Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
×
Home

Minimum funding ratios for defined-benefit pension funds*

  • ARJEN SIEGMANN (a1)

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.

Copyright

References

Hide All
Benartzi, S. and Thaler, R. (1995) Myopic loss aversion and the equity premium puzzle. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(1): 7392.
Benartzi, S. and Thaler, R. (2001) Naive diversification strategies in defined contribution saving plans. The American Economic Review, 91(1): 7998.
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.
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.
Boender, G. (1997) A hybrid simulation/optimisation scenario model for asset/liability management. European Journal of Operational Research, 99(1): 126135.
Campbell, J. and Viceira, L. (2002) Strategic Asset Allocation: Portfolio Choice for Long-Term Investors. Oxford University Press.
Chiappori, P. and Paiella, M. (2006) Relative risk aversion is constant: evidence from panel data. Working paper, Columbia University.
Cui, J., de Jong, F., and Ponds, E. (2006) The value of intergenerational transfers within funded pension schemes. Working paper, Tilburg University.
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): 277288.
Gollier, C. (2005) Optimal portfolio management for individual pension plans. CESIFO Working paper no. 1394.
Gollier, C. (2008) Intergenerational risk-sharing and risk-taking of a pension fund. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5–6): 14631485.
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): 29392970.
Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. econometrica, 47(2): 263292.
Lucas, D. and Zeldes, S. (2006) Valuing and hedging defined benefit pension obligations – the role of stocks revisited. Mimeo, Columbia University.
Samwick, A. and Skinner, J. (2004) How will 401(k) pension plans affect retirement income? The American Economic Review, 94(1): 329343.
Siegel, J. (2002) Stocks for the Long Run. McGraw-Hill.
Siegmann, A. H. (2005) Optimal investment policies for defined benefit pension funds. Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, 3(1): 3562.
Sortino, F. and Van der Meer, R. (1991) Downside risk. The Journal of Portfolio Management (Summer): 2731.
Teulings, C. and De Vries, C. (2006) Generational accounting, solidarity and pension losses. De Economist, 154(1): 6383.
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): 701722.
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).
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of Pension Economics & Finance
  • ISSN: 1474-7472
  • EISSN: 1475-3022
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-pension-economics-and-finance
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed