Pension

From Riski

Jump to: navigation, search

The terms retirement plan or superannuation refer to a pension granted upon retirement [1]. Retirement plans may be set up by employers, insurance companies, the government or other institutions such as employer associations or trade unions. Called retirement plans in the USA, they are more commonly known as pension schemes in the UK and Ireland and superannuation plans in Australia. Retirement pensions are typically in the form of a guaranteed annuity.

A pension created by an employer for the benefit of an employee is commonly referred to as an occupational or employer pension. Labor unions, the government, or other organizations may also fund pensions. Occupational pensions are a form of deferred compensation, usually advantageous to employee and employer for tax reasons. Many pensions also contain an insurance aspect, since they often will pay benefits to survivors or disabled beneficiaries. Other vehicles (certain lottery payouts, for example, or an annuity may provide a similar stream of payments.

The common use of the term pension is to describe the payments a person receives upon retirement, usually under pre-determined legal and/or contractual terms. A recipient of a retirement pension is known as a pensioner or retiree.

Contents

Types of pensions

Employment-based pensions (retirement plans)

A retirement plan is an arrangement to provide people with an income during retirement when they are no longer earning a steady income from employment. Often retirement plans require both the employer and employee to contribute money to a fund during their employment in order to receive defined benefits upon retirement. Funding can be provided in other ways, such as from labor unions, government agencies, or self-funded schemes. Pension plans are therefore a form of "deferred compensation".

Social / state pensions

Many countries have created funds for their citizens and residents to provide income when they retire (or in some cases become disabled). Typically this requires payments throughout the citizen's working life in order to qualify for benefits later on.

For examples, see National Insurance in the UK, or Social Security in the USA.

Disability pensions

Some pension plans will provide for members in the event they suffer a disability. This may take the form of early entry into a retirement plan for a disabled member below the normal retirement age.

Benefits

Retirement plans may be classified as defined benefit or defined contribution according to how the benefits are determined [2]. A defined benefit plan guarantees a certain payout at retirement, according to a fixed formula which usually depends on the member's salary and the number of years' membership in the plan. A defined contribution plan will provide a payout at retirement that is dependent upon the amount of money contributed and the performance of the investment vehicles utilized.

Some types of retirement plans, such as cash balance plans, combine features of both defined benefit and defined contribution plans. They are often referred to as hybrid plans. Such plan designs have become increasingly popular in the US since the 1990s. Examples include Cash Balance and Pension Equity plans.

Defined benefit plans

A traditional defined benefit (DB) plan is a plan in which the benefit on retirement is determined by a set formula, rather than depending on investment returns. In the US, (USCSUB 26|414|j) specifies a defined benefit plan to be any pension plan that is not a defined contribution plan (see below) where a defined contribution plan is any plan with individual accounts. A traditional pension plan that defines a benefit for an employee upon that employee's retirement is a defined benefit plan.

Traditionally, retirement plans have been administered by institutions which exist specifically for that purpose, by large businesses, or, for government workers, by the government itself. A traditional form of defined benefit plan is the final salary plan, under which the pension paid is equal to the number of years worked, multiplied by the member's salary at retirement, multiplied by a factor known as the accrual rate. The final accrued amount is available as a monthly pension or a lump sum.

The benefit in a defined benefit pension plan is determined by a formula that can incorporate the employee's pay, years of employment, age at retirement, and other factors. A simple example is a Dollars Times Service plan design that provides a certain amount per month based on the time an employee works for a company. For example, a plan offering $100 a month per year of service would provide $3,000 per month to a retiree with 30 years of service. While this type of plan is popular among unionized workers, Final Average Pay (FAP) remains the most common type of defined benefit plan offered in the United States. In FAP plans, the average salary over the final years of an employee's career determines the benefit amount.

In the United Kingdom, benefits are typically indexed for inflation (known as Retail Prices Index (United Kingdom) (RPI)) as required by law for registered pension plans[3]. Inflation during an employee's retirement affects the purchasing power of the pension; the higher the inflation rate, the lower the purchasing power of a fixed annual pension. This effect can be mitigated by providing annual increases to the pension at the rate of inflation (usually capped, for instance at 5% in any given year). This method is advantageous for the employee since it stabilizes the purchasing power of pensions to some extent.

If the pension plan allows for early retirement, payments are often reduced to recognize that the retirees will receive the payouts for longer periods of time. In the US, (under the ERISA rules), any reduction factor less than or equal to the actuarial early retirement reduction factor is acceptable.[4]

Many DB plans include early retirement provisions to encourage employees to retire early, before the attainment of normal retirement age (usually age 65). Companies would rather hire younger employees at lower wages. Some of those provisions come in the form of additional temporary or supplemental benefits, which are payable to a certain age, usually before attaining normal retirement age.(Qualified Domestic Relations Order Handbook By Gary A. Shulman p.199-200 Published by: Aspen Publishers Online, 1999 ISBN 0735506655, ISBN 9780735506657)

Funding

Defined benefit plans may be either funded or unfunded.

In an unfunded defined benefit pension, no assets are set aside and the benefits are paid for by the employer or other pension sponsor as and when they are paid. Pension arrangements provided by the state in most countries in the world are unfunded, with benefits paid directly from current workers' contributions and taxes. This method of financing is known as Pay-as-you-go (PAYGO or PAYG)[5]. The social security system in the USA and most European countries are unfunded, having benefits paid directly out of current taxes and social security contributions. In some countries, such as Germany, Austria and Sweden, company run retirement plans are often unfunded.

In a funded plan, contributions from the employer, and sometimes also from plan members, are invested in a fund towards meeting the benefits. The future returns on the investments, and the future benefits to be paid, are not known in advance, so there is no guarantee that a given level of contributions will be enough to meet the benefits. Typically, the contributions to be paid are regularly reviewed in a valuation of the plan's assets and liabilities, carried out by an actuary to ensure that the pension fund will meet future payment obligations. This means that in a defined benefit pension, investment risk and investment rewards are typically assumed by the sponsor/employer and not by the individual. If a plan is not well-funded, the plan sponsor may not have the financial resources to continue funding the plan.

In many countries, such as the USA, the UK and Australia, most private defined benefit plans are funded, because governments there provide tax incentives to funded plans (in Australia they are mandatory). In the United States, private employers must pay an insurance-type premium to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, a government agency whose role is to encourage the continuation and maintenance of voluntary private pension plans and provide timely and uninterrupted payment of pension benefits.

Criticisms

Traditional defined benefit plan designs (because of their typically flat accrual rate and the decreasing time for interest discounting as people get closer to retirement age) tend to exhibit a J-shaped accrual pattern of benefits, where the present value of benefits grows quite slowly early in an employee's career and accelerates significantly in mid-career: in other words it costs more to fund the pension for older employees than for younger ones (an "age bias"). Defined benefit pensions tend to be less portable than defined contribution plans, even if the plan allows a lump sum cash benefit at termination. Most plans, however, pay their benefits as an annuity, so retirees do not bear the risk of low investment returns on contributions or of outliving their retirement income. The open-ended nature of these risks to the employer is the reason given by many employers for switching from defined benefit to defined contribution plans over recent years. The risks to the employer can sometimes be mitigated by discretionary elements in the benefit structure, for instance in the rate of increase granted on accrued pensions, both before and after retirement.

The age bias, reduced portability and open ended risk make defined benefit plans better suited to large employers with less mobile workforces, such as the public sector (which has open-ended support from taxpayers).

Defined benefit plans are sometimes criticized as being paternalistic as they enable employers or plan trustees to make decisions about the type of benefits and family structures and lifestyles of their employees. However they are typically more valuable than defined contribution plans in most circumstances and for most employees (mainly because the employer tends to pay higher contributions than under defined contribution plans), so such criticism is rarely harsh.

The "cost" of a defined benefit plan is not easily calculated, and requires an actuary or actuarial software. However, even with the best of tools, the cost of a defined benefit plan will always be an estimate based on economic and financial assumptions. These assumptions include the average retirement age and lifespan of the employees, the returns to be earned by the pension plan's investments and any additional taxes or levies, such as those required by the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation in the U.S. So, for this arrangement, the benefit is relatively secure but the contribution is uncertain even when estimated by a professional.

Examples

Many countries offer state-sponsored retirement benefits, beyond those provided by employers, which are funded by payroll or other taxes.

The United States Social Security system is similar to a defined benefit pension arrangement, albeit one that is constructed differently than a pension offered by a private employer.

Individuals that have worked in the UK and have paid certain levels of national insurance deductions can expect an income from the state pension scheme after their normal retirement. The state pension is currently divided into two parts: the basic state pension, State Second [tier] Pension scheme called S2P. Individuals will qualify for the basic state pension if they have completed sufficient years contribution to their national insurance record. The S2P pension scheme is earnings related and depends on earnings in each year as to how much an individual can expect to receive. It is possible for an individual to forgo the S2P payment from the state, in lieu of a payment made to an appropriate pension scheme of their choice, during their working life. For more details see UK pension provision.

Defined contribution plans

In a defined contribution plan, contributions are paid into an individual account for each member. The contributions are invested, for example in the stock market, and the returns on the investment (which may be positive or negative) are credited to the individual's account. On retirement, the member's account is used to provide retirement benefits, sometimes through the purchase of an annuity which then provides a regular income. Defined contribution plans have become widespread all over the world in recent years, and are now the dominant form of plan in the private sector in many countries. For example, the number of defined benefit plans in the US has been steadily declining, as more and more employers see pension contributions as a large expense avoidable by disbanding the defined benefit plan and instead offering a defined contribution plan.

Money contributed can either be from employee salary deferral or from employer contributions. The portability of defined contribution pensions is legally no different from the portability of defined benefit plans. However, because of the cost of administration and ease of determining the plan sponsor's liability for defined contribution plans (you don't need to pay an actuary to calculate the lump sum equivalent that you do for defined benefit plans) in practice, defined contribution plans have become generally portable.

In a defined contribution plan, investment risk and investment rewards are assumed by each individual/employee/retiree and not by the sponsor/employer. In addition, participants do not necessarily purchase annuities with their savings upon retirement, and bear the risk of outliving their assets. (In the United Kingdom, for instance, it is a legal requirement to use the bulk of the fund to purchase an annuity.)

The "cost" of a defined contribution plan is readily calculated, but the benefit from a defined contribution plan depends upon the account balance at the time an employee is looking to use the assets. So, for this arrangement, the contribution is known but the benefit is unknown (until calculated).

Despite the fact that the participant in a defined contribution plan typically has control over investment decisions, the plan sponsor retains a significant degree of fiduciary responsibility over investment of plan assets, including the selection of investment options and administrative providers.

Examples

Examples of defined contribution plans in the USA include Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and 401(k) plans. In such plans, the employee is responsible, to one degree or another, for selecting the types of investments toward which the funds in the retirement plan are allocated. This may range from choosing one of a small number of pre-determined mutual funds to selecting individual stocks or other securities. Most self-directed retirement plans are characterized by certain tax advantages, and some provide for a portion of the employee's contributions to be matched by the employer. In exchange, the funds in such plans may not be withdrawn by the investor prior to reaching a certain age.

In the United States, the legal definition of a defined contribution plan is a plan providing for an individual account for each participant, and for benefits based solely on the amount contributed to the account, plus or minus income, gains, expenses and losses allocated to the account (see (USCSUB 26|414|i).

Examples of defined contribution plans in the United States include Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs) and 401(k) plans. In such plans, the employee is responsible, to one degree or another, for selecting the types of investments toward which the funds in the retirement plan are allocated. This may range from choosing one of a small number of pre-determined mutual funds to selecting individual stocks or other securities. Most self-directed retirement plans are characterized by certain tax advantages, and some provide for a portion of the employee's contributions to be matched by the employer. In exchange, the funds in such plans may not be withdrawn by the investor prior to reaching a certain age--typically the year the employee reaches 59.5 years old-- (with a small number of exceptions) without incurring a substantial penalty.

Defined contribution plans are subject to IRS limits on how much can be contributed, known as the section 415 limit. In 2006, the total deferral amount, including employee contribution plus employer contribution, was limited to $44,000 ($46,000 in 2008) or 100% of compensation, whichever is less. The employee-only limit in 2009 is $16,500 with a $5,500 catch-up. These numbers continue to be increased each year and are indexed to compensate for the effects of inflation.

Hybrid and cash balance plans

Hybrid plan designs combine the features of defined benefit and defined contribution plan designs.

A cash balance plan is a defined benefit plan made by the employer, with the help (some critics say the connivance) of consulting actuaries (like Kwasha Lipton, whom it is said created the cash balance plan) to appear as if they were defined contribution plans. They have notional balances in hypothetical accounts where, typically, each year the plan administrator will contribute an amount equal to a certain percentage of each participant's salary; a second contribution, called interest credit, is made as well. These are not actual contributions and further discussion is beyond the scope of this entry suffice it to say that there is currently much controversy.

In general, they are usually treated as defined benefit plans for tax, accounting and regulatory purposes. As with defined benefit plans, investment risk in hybrid designs is largely borne by the plan sponsor. As with defined contribution designs, plan benefits are expressed in the terms of a notional account balance, and are usually paid as cash balances upon termination of employment. These features make them more portable than traditional defined benefit plans and perhaps more attractive to a more highly mobile workforce.

Target Benefit plans are defined contribution plans made to match (or look like) defined benefit plans. This would only work if all actuarial assumptions are actually realized.

Contrasting types of retirement plans

Advocates of defined contribution plans point out that each employee has the ability to tailor the investment portfolio to his or her individual needs and financial situation, including the choice of how much to contribute, if anything at all. However, others state that these apparent advantages could also hinder some workers who might not possess the financial savvy to choose the correct investment vehicles or have the discipline to voluntarily contribute money to retirement accounts. This debate parallels the discussion currently going on in the U.S., where many Republican leaders favor transforming the Social Security system, at least in part, to a self-directed investment plan.

Financing

There are various ways in which a pension may be financed.

Defined contribution pensions, by definition, are funded, as the "guarantee" made to employees is that specified (defined) contributions will be made during an individual's working life.

OECD urges pension regulators to reduce importance of market consistency

As part of a bid to reduce counter-cyclicality, pension regulators should avoid excessive reliance on current market values for determining contribution levels in stressed periods, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).

In a study called, "The impact of the financial crisis on defined benefit pension plans and the need for counter cyclical funding regulations", the Paris-based OECD called for reform to pension regulation in order to increase the attractiveness of defined benefit (DB) schemes and to reduce financial market volatility.

The report said that the three main goals of pension plan funding are the long-term viability, stability and security of member benefits. "If designed properly, funding regulations could help maintain DB systems for the long term and provide greater member security.

Broadly speaking, DB funding regulations should

  1. encourage deficit reduction contributions and appropriate build-up of surplus when plan sponsor finances are strong;
  2. help maintain predictable costs and dampen volatility; and
  3. give plan sponsors more control to manage risks and costs."

The OECD highlighted six ways in which regulators could achieve this:

  • Set minimum funding levels or targets that are consistent with the goal of benefit security.
  • Allow appropriate levels of over-funding in good economic times via more flexible tax ceilings.
  • Limit contribution holidays and plan sponsor access to surplus.
  • Encourage stability of long-term contribution patterns via appropriate actuarial methods.
  • Incorporate flexibility into funding rules to reflect the overall volatility of funding valuations.
  • Avoid over-regulation and maintain a stable regulatory environment.

Currently the Committee of European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Supervisors, which is framing the [[Solvency II] directive, is investigating ways of standardising pension regulation across the European Union. However, the OECD warned that international convergence in pension funding regulations is "unlikely and in any case it would risk being ill-fitting across jurisdictions".

Deutsche Bank unit completes $4.6bn pension deal with BMW

Deutsche Bank subsidiary Abbey Life has completed a deal with BMW that will see it insure £3 billion ($4.6 billion) worth of the car manufacturer's pension scheme liabilities in the UK.

It is the largest-ever deal of its kind and will apply to around 60,000 people attached to the BMW pension scheme.

Rashid Zuberi, chief risk officer for Abbey Life and Deutsche Bank's head of complex life and pensions management, said that an innovative structuring procedure means the deal is a cost-effective way to mitigate a complex risk.

"With this latest transaction, Deutsche Bank demonstrates that it now offers pension schemes the most comprehensive range of risk management solutions in the market," he stated.

Mr Zuberi said the company was "extremely proud" of the agreement.

Earlier this month, Deutsche Bank released its figures from a successful fourth quarter period in 2009 – the financial institution recorded profit levels of $1.8 billion in the final three months of last year.

Mercer pays $500M to settle pension suit

A follow-up on Mercer's little Alaska problem posted last December. Becky Bohrer of Bloomberg Businessweek reports, Alaska settles pension suit for $500M (HT: Johnny):

Alaska's attorney general said Friday that the state has settled a breach of contract and professional malpractice lawsuit against its former actuary for $500 million. Dan Sullivan said the agreement between the Alaska Retirement Management Board and Mercer Inc., may be the largest of its kind. He called it a "great result" for Alaska state workers and retirees.

The matter dates to late 2007, when the state sued Mercer for at least $1.8 billion, alleging mistakes by the company had contributed to an $8.4 billion state pension deficit. Mercer had been actuary for the state's Public Employees' Retirement System and Teachers' Retirement System pension plans. It had stood behind its work.

Stock market declines and soaring health care costs also contributed to the multibillion-dollar shortfall, the Department of Law said.

Under terms of the settlement, the lawsuit would be dropped in exchange for a $500 million payment. Minus court costs and fees for outside attorneys, the department said the state public pension systems will get about $403 million. Payment is due within 60 days, it said.

The agreement was announced late in the day Friday. A Mercer spokeswoman did not immediately respond to an e-mail seeking comment after hours.

Low yields cause pension to fall behind

Corporate pension plans in the U.S. are falling behind future payouts to retirees by the most in a decade amid a slowing economy and the lowest bond yields on record.

The gap between the assets of the 100 largest company pensions and their projected liabilities widened by $108 billion in August from the previous month to a $459.8 billion deficit, actuarial and consulting firm Milliman Inc. said today in a statement.

The shortfall is “like a silent heart attack,” said Kenneth Hackel, president of research and consulting firm CT Capital LLC. “People aren’t recognizing the symptoms until the patient falls on the ground.”

Corporate pension plans are a casualty of Federal Reserve efforts to keep interest rates low to prevent the economy from slipping back into recession. As AA rated company bond yields, a benchmark in determining future liabilities, last month reached the lowest ever, obligations increased $91 billion to $1.54 trillion, Seattle-based Milliman said, without disclosing company names.

AA corporate bond yields fell to 2.81 percent last month from 3.9 percent at the end of 2009, according to Bank of America Merrill Lynch index data. That compares with the average of 5.8 percent in 2008.

While lower bond yields help companies borrow cash more cheaply, the “dark side” of the “low-yield environment that is projected to persist over the near term” is that companies may have to divert more money to their pension plans or make riskier investments, such as leveraged loans, real estate and private-equity, Fitch Ratings said Aug. 23 in a report.

‘Major Hit’

Contributions to the 100 biggest corporate pension plans increased to $54.5 billion in 2009 from $29.5 billion the previous year and compares with an average of $38.7 billion for the prior five years, Milliman said in an April report. Companies may have to spend even more cash to fund their pensions, Hackel said.

“It’s a major, major hit for companies to take,” said Hackel of Alpine, New Jersey-based CT Capital. “Sponsors are going to need to step up their contributions massively.”

Corporate pension plans have deteriorated since the fall of 2008 as the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression caused investments to plunge, eroding the value of pension assets. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index lost 37 percent that year, while U.S. corporate bonds lost 10.9 percent.

United States pension history

Public pensions got their start with various 'promises', informal and legislated, made to veterans of the Revolutionary War and, more extensively, the Civil War. They were expanded greatly, and began to be offered by a number of state and local governments during the early Progressive Era in the late nineteenth century.

Federal civilian pensions were offered under the Civil Service Retirement System (CSRS), formed in 1920. CSRS provided retirement, disability and survivor benefits for most civilian employees in the US Federal government, until the creation of a new Federal agency, the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS), in 1987.

Pension plans became popular in the United States during World War II, when wage freezes prohibited outright increases in workers' pay. The defined benefit plan had been the most popular and common type of retirement plan in the United States through the 1980s; since that time, defined contribution plans have become the more common type of retirement plan in the United States and many other western countries.

GAO report on retirement funding options

"As the life expectancy of Americans continues to increase, the risk that retirees will outlive their assets is a growing challenge.1 Today, couples both aged 62 have a 47 percent chance that at least one of them will live to their 90th birthday.2 In addition to the risk of outliving ones’ assets, the sharp declines in financial markets and home equity during the last few years and the continued increase in health care costs have intensified workers’ concerns about having enough savings and how to best manage those savings in retirement.3

Given your interest in options for ensuring income throughout retirement and the recent request from the Departments of the Treasury and Labor for information regarding lifetime income options,4 you asked us to examine (1) options retirees have for drawing on financial assets to replace preretirement income and options retirees choose, and (2) how pensions, annuities and other retirement savings vehicles are regulated.

In summary, retirees with savings have several options for lifetime income, but largely rely on investment income or draw down their assets as needed. However, many retirees lack substantial retirement savings. The regulation of private pensions is largely governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), but a multiplicity of laws and regulations govern the management of other assets.

To identify options for drawing on financial assets and determine what options retirees choose from, we reviewed relevant documentation and interviewed officials from the Departments of Treasury and Labor and the Securities and Exchange Commission. We also interviewed representatives of trade associations, such as those for state insurance commissions, and the mutual fund and insurance industries. In addition, we interviewed representatives of large firms that offer mutual funds and annuities. To determine how annuities and other retirement savings vehicles are regulated, we reviewed documentation and interviewed officials from these same agencies and associations and reviewed applicable laws and regulations.

We conducted this engagement from January 2010 to April 2010 in accordance with all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions.

Current challenges

A growing challenge for many nations is population aging. As birth rates drop and life expectancy increases an ever-larger portion of the population is elderly. This leaves fewer workers for each retired person. In almost all developed countries this means that government and public sector pensions could collapse their economies unless pension systems are reformed or taxes are increased. One method of reforming the pension system is to increase the retirement age. Two exceptions are Australia and Canada, where the pension system is forecast to be solvent for the foreseeable future. In Canada, for instance, the annual payments were increased by some 70% in 1998 to achieve this. These two nations also have an advantage from their relative openness to immigration. However, their populations are not growing as fast as the U.S., which supplements a high immigration rate with one of the highest birthrates among Western countries. Thus, the population in the U.S. is not aging to the extent as those in Europe, Australia, or Canada.

Also the condition of the historical data and its development into a secure database can be an expensive and labour intensive endeavor. Currently, the trend to develop on line electronic calculators that replace traditionally complex spreadsheet calculations performed by Actuaries and Analysts is the industry norm in records management.

Another growing challenge is the recent trend of businesses in the United States purposely under-funding their pension schemes in order to push the costs onto the federal government. Bradley Belt, former executive director of the PBGC (the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, the federal agency that insures private-sector defined-benefit pension plans in the event of bankruptcy), testified before a congressional hearing in October 2004, “I am particularly concerned with the temptation, and indeed, growing tendency, to use the pension insurance fund as a means to obtain an interest-free and risk-free loan to enable companies to restructure. Unfortunately, the current calculation appears to be that shifting pension liabilities onto other premium payers or potentially taxpayers is the path of least resistance rather than a last resort.”

Challenges have further been increased by the credit crunch. Total funding of US pension plans fell by $303bn in 2008, going from a $86bn surplus at the end of 2007 to a $217bn deficit at the end of 2008.[6]

Pension systems in various countries

  • Australia:
  • Canada
    • Canada Pension Plan
    • Old Age Security
    • Registered Retirement Savings Plan
    • Saskatchewan Pension Plan
  • China:
    • Mandatory Provident Fund Hong Kong
  • Finland Kansaneläkelaitos
  • India Employees' Provident Fund Organisation of India
  • Malaysia Employees Provident Fund
  • New Zealand KiwiSaver
  • Singapore Central Provident Fund
  • Sweden Social security
  • Turkish Pension System
  • United Kingdom:
    • UK pension provision
    • Self-invested personal pensions
  • United States:
    • Public Employee Pension Plans
    • Retirement plans in the United States
    • Social security (actually social insurance, shares some aspects of pensions)

Market structure

The market for pension fund investments is still centred around Anglo-Saxon economies. Japan and the EU are conspicuous by absence. As of 2005 the U.S. was the largest market for pension fund investments followed by the UK.

Pension reforms have gained pace worldwide in recent years and funded arrangements are likely to play an increasingly important role in delivering retirement income security and also affect securities markets in future years.


References


Personal tools