential implications of mandating choice in corporate defined benefit plans

Author

Listed:
  • MITCHELL, OLIVIA S.
  • MULVEY, JANEMARIE

Abstract

The evolution of hybrid conversions has prompted a number of high-profile legal challenges. In response, policymakers have attempted to force companies transitioning from a traditional DB to a hybrid plan to offer all workers the open-ended choice of remaining in the old DB plan, versus switching to the new hybrid plan. This paper evaluates ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ under these plan conversions and estimates the cost to plan sponsors of such a mandate. We find that mandating choice could increase plan sponsors' pension expenses above their current cost for traditional defined benefit plans. In the end, rising costs of pensions could endanger plan sponsorship altogether. Policymakers seeking to mandate pension choice should take into account these possible undesirable outcomes of such a law.

Suggested Citation

  • Mitchell, Olivia S. & Mulvey, Janemarie, 2004. "Potential implications of mandating choice in corporate defined benefit plans," Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, Cambridge University Press, vol. 3(3), pages 339-354, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:jpenef:v:3:y:2004:i:03:p:339-354_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1474747204001805/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dirk Broeders & An Chen & David Rijsbergen, 2013. "Valuation of liabilities in hybrid pension plans," Applied Financial Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 23(15), pages 1215-1229, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:jpenef:v:3:y:2004:i:03:p:339-354_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/pef .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.