IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/diw/diwvjh/81-2-10.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Streitfall Bewertung des Riester-Sparens

Author

Listed:
  • Kornelia Hagen

Abstract

This article examines the calculation of Riester pension products and their returns, highlights the price increase caused by an assumed life expectancy and the selection bias. It states that changes to the profit participation components at Riester savers' and insurees' charge-applied in 2008-could neither be justified by adverse loan market trends nor by the level of the profit shares. Instead, this is solely due to the allocation of surpluses, which shortchanged savers and insurees by policy. Further, there is a discussion of several issues regarding the concept of a target-age-related return. The paper argues that an analysis of the yield is not supposed to merely consider actuarial views, but rather to incorporate aspects of pension-policy and socio-political features of the products. Moreover, it is argued that focusing only on the yield during the saving period does not give savers a complete picture of their expected Riester pension benefits. Therefore, charges which accrue during the retirement phase should be taken into account. It is also established that government aid-bonuses granted-should be regarded as savers' equity in order to comply with both individual and societal considerations regarding the return. It is deemed necessary to subject Riester saving to a scientifically independent evaluation. This evaluation should be guided by aspects of targets of pension, welfare, and consumer policy issues; while, at the same time, it should reflect returns accrued during both saving and retirement periods. Im Mittelpunkt des Beitrags steht eine Auseinandersetzung mit der Kalkulation von Riester-Rentenversicherungen und der Berechnung der Renditekennziffer Zielalter für diese Produkte. Eingegangen wird auf die Verteuerung durch die unterstellte hohe Lebenserwartung und die Selektionseffekte. Ausgeführt wird, dass eine 2008 erfolgte Veränderung der Überschussanteile zulasten der Riester-Sparer und -Versicherten allein eine Frage der Verteilung ist, die von der Politik zuungunsten der Sparer und Versicherten entschieden wurde. Argumentiert wird, dass für eine Renditeanalyse nicht nur eine versicherungsmathematische Sicht eingenommen werden dürfe, sondern auch die sozial- und rentenpolitischen Besonderheiten des Produktes berücksichtigt werden müssten. Zudem wird vertreten, dass eine Rendite, die sich nur auf die Sparphase bezieht, Sparer nur unzureichend informiert. Daher müssten in der Rendite auch die Kosten, die in der Rentenphase anfallen, berechnet werden. Begründet wird auch, dass die staatliche Förderung - die Zulagen - sowohl bei individuellen als auch bei gesellschaftlichen Erwägungen über die Rendite als Eigenkapital des Sparers zu betrachten sind. Für das Riester-Sparen wird eine wissenschaftlich unabhängige Evaluierung für erforderlich gehalten. Diese müsste sich an den sozial- , renten- und verbraucherpolitischen Zielen orientieren und dabei auch eine Renditebetrachtung, die sich auf die Spar- und Rentenphase bezieht, einschließen.

Suggested Citation

  • Kornelia Hagen, 2012. "Streitfall Bewertung des Riester-Sparens," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 81(2), pages 133-163.
  • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwvjh:81-2-10
    DOI: 10.3790/vjh.81.2.133
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3790/vjh.81.2.133
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3790/vjh.81.2.133?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kornelia Hagen & Lucia A. Reisch, 2010. "Riesterrente: Politik ohne Marktbeobachtung," DIW Wochenbericht, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 77(8), pages 2-14.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kornelia Hagen, 2012. "Dokumentation der Diskussionsbeiträge auf dem Workshop des DIW Berlin zum Thema "Riester-Rente - Grundlegende Reform dringend geboten!?": [Online-Artikel]," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 81(2), pages 280-311.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Michael Ziegelmeyer & Julius Nick, 2013. "Backing out of private pension provision: lessons from Germany," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 40(3), pages 505-539, August.
    2. Kornelia Hagen, 2012. "Dokumentation der Diskussionsbeiträge auf dem Workshop des DIW Berlin zum Thema "Riester-Rente - Grundlegende Reform dringend geboten!?": [Online-Artikel]," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 81(2), pages 280-311.
    3. Marlene Haupt & Sebastian Kluth, 2012. "Das schwedische Beispiel der kapitalgedeckten Altersvorsorge: ein Vorbild für Deutschland?," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 81(2), pages 213-230.
    4. repec:mea:meawpa:12261 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Rausch, Johannes, 2014. "Was wäre wenn wir Schweden wären? Ist das Schwedische Rentensystem auf Deutschland übertragbar?," MEA discussion paper series 201421, Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA) at the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy.
    6. Lamla, Bettina, 2012. "Family background, informal networks and the decision to provide for old age: A siblings approach," MEA discussion paper series 201210, Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA) at the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy.
    7. Bettina Lamla, 2013. "Family background and the decision to provide for old age: a siblings approach," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 40(3), pages 483-504, August.
    8. repec:mea:meawpa:13266 is not listed on IDEAS
    9. Schmähl, Winfried, 2011. "Warum ein Abschied von der neuen deutschen Alterssicherungspolitik notwendig ist," Working papers of the ZeS 01/2011, University of Bremen, Centre for Social Policy Research (ZeS).
    10. repec:mea:meawpa:12262 is not listed on IDEAS
    11. Haupt, Marlene & Kluth, Sebastian, 2013. "Take a chance on me – Can the Swedish premium pension serve as a role model for Germany’s Riester scheme?," MEA discussion paper series 201301, Munich Center for the Economics of Aging (MEA) at the Max Planck Institute for Social Law and Social Policy.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Riester pension scheme; Riester efficiency; Riester return; life expectancy; allotment of Riester surpluses;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D14 - Microeconomics - - Household Behavior - - - Household Saving; Personal Finance
    • G22 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Insurance; Insurance Companies; Actuarial Studies
    • H44 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - Publicly Provided Goods: Mixed Markets
    • I38 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Welfare, Well-Being, and Poverty - - - Government Programs; Provision and Effects of Welfare Programs

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:diw:diwvjh:81-2-10. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Bibliothek (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.