Comparing Costs and Risks of Retirement Plans for Sponsors

Gaobo Pang and Mark Warshawsky

Risk Management and Insurance Review, 2013, vol. 16, issue 2, 195-217

Abstract: 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.

Date: 2013
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1111/rmir.12010

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

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 ().