IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Die Riester-Versorgung ist grundlegend: sie sollte konstruktiv kritisiert, aber nicht zerredet werden

Listed author(s):
  • Thomas Dommermuth
Registered author(s):

    The Riester pension is much better than its reputation. Only some of the criticism is actually problematic. In part the legislature has already addressed or is going to address some of the existent issues. Behind the argument that the return was no better than a piggy bank is a miscalculation: actual returns are significantly higher than for products in the so-called "Schicht 3" (pension plans and financial investments without state support), but differ significantly between providers and between product types. As with other forms of pensions, the purchase decision should be preceded by adequate product and offer information. For this, there are plenty of publications, including those, for example, by Finanztest. Die Riester-Versorgung ist deutlich besser als ihr Ruf. Nur wenige der in der öffentlichen Diskussion kritisierten Bestandteile sind wirklich problematisch; teilweise hat der Gesetzgeber tatsächliche Probleme bereits beseitigt, zur Beseitigung einen Gesetzesentwurf vorgelegt oder eine Problemlösung in Aussicht gestellt. Hinter dem Argument, die Rendite sei nicht besser als beim Sparstrumpf, steht eine in der Investitionsrechnung und Finanzmathematik nicht übliche Verfahrensweise. Die tatsächlichen am Markt vor zu findenden effektiven Renditen nach Steuerwirkungen sind deutlich höher als bei Produkten der Schicht 3, weisen jedoch von Anbieter zu Anbieter und zwischen den verschiedenen Produktarten erhebliche Unterschiede auf. Wie bei anderen Formen der Altersvorsorge gilt: Der Kaufentscheidung sollte eine ausreichende Produkt- und Angebotsinformation vorausgehen. Hierzu gibt es genügend Veröffentlichungen, zum Beispiel von Finanztest.

    If 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.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research in its journal Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung.

    Volume (Year): 81 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 2 ()
    Pages: 91-102

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:diw:diwvjh:81-2-7
    Contact details of provider: Postal:
    Mohrenstraße 58, D-10117 Berlin

    Phone: xx49-30-89789-0
    Fax: xx49-30-89789-200
    Web page:

    More information through EDIRC

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:diw:diwvjh:81-2-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Bibliothek)

    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.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.