Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T06:24:59.627Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Institutional disparities and asset allocation homologation in Italian defined contribution pension funds. How do they affect the guarantee commitment?*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2016

PAOLA DE VINCENTIIS ,
ELEONORA ISAIA  and
PAOLA ZOCCHI
PAOLA DE VINCENTIIS
Affiliation:
Department of Management, University of Torino, Torino, Italy (e-mail: paola.devincentiis@unito.it)(e-mail: eleonora.isaia@unito.it)
ELEONORA ISAIA
Affiliation:
Department of Management, University of Torino, Torino, Italy (e-mail: paola.devincentiis@unito.it)(e-mail: eleonora.isaia@unito.it)
PAOLA ZOCCHI
Affiliation:
Department of Economics and Business Studies, University of Piemonte Orientale, Novara, Italy (e-mail: paola.zocchi@unipmn.it)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper analyzes the performance of the Italian defined contribution guaranteed pension funds during the period 2008–2012 through a panel analysis. This paper is organized around three main research questions. The first one is focused on the probability of a guarantee payment in a given year. The second one deals with the determinants of the gap between actual return and minimum guaranteed yield on a yearly basis. The third one focuses on the factors affecting the weight of administrative and management costs and their relationship with the fund dimension.

Keywords

G23Defined contribution pension fundminimum return guaranteeasset allocationmoney-weighted rate of return
Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Pension Economics & Finance , Volume 16 , Issue 2 , April 2017 , pp. 205 - 232
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

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.)

Footnotes

*

We would like to thank the editor and an anonymous referee for helpful comments and suggestions that added significant value to our paper.

References

Antolìn, P., Pvaayet, S., Whitehouse, E. and Yermo, J. (2011) The role of guarantees in defined contribution pensions. OECD Working Papers on Finance, Insurance and Private Pensions No. 11.Google Scholar
Biggs, A., Burdick, C. and Smetters, K. (2009) Pricing Personal Account Benefit Guarantees. Social Security Policy in a Changing Environment, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Boulier, J. F., Huang, S. and Taillard, G. (2001) Optimal management under stochastic interest rates: the case of a protected defined contribution pension fund. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 28(2): 173–189.Google Scholar
Bripi, F. and Giorgiantonio, C. (2010) La governance dei fondi pensione in Italia: miglioramenti possibili. Bank of Italy, Occasional Paper N. 65.Google Scholar
Broeders, D. and Chen, A. (2013) Pension benefit security: a comparison of solvency requirements’, a pension guarantee fund, and sponsor support. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 80(2): 239–272.Google Scholar
Broeders, D., Chen, A. and Rijsbergen, D. (2013) Valuation of liabilities in hybrid pension plans. Applied Financial Economics, 23(15): 1215–1229.Google Scholar
Cameron, A. C. and Trivedi, P. K. (2010) Microeconometrics Using Stata. Stata Press, Lakeway Drive, College Station, Texas.Google Scholar
Chen, J., Hong, H., Huang, M. and Kubik, J. (2004) Does fund size erode mutual fund performance? The role of liquidity and organization. American Economic Review, 94(5): 1276–1302.Google Scholar
COVIP (2006) Deliberazione 28 giugno 2006 in tema di forme pensionistiche complementari’, Gazzetta Ufficiale 11 luglio 2006 n. 159.Google Scholar
COVIP (2007) Comunicazione ai fondi pensione negoziali in merito al comparto garantito, No. 815’, www.covip.it.Google Scholar
Deelstra, G., Grasselli, M. and Koehl, P. F. (2003) Optimal investment strategies in the presence of a minimum guarantee. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 33(1): 189–207.Google Scholar
Di Giacinto, M., Federico, S. and Gozzi, F. (2011) ‘Pension funds with a minimum guarantee: a stochastic control approach. Finance Stochastic, 15(2): 297–342.Google Scholar
Federico, S. (2008) A pension fund in the accumulation phase: a stochastic control approach. Banach Center Publications: Advances in Mathematics of Finance, 83: 61–83. DOI:10.4064/bc83-0-5.Google Scholar
Geltner, D. (2003) IRR-based property-level performance attribution. The Journal of Portfolio Management, 29(5): 138–151.Google Scholar
Grande, G. and Visco, I. (2010) A public guarantee of a minimum return to defined contribution pension scheme members. Working paper Bank of Italy, No.762.Google Scholar
Huang, H. (2010) Optimal multi-period asset allocation: matching assets to liabilities in a discrete model. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 77(2): 451–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahila, J. (2005) IRR, money-weighted rate of return, time-weighted rate of return, and the modified Dietz method. The Journal of Performance Measurement, 9(3): 47–56.Google Scholar
Munnel, A., Golub-Sass, A., Kopcke, R.W. and Webb, A. (2009) What does it Cost to Guarantee Returns? Center for Retirement Research, Boston College.Google Scholar
OECD (2013) Pensions at a glance: OECD and G20 indicators’.Google Scholar
Pennacchi, G. (1998) Government guarantees on pension fund returns. The World Bank, Social Protection Discussion Paper Series, No. 9806.Google Scholar
Pennacchi, G. (1999) The value of guarantees on pension fund returns. The Journal of Risk and Insurance, 66(2): 219–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tippett, M. (1994) Estimating returns on financial instruments: time versus money-weighted rate of return. Journal of Business Finance & Accounting, 21(5): 729–737.Google Scholar
Turner, J. A. and Rajnes, D. M. (2002) Relative Rate of Return Guarantees for Social Security defined Contribution Plans: What do they Accomplish? The Pension Institute, Birkbeck College, University of London, Discussion Paper PI-0202.Google Scholar