Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T01:42:45.623Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Minimum funding ratios for defined-benefit pension funds*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 November 2010

ARJEN SIEGMANN
ARJEN SIEGMANN
Affiliation:
Department of Finance, Faculty of Economics and Business, VU University Amsterdam, the Netherlands (e-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We compute minimum nominal funding ratios for defined-benefit (DB) plans based on the expected utility that can be achieved in a defined-contribution (DC) pension scheme. Using Monte Carlo simulation, expected utility is computed for three different specifications of utility: power utility, mean-shortfall, and mean-downside deviation. Depending on risk aversion and the level of sophistication assumed for the DC scheme, minimum acceptable funding ratios are between 0.87 and 1.20 in nominal terms. For relative risk aversion of 5 and a DC scheme with a fixed-contribution setup, the minimum nominal funding ratio is between 0.87 and 0.98. The attractiveness of the DB plan increases with the expected equity premium and the fraction invested in stocks. We conclude that the expected value of intergenerational solidarity, providing time-diversification to its participants, can be large. Minimum funding ratios in real (inflation-adjusted) terms lie between 0.56 and 0.79. Given a DB pension fund with a funding ratio of 1.30, a participant in a DC plan has to pay a 2.7 to 6.1% point higher contribution on average to achieve equal expected utility.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Pension Economics & Finance , Volume 10 , Issue 3 , July 2011 , pp. 417 - 434
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Benartzi, S. and Thaler, R. (1995) Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(1): 73–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benartzi, S. and Thaler, R. (2001) Naive diversification strategies in defined contribution saving plans. The American Economic Review, 91(1): 79–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodie, Z., Marcus, A., and Merton, R. (1985) Defined benefit versus defined contribution pension plans: what are the real tradeoffs? NBER Working paper no. 1719.Google Scholar
Boender, C. G. E., van Hoogdalem, S., van Lochem, E., and Jansweijer, R. M. A. (2000) Intergenerationele solidariteit en individualiteit in de tweede pensioenpijler: een scenario-analyse. Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het Regeringsbeleid, the Hague. WRR report no. 114.Google Scholar
Boender, G. (1997) A hybrid simulation/optimisation scenario model for asset/liability management. European Journal of Operational Research, 99(1): 126–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J. and Viceira, L. (2002) Strategic Asset Allocation: Portfolio Choice for Long-Term Investors. Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chiappori, P. and Paiella, M. (2006) Relative risk aversion is constant: evidence from panel data. Working paper, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Cui, J., de Jong, F., and Ponds, E. (2006) The value of intergenerational transfers within funded pension schemes. Working paper, Tilburg University.Google Scholar
Dalal, A. and Arshanapalli, B. (1993) Estimating the demand for risky assets via the indirect expected utility function. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 6(3): 277–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gollier, C. (2005) Optimal portfolio management for individual pension plans. CESIFO Working paper no. 1394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gollier, C. (2008) Intergenerational risk-sharing and risk-taking of a pension fund. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5–6): 1463–1485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoevenaars, R., Molenaar, R., Schotman, P., and Steenkamp, T. (2008) Strategic asset allocation with liabilities: beyond stocks and bonds. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 32(9): 2939–2970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. econometrica, 47(2): 263–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, D. and Zeldes, S. (2006) Valuing and hedging defined benefit pension obligations – the role of stocks revisited. Mimeo, Columbia University.Google Scholar
Samwick, A. and Skinner, J. (2004) How will 401(k) pension plans affect retirement income? The American Economic Review, 94(1): 329–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegel, J. (2002) Stocks for the Long Run. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Siegmann, A. H. (2005) Optimal investment policies for defined benefit pension funds. Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, 3(1): 35–62.Google Scholar
Sortino, F. and Van der Meer, R. (1991) Downside risk. The Journal of Portfolio Management (Summer): 27–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teulings, C. and De Vries, C. (2006) Generational accounting, solidarity and pension losses. De Economist, 154(1): 63–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Rooij, M., Kool, C., and Prast, H. (2007) Risk-return preferences in the pension domain: are people able to choose? Journal of Public Economics, 91(3–4): 701–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Rooij, M., Siegmann, A., and Vlaar, P. (2004) PALMNET: a pension asset and liability model for the Netherlands. WO Research Memorandum 760, Netherlands Central Bank (DNB).CrossRefGoogle Scholar