Author
Listed:
- Jørgensen, Peter Løchte
- Linnemann, Per
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to illustrate how the pension benefits a pension saver will (expect to) receive will depend on the type of pension scheme chosen. We compare three widely different pension savings products: the “traditional” with-profits scheme involving bonus entitlement (average interest rate product), a market-based Unit Link scheme and, finally, a formula based smoothed investment-linked annuity scheme – TimePension in short – which is on many points a cross between the two prior-mentioned types of savings products. The three product types mentioned above have been analysed in previous literature, but those comparisons were based almost entirely on the values of pension savings accounts at the expiry of the accumulation period. This article will include the payout phase (decumulation phase) in the analysis, enabling us to analyse the size of paid-out pension benefits themselves as well as the possibilities of adjusting these benefits periodically. Compared to earlier articles, we have also improved the underlying model for the uncertainty of the underlying financial market. The article demonstrates that expected pension benefits from the three schemes are an increasing function of the allocation to shares in the underlying investment portfolios. TimePension involves the highest allocation to shares and therefore offers, on average, the highest pension benefits, followed by the Unit Link scheme. In the third and last place comes the traditional with-profits scheme, which has a relatively low allocation to shares, but which, in return, also provides relatively safe and stable pension benefits. We also show, however, that the stability of pension benefits from a TimePension scheme is completely level with the stability of benefits from the traditional scheme. Unit Link-based pension benefits, on the other hand, vary far more, and pension savers in this product segment will experience much higher annual adjustments – in a both negative and positive direction – than savers in the other product segments.
Suggested Citation
Jørgensen, Peter Løchte & Linnemann, Per, 2012.
"A comparison of three different pension savings products with special emphasis on the payout phase,"
Annals of Actuarial Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 6(1), pages 137-152, March.
Handle:
RePEc:cup:anacsi:v:6:y:2012:i:01:p:137-152_00
Download full text from publisher
Citations
Citations are extracted by the
CitEc Project, subscribe to its
RSS feed for this item.
Cited by:
- Bruhn, Kenneth & Steffensen, Mogens, 2013.
"Optimal smooth consumption and annuity design,"
Journal of Banking & Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(8), pages 2693-2701.
- Gerrard, Russell & Hiabu, Munir & Nielsen, Jens Perch & Vodička, Peter, 2020.
"Long-term real dynamic investment planning,"
Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 90-103.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:anacsi:v:6:y:2012:i:01:p:137-152_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/aas .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.