Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T13:27:25.354Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimal investment strategies and performance sharing rules for pension schemes with minimum guarantee

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 October 2010

JACQUES PÉZIER  and
JOHANNA SCHELLER
JACQUES PÉZIER*
Affiliation:
ICMA Centre, Henley Business School, University of Reading
JOHANNA SCHELLER*
Affiliation:
ICMA Centre, Henley Business School, University of Reading
*
(e-mail: [email protected])
(e-mail: [email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

There is a potential conflict of interest between a pension fund sponsor and future pensioners when they share unequally in the pension fund performance. Thus, when a scheme offers a yearly guaranteed minimum return to pensioners, as is presently the case with German Pensionskassen, the sponsors cannot afford to invest in risky assets and consequently, pensioners end up with safe but very low expected returns. We examine optimal investment strategies for sponsors under alternative performance sharing rules and seek the rules that are most beneficial to pensioners. We find that the current yearly performance sharing rule imposed on Pensionskassen could be tilted in favor of sponsors without impairing the welfare of pensioners. We also find that the welfare of pensioners would be greatly enhanced if the guaranteed minimum return were applied to the cumulative return since inception of the scheme rather than to yearly returns. The ensuing credit risk taken by pensioners on sponsors could be kept to a minimum by proper regulation; this would induce sponsors to adopt safe constant proportionality portfolio insurance (CPPI) style investment strategies.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Pension Economics & Finance , Volume 10 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 119 - 145
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

Amenc, N., Martellini, L., and Sender, S. (2009) Impact of regulations on the ALM of European pension funds. EDHEC Risk and Asset Management Research Centre.Google Scholar
Barsky, R. B., Juster, F. T., Kimball, M. S., and Shapiro, M. D. (1997) Preference parameters and behavioural heterogeneity: an experimental approach in the health and retirement study. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112: 537–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bertrand, P. and Prigent, J. L. (2005) Portfolio insurance strategies: OBPI versus CPPI. Finance, 26: 5–32.Google Scholar
Black, F. and Perold, A. F. (1992) Theory of constant proportion portfolio insurance. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 16(3–4): 403–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blake, D. (2006) Pension Finance. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd.Google Scholar
Blome, S., Fachinger, K., Franzen, D., Scheuenstuhl, G., and Yermo, J. (2007) Pension fund regulation and risk management: results from an ALM optimisation exercise. OECD Working Papers on Insurance and Private Pensions 8, OECD.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boulier, J. F., Huang, S. J., and Taillard, G. (2001) Optimal management under stochastic interest rates: the case of a protected pension fund. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 28: 173–189.Google Scholar
Brennan, M. J. (1993) Aspects of insurance, intermediation and finance. Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Theory, 18: 7–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bodie, Z., Kane, A., and Marcus, A. J. (2009) Investments. Eighth Edition, New York:McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Cairns, A. J. G. (1996) Continuous-time pension-fund modeling. Proceedings of the 6th AFIR International Colloquium, 1: 609–624.Google Scholar
Consiglio, A., Saunders, D., and Zenios, S. A. (2006) Asset and liability management for insurance products with minimum guarantees: the UK case. Journal of Banking and Finance, 30: 645–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deelstra, G., Grasselli, M., and Koehl, P. F. (2003) Optimal investment strategies in the presence of a minimum guarantee. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 33: 189–207.Google Scholar
Deelstra, G., Grasselli, M., and Koehl, P. F. (2004) Optimal design of the guarantee for defined contribution funds. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 28: 2239–2260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Doskeland, T. and Nordahl, A. (2008) Optimal pension insurance design. Journal of Banking and Finance, 32: 382–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen, M. and Miltersen, K. R. (2002) Minimum rate of return guarantees: the Danish case. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal, 4: 230–318.Google Scholar
Inman, P. (2009) Cost of final salary pension schemes tops £1tn. The Guardian, 1 September 2009.Google Scholar
Jensen, B. A. and Sorensen, C. (2001) Paying for minimum interest rate guarantees – who should compensate who? European Financial Management, 7: 183–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klatt, M. (2003) Die Pensionskasse in der betrieblichen Altersvorsorge. Karlsruhe: Verlag Versicherungswirtschaft GmbH.Google Scholar
Martellini, L. and Milhau, V. (2009) Measuring the benefits of dynamic asset allocation strategies in the presence of liability constraints. EDHEC Risk and Asset Management Research Centre.Google Scholar
Perold, A. F. and Sharpe, W. F. (1988) Dynamic strategies for asset allocation. Financial Analysts Journal, January–February: 16–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pézier, J. (2008) Maximum certain equivalent excess returns and equivalent preference criteria – part ii: approximations and applications. DP2008-08, ICMA Centre, Henley Business School, University of Reading.Google Scholar
Vasicek, O. (1977) An equilibrium characterization of the term structure. Journal of Financial Economics, 5: 177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zagst, R. and Kraus, J. (2008) Stochastic dominance of portfolio insurance strategies. HVB-Institute for Mathematical Finance, Technical University of Munich.CrossRefGoogle Scholar