|
||||
|
||||
Moving Beyond the ‘DB Vs. DC’ Debate: The Appeal of Hybrid Pension PlansHans J. BlommesteinOrganization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) Pascal JanssenPGGM Investments Niels KortlevePGGM Investments Juan YermoOrganization for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD) October 13, 2009 Rotman International Journal of Pension Management, Vol. 2, No. 2, Fall 2009 Abstract: This article analyzes the tradeoffs between uncertainties in contributions and benefits embedded in different pension arrangements. The two key criteria for evaluating the risk-sharing characteristics of a private pension plan from the perspective of the plan member are the funding ratio (ratio of assets to liabilities) and the replacement rate (ratio of benefits to salaries). The stochastic simulations performed (considering financial risks only) show that hybrid plans (those in between traditional defined benefit and individual defined contribution) can offer efficient and sustainable forms of risk-sharing. The appeal of different hybrid plans depends very much on the regulatory, social, and economic environment. In situations where funding excesses can be efficiently and fairly apportioned, conditional indexation plans appear to have the greatest potential as sustainable forms of risk-sharing. However, the appropriate design of hybrid plans requires careful consideration of the relative pension plan risks that can be borne by working and retired individuals.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 12 Keywords: Defined Benefit, Defined Contribution, Funding, Hybrid Plans, Pension Benefits, Pension Funds working papers seriesDate posted: October 28, 2009Suggested CitationContact Information
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
FAQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.360 seconds