Potential implications of mandating choice in corporate defined benefit plans

Olivia Mitchell and Janemarie Mulvey

Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, 2004, vol. 3, issue 3, 339-354

Abstract: The evolution of hybrid conversions has prompted a number of high-profile legal challenges. In response, policymakers have attempted to force companies transitioning from a traditional DB to a hybrid plan to offer all workers the open-ended choice of remaining in the old DB plan, versus switching to the new hybrid plan. This paper evaluates ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ under these plan conversions and estimates the cost to plan sponsors of such a mandate. We find that mandating choice could increase plan sponsors' pension expenses above their current cost for traditional defined benefit plans. In the end, rising costs of pensions could endanger plan sponsorship altogether. Policymakers seeking to mandate pension choice should take into account these possible undesirable outcomes of such a law.

Date: 2004
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/ ... type/journal_article link to article abstract page (text/html)

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:cup:jpenef:v:3:y:2004:i:03:p:339-354_00

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Journal of Pension Economics and Finance from Cambridge University Press Cambridge University Press, UPH, Shaftesbury Road, Cambridge CB2 8BS UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Kirk Stebbing ().