Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T13:41:48.014Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variability in pension products: a comparison study between The Netherlands and Denmark

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 May 2020

Anne G. Balter ,
Malene Kallestrup-Lamb  and
Jesper Rangvid
Anne G. Balter
Affiliation:
Tilburg University and Netspar
Malene Kallestrup-Lamb*
Affiliation:
Aarhus University and PeRCent
Jesper Rangvid
Affiliation:
Copenhagen Business School and PeRCent
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Danish and the Dutch pension systems are often referred to as “among the best in the world”. We compare pension systems and pension products in Denmark and The Netherlands. We focus on the shifts that have taken place in both countries, from pension products with relatively low levels of risk for the participant to pension products with more risk but also higher expected return. We end by drawing lessons that are relevant for discussions in many countries.

Keywords

Variable annuitiesGuaranteesNon-guarantees
Type
Paper
Information
Annals of Actuarial Science , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , September 2020 , pp. 338 - 357
Copyright
© Institute and Faculty of Actuaries 2020

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Balter, A. & Werker, B. (2019). The effect of the assumed interest rate and smoothing on variable annuities. ASTIN Bulletin, forthcoming.Google Scholar
Balter, A., Kallestrup-Lamb, M. & Rangvid, J. (2019). The move towards riskier pensions: the impact of unforeseen longevity updates on guarantees. CREATES Working Paper.Google Scholar
Bonekamp, J., Bovenberg, L., Nijman, T. & Werker, B. (2016). Welke vaste dalingen en welk beleggingsbeleid passen bij gewenste uitkeringsprofielen in verbeterde premieregelingen? Netspar Discussion Paper.Google Scholar
Bovenberg, L. (2012). Benchmarking the Danish pension system a comparison with Dutch pensions. Nationaløkonomisk Tidsskrift, 150, 228–233.Google Scholar
Bovenberg, L., Mehlkopf, R. & Nijman, T. (2015). The promise of defined ambition plans: lessons for the United States. In O.S. Mitchell & R. Shea (Eds.), Reimagining Pensions: The Next 40 Years (pp. 215–246). Oxford University Press, 2016.Google Scholar
Bruhn, K. & Steffensen, M. (2013). Optimal smooth consumption and annuity design. Journal of Banking & Finance 37(8): 2693–2701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruil, A., Schmitz, C., Gebraad, J. & Bhageloe-Datadin, R. (2015). Totale pensioenaanspraken van Nederland in beeld: AOW vergt meer geld dan aanvullend pensioen. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek.Google Scholar
Danish FSA (2017). Pensions when the guarantees disappear. Working paper.Google Scholar
Danish Ministry of Finance (2017). Det danske pensionssystem nu og i fremtiden 2017.Google Scholar
Devolder, P. & de Valeriola, S. (2017). Minimum protection in DC funding pension plans and Margrabe options. Risks, 5(1), 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forsyth, P. & Vetzal, K. (2014). An optimal stochastic control framework for determining the cost of hedging of variable annuities. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 44, 29–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garcia Huitron, M. & Rodriguez-Montemayor, E. (2017). Pension goals and institutional arrangements: reforms DC 2.0 for Latin America. Working Paper.Google Scholar
Insurance and Pension (2017a). http://www.forsikringogpension.dk/presse/Statistik_og_Analyse/statistik/pension/branchetal/Sider/Selskaberipensionsbranchen_Antal.aspxGoogle Scholar
Insurance and Pension (2017b). http://www.forsikringogpension.dk/presse/Statistik_og_Analyse/in-english/Documents/ Premiums%20of%20life-insurance%20by%20unit%20link%20and%20traditional%20life%20insurance.xlsGoogle Scholar
Jakobsen, S. (2003). Tidspension som investeringsstrategi (TimePension as an Investment Strategy). Finans/Invest, 3, 11–17.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, P. & Linnemann, P. (2012). A comparison of three different pension savings products with special emphasis on the payout phase. Annals of Actuarial Science, 6(1), 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knoef, M., Goudswaard, K., Been, J. & Caminada, C. (2015). Nederlandse pensioenopbouw in internationaal perspectief. Netspar Industry Paper Series: Design Paper, 41, 1–64.Google Scholar
Mercer (2018). 2018 Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index. https://www.mercer.com/our-thinking/mmgpi.htmlGoogle Scholar
OECD (2015). Pensions at a Glance 2015: OECD and G20 indicators. OECD Publishing, Paris. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1787/pension_glance-2015-enGoogle Scholar
Pennacchi, G. (1999). The value of guarantees on pension fund returns. The Journal of risk and Insurance, 66(2), 219–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rivera-Rozo, J. (2009). Including variable annuities in a pension decumulation strategy: an international risk-return analysis. Netspar Thesis.Google Scholar
Rocha, R., Vittas, D. & Rudolph, H. (2011). Annuities and other retirement products: designing the payout phase. World Bank Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sociaal-Economische Raad (2019). Naar een nieuw pensioenstelsel. Den Haag: Sociaal-Economische Raad 2019 https://www.ser.nl/-/media/ser/downloads/adviezen/2019/naar-een-nieuw-pensioenstelsel.pdfGoogle Scholar
Warshawsky, M. J. (2013). DC Plan Payout Practices and Policies in Canada, Switzerland, UK, Australia, and Singapore. Towers Watson Insider.Google Scholar
Wolzak, M. (2017). Nog weinig animo bij zowel klanten als aanbieders van variabel pensioen. Financieele Dagblad.Google Scholar
Zhang, L. (2006). Japanese variable annuity market: background, update and outlook. The Actuary Magazine, 2.Google Scholar