IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/diw/diwvjh/83-3-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Privatrenten als (un)geeignetes Instrument der Altersvorsorge?

Author

Listed:
  • Holger Balodis
  • Dagmar Hühne

Abstract

Pension products offered by life insurance companies to individual customers are no safe protection against inflation. In a survey we tested 48 pension products. The average garanteed return after 40 years was 1.02 percent. The average garanteed return of the tested products offered by big players was even lower: 0.94 percent. The main reasons for this weak performance are high costs. The extent of these cost disadvantages is invisible for customers. There is no insurance company providing clear information on total costs in the Product Information Sheet („Produktinformationsblatt“). The companies use a new figure calculated on a concept of „yield reduction“ called „Gesamtkostenquote“. The name is misleading. It unfortunately guides the customers to underestimate the real amount of costs. In our survey we used a concept of „reduction of wealth“ to uncover the real amount of costs the pension contracts carry. The average loss for the customers is 10,105 Euro. This concept is rather than the „Gesamtkostenquote“ able to uncover the real impact of costs. Therefore we prefer to implement the “reduction of wealth“ as a compulsery figure in a rebuilt „Produktinformationsblatt“. Die von Lebensversicherungen angebotenen Privatrententarife können einen Inflationsschutz nicht garantieren. Die effektive garantierte Beitragsrendite lag in der vorliegenden Untersuchung von 48 Versicherungstarifen bei lediglich 1,02 Prozent und bei den Marktführern sogar nur bei 0,94 Prozent. Verantwortlich hierfür sind erhebliche Kosten, deren Ausmaß dem Kunden in der Regel verborgen bleibt. Er findet im gesetzlich vorgeschriebenen Produktinformationsblatt keine Gesamtsumme der anfallenden Kosten, sondern nur Teilbeträge, die sich auf jeweils unterschiedliche Zeiträume beziehen. Auch die von vielen Versicherern verwendete „Gesamtkostenquote“ ist missverständlich und untertreibt die tatsächlichen Kosten. Die Analyse der durch Kosten verursachten Einbußen, der „Reduction in Wealth“, ergab bei einem Modellvertrag mit Einzahlungen von insgesamt 48 000 Euro allein in der Ansparphase einen durchschnittlichen „Schaden“ von 10 105 Euro. Die „Reduction in Wealth“ macht den „Schaden“ durch Kosten in einer einzigen Kennziffer deutlich. Sie ist deshalb in der Reformdiskussion um ein verbessertes Produktinformationsblatt der gegenwärtig favorisierten Gesamtkostenquote vorzuziehen.

Suggested Citation

  • Holger Balodis & Dagmar Hühne, 2014. "Privatrenten als (un)geeignetes Instrument der Altersvorsorge?," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 83(3), pages 41-56.
  • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwvjh:83-3-3
    DOI: 10.3790/vjh.83.3.41
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3790/vjh.83.3.41
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3790/vjh.83.3.41?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Financial market; costs of private life insurances; poverty among the elderly; Pensions;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • G1 - Financial Economics - - General Financial Markets
    • H55 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Social Security and Public Pensions
    • I3 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty

    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:diw:diwvjh:83-3-3. 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: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.html .

    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.