Smoothing the waves of pension funding: Could changes in funding rules help avoid cyclical under-funding?
Defined benefit pensions are still an important part of retirement income security for 44 million people. After 2000, these plans experienced extreme difficulties. Although the magnitude of the problem was unprecedented, its causes were not. Interest rate and asset prices decline in a recession, when earnings are low. Pension funding rules reflect this regularity. This requires additional contributions when times are bad. We address this counter-cyclicality through three proposed rule changes. We use a simulation model to evaluate these. Our results indicate that counter-cyclicality would have diminished, while funding adequacy would have improved.
Volume (Year): 8 (2005)
Issue (Month): 2 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/GPRE19|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/GPRE19|
References listed on IDEAS
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.:
- Alicia H. Munnell & Nicole Ernsberger (assistant), 1987. "Pension contributions and the stock market," New England Economic Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, issue Nov, pages 3-14.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:jpolrf:v:8:y:2005:i:2:p:131-151. 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: (Michael McNulty)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.