Comparing Costs and Risks of Retirement Plans for Sponsors
Gaobo Pang () and
Risk Management and Insurance Review, 2013, vol. 16, issue 2, 195-217
This stochastic simulation analysis compares funding costs and volatilities for private sponsors of traditional defined benefit (DB), pension equity (PE), cash balance (CB), and defined contribution (DC) retirement plans. Plan provisions of equivalent benefit generosity in the different plan types are determined. The modeling includes current funding requirements and practices as well as a comprehensive set of uncertainties in asset and labor markets. The results show that costs and risks for sponsors vary significantly with plan types, investment and funding strategies, and participant demographics. The hybrid PE and CB plans exhibit characteristics of cost efficiency, as in the DB plan, and risk reduction, as in the DC plan, for plan sponsors under conventional investment strategies. These features are more saliently observed in the CB plan, but it is also more difficult to implement effective asset–liability management strategies for it.
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed
Downloads: (external link)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bla:rmgtin:v:16:y:2013:i:2:p:195-217
Access Statistics for this article
Risk Management and Insurance Review is currently edited by Mary A. Weiss
More articles in Risk Management and Insurance Review from American Risk and Insurance Association
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Wiley Content Delivery ().