Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-04T21:33:22.365Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A comparison of modern investment-linked pension savings products

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 November 2014

Per Linnemann ,
Kenneth Bruhn  and
Mogens Steffensen
Per Linnemann
Affiliation:
Linnemann Consulting Actuary, c/o Per Linnemann, Jomfrubakken 15, DK-3500 Værløse, Denmark
Kenneth Bruhn*
Affiliation:
SEB Pension, Postboks 100, DK-0900 Copenhagen C, Denmark
Mogens Steffensen
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematical Sciences, University of Copenhagen, Universitetsparken 5, DK-2100 Copenhagen O, Denmark
*
*Correspondence to: Kenneth Bruhn, SEB Pension, Postboks 100, DK-0900 Copenhagen C, Denmark. Tel: +45 33 28 26 52. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper is a continuation of and a supplement to the paper by Jørgensen & Linnemann. Both papers deal with TimePension – a (formula-based) smoothed investment-linked annuity pension scheme. Both papers compare TimePension with other pension savings products using stochastic financial simulation. TimePension as well as the financial model and simulation concept being used in both papers were introduced in the paper op cit.

Jørgensen & Linnemann compare TimePension with a traditional with-profits scheme involving bonus entitlement and an investment-linked Unit Link scheme with a fixed proportion of assets invested in equities and other so-called risky assets. Here, TimePension is compared with two investment-linked life-cycle (target date) products. The focus is especially on the decumulation period, and we show that despite the fact that the life-cycle products reduce investment risk in retirement (compared with TimePension’s fixed proportional allocation of assets), the year-over-year stability in benefits provided by TimePension cannot be matched. Even though the overall investment risk on accumulated benefits is at the same level, TimePension provide year-over-year stability, also in case of sharp price changes in the financial market.

Our results show that not only investment profiles define the stability of annuity benefits over time. In addition, more fundamental elements of the product design are important. The perspective on product design and development is Danish, but two of the compared products are generic life-cycle products that exist in equivalent forms in many countries. Similarly, the smoothed income annuities could also become an alternative product design in an international perspective.

Keywords

Comparison of modern retirement productsStochastic financial analysisLife-cycle (target date)Formula-based smoothed investment-linkedPayout phaseStabilisation of retirement income payments
Type
Papers
Information
Annals of Actuarial Science , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 72 - 84
Copyright
© Institute and Faculty of Actuaries 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Danish Insurance Association. (2008). Samfundsforudsætninger for 2009 – pensionsfremskrivninger (Economic assumptions for 2009 – pension projections). Available at www.finansraadet.dk [accessed October 2014].Google Scholar
Dengsøe, P. (2009). Pension. Nyt Juridisk Forlag, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Engsted, T., Larsen, B.G. & Møller, M. (2011). Anbefalinger om aktieinvesteringer (Recommendations on equity investments). Technical report, The Money and Pension Panel. Danish Financial Authority, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Faurdal, L. (2006 a). Nye pensionsprodukter vinder frem – er lovgivningen fulgt med? (New pension products are gaining ground – has legislation changed accordingly?). Finans/Invest, 7, 24–30.Google Scholar
Faurdal, L. (2006 b). Pensionsprodukter med markedsrente. Nye produkttyper vinder frem – er lovgivningen fulgt med? (Investment-linked pension products. New product types are gaining ground – has legislation changed accordingly?). In L. Andersen & F. Søgaard, (Eds.), 12 perspektiver på pension (12 Perspectives on Pension) pp. 57–91. Forlaget Thomsen, Copenhagen.Google Scholar
Gatzert, N. & Schmeiser, H. (2013). New life insurance financial products. In G. Dionne, (Ed.), Handbook of Insurance, 2nd edition. pp. 1061–1096. Springer, New York, Heidelberg, Dordrecht, London.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosen, A. (2005). Nye produkter på det danske pensionsmarked (New products in the Danish pensions market). Finans/Invest, 5, 2–4.Google Scholar
Grosen, A. & Jørgensen, P.L. (2002). Fokus på pensionkundernes afkastrisiko (Focus on pension customers’ return risk). Finans/Invest, 6, 2–5.Google Scholar
Grosen, A. & Nielsen, P.H. (2006). Livsindkomsttankegangen vinder frem (Life-income mindset is gaining ground). Finans/Invest, 6, 2–3.Google Scholar
Guillen, M., Jørgensen, P.L. & Nielsen, J.P. (2006). Return smoothing mechanisms in life and pension insurance: path-dependent contingent claims. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 38, 229–252.Google Scholar
Jakobsen, S. (2003). Tidspension som investeringsstrategi (TimePension as investment strategy). Finans/Invest, 3, 11–17.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, C. (2005). Danica balance. Finans/Invest, 6, 17–19.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, P.L. (2007). Lognormal approximation of path-dependent pension scheme payouts. European Journal of Finance, 13, 595–619.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, P.L. & Linnemann, P. (2012). A comparison of three different pension savings products with special emphasis on the payout phase. Annals of Actuarial Science, 6, 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mowbray, P. (2010). Retirement risk metrics for evaluating target date funds: a scenario modelling framework, Barrie & Hibbert Insights Newsletter, April, 1–10.Google Scholar
Munk, C., Sørensen, C. & Vinther, T.N. (2004). Dynamic asset allocation under mean-reverting returns, stochastic interest rates, and inflation uncertainty: are popular recommendations consistent with rational behavior? International Review of Economics and Finance, 13, 141–166.Google Scholar
Nielsen, J.P. & Jørgensen, P.L. (2002). Tidspension. Finans/Invest, 6, 16–21.Google Scholar
Steffensen, M. & Waldstrøm, S. (2009). A two-account model of pension savings contracts. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal, 3, 1–18.Google Scholar
Svendsen, J. (2010). Pensionerne har kurs mod den store konverteringsbølge (Pensions are heading for the great conversion wave), Berlingske Tidende, Business Section, 30 October, p. 13.Google Scholar
Vasicek, O. (1977). An equilibrium characterization of the term structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 5, 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wachter, J.A. (2002). Portfolio and consumption decisions under mean-reverting returns: an exact solution for complete markets. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis, 37, 63–91.Google Scholar