IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/oec/dafaab/34-en.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Evaluating the Design of Private Pension Plans: Costs and Benefits of Risk-Sharing

Author

Listed:
  • Hans J. Blommestein

    (OECD)

  • Pascal Janssen

    (PPGM)

  • Niels Kortleve

    (PPGM)

  • Juan Yermo

    (OECD)

Abstract

The principal purpose of this paper is to analyse the trade-off between the uncertainty in contributions on the one hand and benefits on the other that is embedded in different pension arrangements. The paper employs the funding ratio (ratio of assets to liabilities) and the replacement rate (ratio of benefits to salaries) as key criteria for evaluating the risk sharing characteristics of a private pension plan from the perspective of the plan member. The stochastic simulations performed show that hybrid plans (those in between traditional DB and individual DC) appear to be more efficient and sustainable forms of risk sharing than either of the other two. Of the three main hybrid plans analysed, conditional indexation plans appear to have the greatest potential as sustainable forms of risk sharing. Évaluer la conception des plans de pension privés : coûts et avantages du point de vue du partage des risques Le principal objectif de ce document est d'analyser l'arbitrage entre le degré de certitude (d'incertitude) des cotisations, d'une part, et des prestations, d'autre part, inscrit dans les différents systèmes de pension. Le coefficient de capitalisation (rapport des actifs aux engagements) et le taux de remplacement (rapport entre les prestations et le salaire) sont les critères clés considérés pour évaluer les caractéristiques en termes de partage des risques des plans de pension privés du point de vue de l'adhérent à un plan. Les simulations stochastiques réalisées montrent que les plans hybrides (plans qui se situent entre les traditionnels plans à prestations définies et les plans à cotisations définies individuels) semblent être une forme de partage des risques plus efficiente et plus viable que les deux autres. Parmi les trois grands types de plans hybrides analysés, les plans à indexation conditionnelle semblent les plus aptes à assurer un partage des risques de façon pérenne.

Suggested Citation

  • Hans J. Blommestein & Pascal Janssen & Niels Kortleve & Juan Yermo, 2009. "Evaluating the Design of Private Pension Plans: Costs and Benefits of Risk-Sharing," OECD Working Papers on Insurance and Private Pensions 34, OECD Publishing.
  • Handle: RePEc:oec:dafaab:34-en
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/225162646207
    Download Restriction: no

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Niels Kortleve & Eduard Ponds, 2009. "Dutch Pension Funds in Underfunding: Solving Generational Dilemmas," Working Papers, Center for Retirement Research at Boston College wp2009-29, Center for Retirement Research, revised Nov 2009.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    capitalisation; cotisations définies; defined benefit; defined contribution; fonds de pension; funding; hybrid plans; partage des risques; pension benefit; pension fund; plans hybrides; prestation de pension; prestation définie; risk sharing;

    JEL classification:

    • G23 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Non-bank Financial Institutions; Financial Instruments; Institutional Investors
    • J32 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs - - - Nonwage Labor Costs and Benefits; Retirement Plans; Private Pensions

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:oec:dafaab:34-en. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/caoecfr.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.