Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T04:53:55.106Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The decumulation period of a personal pension with risk sharing: investment approach versus consumption approach

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 October 2018

Servaas van Bilsen  and
A. Lans Bovenberg
Servaas van Bilsen*
Affiliation:
Department of Quantitative Economics, University of Amsterdam and NETSPAR, Roetersstraat 11, 1018 WB, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
A. Lans Bovenberg
Affiliation:
Department of Economics, Tilburg University and NETSPAR, P.O. Box 90153, Tilburg, The Netherlands
*
*Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper models the decumulation period of a Personal Pension with Risk sharing (PPR). We derive several relationships between the contract parameters. Individuals can adopt two approaches to the decumulation period of a PPR: the investment approach and the consumption approach. In the investment approach, individuals specify how to invest wealth and how much wealth to withdraw. Retirement consumption follows endogenously. In the consumption approach, in contrast, individuals specify retirement consumption exogenously. Investment and withdrawal policies follow endogenously. We explore these two approaches in detail. Consistent with habit formation, we allow for excess smoothness and excess sensitivity in retirement consumption.

Keywords

Consumption approachinvestment approachliability-driven investmentpersonal pension plansmoothing of shocks

JEL classification

G11: Portfolio Choice • Investment Decisions G13: Contingent Pricing • Futures Pricing J32: Nonwage Labor Costs and Benefits • Retirement Plans • Private Pensions D91: Role and Effects of Psychological, Emotional, Social, and Cognitive Factors on Decision Making‡
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Pension Economics & Finance , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , April 2020 , pp. 262 - 291
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018

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

Bovenberg, AL and Nijman, ThE (2015) Personal Pensions with Risk Sharing: Affordable, Adequate and Stable Private Pensions in Europe. Discussion Paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brennan, MJ and Xia, Y (2002) Dynamic asset allocation under inflation. Journal of Finance 57, 1201–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, JR, Kling, JR, Mullainathan, S and Wrobel, MV (2008) Why don't people insure late-life consumption? A framing explanation of the under-annuitization puzzle. American Economic Review 98, 304–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, JR, Kling, JR, Mullainathan, S and Wrobel, MV (2013) Framing lifetime income. Journal of Retirement 1, 27–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, JY and Deaton, A (1989) Why is consumption so smooth? Review of Economic Studies 56, 357–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chacko, G and Viceira, LM (2005) Dynamic consumption and portfolio choice with stochastic volatility in incomplete markets. Review of Financial Studies 18, 1369–1402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chai, J, Horneff, WJ, Maurer, RH and Mitchell, OS (2011) Optimal portfolio choice over the life cycle with flexible work, endogenous retirement, and lifetime payouts. Review of Finance 15, 875–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deaton, A (1987) Life-cycle models of consumption: is the evidence consistent with the theory? In Bewley, TF (ed.), Advances in Econometrics: Fifth World Congress, vol. 2. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 121–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donnelly, C (2015) Actuarial fairness and solidarity in pooled annuity funds. ASTIN Bulletin 45, 49–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flavin, M (1985) Excess sensitivity of consumption to current income: liquidity constraints or myopia? Canadian Journal of Economics 18, 117–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuhrer, JC (2000) Habit formation in consumption and Its implications for monetary-policy models. American Economic Review 90, 367–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guillén, M, Jørgensen, PL and Nielsen, JP (2006) Return smoothing mechanisms in life and pension insurance: path-dependent contingent claims. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 38, 229–252.Google Scholar
Guillén, M, Nielsen, JP, Pérez-Marín, AM and Petersen, KS (2013) Performance measurement of pension strategies: a case study of Danish life-cycle products. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal 2013, 49–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Investment Company Institute (2017) Investment Company Fact Book. A Review of Trends and Activities in the U.S. Investment Company Industry.Google Scholar
Jørgensen, PL and Linnemann, P (2011) A comparison of three different pension savings products with special emphasis on the payout phase. Annals of Actuarial Science 6, 137–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linnemann, P, Bruhn, K and Steffensen, M (2014) A comparison of modern investment-linked pension savings products. Annals of Actuarial Science 9, 72–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liu, J (2007) Portfolio selection in stochastic environments. Review of Financial Studies 20, 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maurer, RH, Mitchell, OS, Rogalla, R and Kartashov, V (2013) Life cycle portfolio choice with systematic longevity risk and Variable investment-linked deferred annuities. Journal of Risk and Insurance 80, 649–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maurer, R, Mitchell, OS, Rogalla, R and Siegelin, I (2016) Accounting and actuarial smoothing of retirement payouts in participating life annuities. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 71, 268–283.Google Scholar
Merton, RC (1971) Optimum consumption and portfolio rules in a continuous-time model. Journal of Economic Theory 3, 373–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pagel, M (2017) Expectations-based reference-dependent life-cycle consumption. Review of Economic Studies 84, 885–934.Google Scholar
Piggott, J, Valdez, E and Detzel, B (2005) The simple analytics of pooled annuity funds. Journal of Risk and Insurance 72, 497–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhee, N and Boivie, I (2015) The Continuing Retirement Savings Crisis. National Institute on Retirement Security. Report.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stamos, MZ (2008) Optimal consumption and portfolio choice for pooled annuity funds. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 43, 56–68.Google Scholar
Van Bilsen, S, Laeven, RJA and Nijman, ThE (2017) Consumption and Portfolio Choice under Loss Aversion and Endogenous Updating of the Reference Level. Working Paper.Google Scholar
Valdez, E, Piggott, J and Wang, L (2006) Demand and adverse selection in a pooled annuity fund. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics 39, 251–266.Google Scholar
Wachter, JA (2002) Portfolio and consumption decisions under mean-reverting returns: an exact solution for complete markets. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 37, 63–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar