Using regulatory data free of self-reporting bias for 2007–16, we decompose investment returns of 455 Dutch pension funds according to their key investment decisions, i.e., asset allocation, market timing and security selection. In extension to existing papers, we also assess the impact of benchmark selection. Over time, asset allocation explains 39% of the variation of returns, whereas benchmark selection, timing and selection explain 11%, 9% and 16%, respectively. Across pension funds, asset allocation explains on average only 19% of the variation in pension fund returns. Benchmark selection dominates this by explaining 33% of cross-sectional returns. We relate the choice for a specific benchmark to investment, risk and style preferences.

Using recovery plan data of 213 underfunded Dutch pension funds for the years 2011, 2012 and 2013, discrete choice models are estimated describing pension funds' choices between three recovery measures: higher contributions, no indexation and pension cuts. The estimation results suggest, first, that pension cuts are more likely when the funding ratio is very low, there is little time left for recovery, the pension fund is not a corporate pension fund, and its participants are still relatively young. Second, the results suggest that Dutch pension funds consider contribution increase first, no indexation second and pension cuts only as a last resort.

We present empirical evidence on the funding and portfolio allocation of around 200 Dutch corporate pension funds over the period 1996-2005, with a special focus on the influence of the sponsoring firm. We find that unprofitable and small firms contribute less to their pension funds than profitable and large firms, consistent with theories of capital market imperfections. Sponsor contributions are found to be positively correlated with leverage, suggesting that tax effects play a role. Defined benefit funds invest relatively more in equity and less in bonds than their defined contribution counterparts, which is in accordance with the risk shifting theory.