Investment Regulations and Defined Contribution Pensions

Abstract

Investment regulations and defined contribution pensionsThis paper assesses the impact of different quantitative approaches to regulate investment risk on the retirement income stemming from defined contribution (DC) pension plans. It looks at how such regulations affect the spectrum of investment policies available and, through this channel, how they affect the retirement income that an individual may expect from a DC pension plan.The analysis shows that there is a trade-off between potential retirement income and protection from bad outcomes. Reducing the downside risk on retirement income from DC pension plans requires moving into relatively conservative investment policies where the share of assets allocated to bonds may be quite large. However, this comes at the cost of renouncing potentially higher replacement rates that are attainable but at a higher risk of unfavourable retirement income outcomes. Less risk adverse regulators and supervisors would aim at lower probability requirements as regard the downside risk, which will increase the range of investment policies available and thus the share of riskier assets.

Equity risk versus retirement adequacy: asset allocation solutions for KiwiSaver

“…13 For example, Milevsky et al (1997) provide evidence that almost all retirees should invest in some equity, with the optimal allocation between 70 to 100% for many investors. In contrast, Antolin et al (2009) emphasise a much larger potential range for equity (between 20 and 80%) given that portfolios with very low or high levels of equity which are mean-variance efficient in the short-run, become inefficient over a long horizon from the perspective of replacement rate expectations versus risk.…”

“…11 Beshears et al (2009) explore the role of public policy in saving and find the impact of default fund design is not neutral but instead hinders or facilitates improved retirement outcomes. This warrants investigation in the NZ context because there is evidence that 'conservative' portfolios may in fact be riskier than investing more heavily in growth assets if risk is considered in terms of longer life expectancies and the risk of outliving one's retirement nest egg (Basu & Drew, 2010;Milevsky, Ho, & Robinson, 1997 (Antolin et al, 2009), including NZ. 12 In the Australian market, Basu and Drew (2010) find the average 'default' fund is outperformed by all other investment strategies.…”

Portfolio Risk of International Diversification of Kosovo Pension Fund: A Historical Perspective

“…Governments are very sensitive to protect pensioner's money from the losses generated on international market arena (Srinivas and Yermo, 1999;Antolin et al 2009), because of the political support they bring. This may arise two concerns.…”

A Review of Foreign Investments Allowance for Pension Funds in Zimbabwe

“…Governments across the world try to protect their pensioners through the enactment of regulations that support conservative/low risk investment policies as in passively managed funds, despite the trade-off between risk and return (Srinivas & Yermo (1999) and Antolin et al (2009)). Through the use of prescribed assets (PAs) governments also gain access to their economy's pension savings as well as influence investment resources into particular sectors of the economy.…”