Elimination of the Foreign Property Rule on Tax Deferred Savings Plans
The Foreign Property Rule (FPR), limiting the holding of foreign property in pension plan assets, is scheduled to be eliminated this year. It has been rationalized on economic grounds by asserting that it improves the value of the dollar and decreases the cost of capital yet, at the time the FPR began, the government was trying to keep the dollar from rising and there were strong capital inflows. Further, evidence from the past changes in the FPR indicates it had little, if any, affect on the cost of capital and exchange rate, but cost middle income workers between one and three billion dollars per annum when set at 30%. I argue that the reason for its existence was the then common belief that governments could make better economic allocation decisions than markets. Removing the FPR provides pension plans with greater opportunity for risk adjusted returns as well as responsibilities. Relevant issues that arise include the degree of foreign currency exposure that is desirable and the degree of active management desired in foreign assets, and whether it makes sense to choose fund managers that are regionally focused rather than global. Pension boards will also have to rethink what a Canadian fund is and whether it should mimic Canadian production (as currently structured) or Canadian consumption patterns. An encouraging aspect of eliminating the FPR is the possibility that government ideology is changing to place greater emphasis on the positive benefits of using markets to allocate resources.
|Date of creation:||2005|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Economic Policy Research Institute, Social Science Centre, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2|
Phone: 519-661-2111 Ext.85244
Web page: http://economics.uwo.ca/research/research_papers/epri_workingpapers.html
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.:
- Burgess, David & Fried, Joel, 2005.
"The foreign property rule: a cost benefit analysis,"
Journal of Pension Economics and Finance,
Cambridge University Press, vol. 4(03), pages 273-289, November.
- Bartolini, Leonardo & Drazen, Allan, 1997.
"Capital-Account Liberalization as a Signal,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 87(1), pages 138-54, March.
- Bodie, Zvi & Merton, Robert C. & Samuelson, William F., 1992.
"Labor supply flexibility and portfolio choice in a life cycle model,"
Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control,
Elsevier, vol. 16(3-4), pages 427-449.
- Zvi Bodie & Robert C. Merton & William F. Samuelson, 1992. "Labor Supply Flexibility and Portfolio Choice in a Life-Cycle Model," NBER Working Papers 3954, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Marianne Baxter & Urban J. Jermann, 1995.
"The International Diversification Puzzle is Worse Than You Think,"
NBER Working Papers
5019, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Baxter, Marianne & Jermann, Urban J, 1997. "The International Diversification Puzzle Is Worse Than You Think," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(1), pages 170-80, March.
- Baxter, M. & Jermann, U.J., 1993. "The International Diversification Puzzle is Worse than you Think," RCER Working Papers 350, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
- David Burgess & Joel Fried, 1999. "Canadian Retirement Savings Plans and the Foreign Property Rule," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 25(3), pages 395-416, September.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uwo:epuwoc:20055. 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: ()
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.