PL EN


2020 | 1(22) | 73-88
Article title

A Comparison of Risk-Sharing Approaches in Hybrid Occupational Pension Schemes

Title variants
Languages of publication
EN
Abstracts
EN
Objective: Hybrid pension schemes provide a mixture of features of DB and DC schemes. They allow for the risk to be shared between employer and member. The aim of this article is to present the risk sharing between employer and member within selected forms of hybrid pension schemes – cash balance and self-annuitizing schemes – and in a proposed type of hybrid scheme. Research Design & Methods: The variability of contributions required to provide a fixed level of benefit is chosen as a measure of risk within the schemes. Investment and longevity risk is introduced via changes in the investment rate of return and life table probabilities used to price annuities. The variability of member and employer contributions required in each scheme is compared. Findings: In cash balance and self-annuitizing schemes risk sharing is achieved by allocating a given type of risk (investment or longevity risk) to either the employer or the member. In the proposed scheme, risk is shared irrespective of its type. This allows for better financial planning for the two parties involved by setting a limit on the employer’s contributions and requiring an adjustment to the member’s contributions only in certain instances. Implications/Recommendations: A hybrid scheme which allows for risk to be shared irrespective of its type should be considered. Additional safeguards, such as setting an upper limit for contributions, should be employed. Contribution: Further development of hybrid pension schemes and a comparison of the proposed solution with existing ones.
Year
Issue
Pages
73-88
Physical description
Contributors
  • Uniwersytet Gdański, Wydział Zarządzania, Katedra Statystyki
References
  • Blake, D. (2006) Pension Economics. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Blommestein, H., Janssen, P., Kortleve, N. and Yermo, J. (2009) “Moving Beyond the ‘DB vs. DC’ Debate: the Appeal of Hybrid Pension Plans”. Rotman International Journal of Pension Management 2(2).
  • Bureau of Labor Statistics (2018) National Compensation Survey: Employee Benefits in the United States. March 2018, https://www.bls.gov (accessed: 15.06.2020).
  • Clark, G. L. and Monk, A. H. B. (2006) “The ‘Crisis’ in Defined Benefit Corporate Pension Liabilities. Part I: Scope of the Problem”. Pensions 12, https://doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.pm.5950041.
  • Cooper, D. R. (2005) Comparing Pension Outcomes from Hybrid Schemes. Department for Work and Pensions Research Report 269. London.
  • Davis, R. (2013) “The Tracker Plan: a Controlled Risk Defined Contribution Retirement Program”. The John Marshall Law Review 46(3).
  • Davis, R. and Madland, D. (2013) American Retirement Savings Could Be Much Better. Center for American Progress.
  • European Commission (2017) Country Fiche on Pensions for the Netherlands – the 2017 Round of Projections for the Ageing Working Group, https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/economy-finance/final_country_fiche_nl.pdf (accessed: 15.06.2020).
  • GCAE Groupe Consultatif Actuariel Europeen (2001) Actuarial Methods and Assumptions Used in the Valuation of Retirement Benefits in the EU and other European Countries, D. Collinson (ed.), http://actuary.eu/documents/actuarial_methods.pdf (accessed: 4.10.2018).
  • Gierusz, A. (2019) Modele podziału ryzyka w hybrydowych pracowniczych programach emerytalnych. Gdańsk: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Gdańskiego.
  • GUS (2018) Trwanie życia w 2017 r. [Life expectance tables of Poland 2017]. Warszawa.
  • KNF (2019) Pracownicze Programy Emerytalne w 2018 roku. Warszawa: Urząd Komisji Nadzoru Finansowego.
  • Mackenzie, S. (2010) Hybrids and Other Alternatives to the Traditional Pension. AARP Public Policy Institute.
  • Morgan, J. P. (2018) Long-term Capital Market Assumptions. Time Tested Projections to Build Stronger Portfolios, www.jpmorgan.com (accessed: 15.06.2020).
  • Palmer, B. (2008) 2008 Replacement Ratio Study, AON Consulting, http//www.aon.com/about −aon/intellectual − capital/attachments/human − capital −consulting/RRStudy070308.pdf (accessed: 15.06.2020).
  • Petelczyc, J. (2016) Pracownicze programy emerytalne w krajach Unii Europejskiej. Warszawa: Dom Wydawniczy Elipsa.
  • Pugh, C. and Yermo, J. (2008) “Funding Regulations and Risk Sharing”. OECD Working Papers on Insurance and Private Pensions 17, OECD Publishing, https://doi.org/10.1787/241841441002.
  • Sweeting, P. (2007) “DB or Not DB – the Choice of Pension Plan Provision by Employers”. Pensions Institute Discussion Paper PI-0710. The Pensions Institute, Cass Business School, City University London.
  • Szczepański, M. and Brzęczek, T. (2016) Zarządzanie ryzykiem w pracowniczych programach emerytalnych. Uwarunkowania instytucjonalne, ekonomiczno-fiskalne i demograficzne. Poznań: Polskie Towarzystwo Ekonomiczne.
  • Takayama, N. (2013) “Matching Defined Contribution Pension Schemes in Japan” in R. Hinz, R. Holzmann, D. Tuesta, N. Takayama (eds) Matching Contributions for Pensions. World Bank.
  • Turner, J. A. (2014) Hybrid Pensions: Risk Sharing Arrangements for Pension Plan Sponsors and Participants. The Society of Actuaries Research Project.
  • Wesbroom, K., Reay, T. (2005) Hybrid Pension Plans: UK and International Experience. London: Department for Work and Pensions Research Report 271.
  • World Bank (1994) Averting the Old-age Crisis. Policies to Protect the Old and Promote Growth. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Document Type
Publication order reference
Identifiers
YADDA identifier
bwmeta1.element.desklight-7808d3c3-7522-4bbe-a22e-37ddb3ed059b
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.