Pensions experts have warned regulators against requiring pension funds to make minimum-return guarantees, due to the extra costs they would entail.
Laurens Swinkels, portfolio strategist at Robeco, acknowledged that using minimum-return guarantees to protect members from financial institutions' inability to manage risk appropriately was "fair". "However", he said, "some other investment solutions have proved to be much more effective than guarantees and make the pension fund market much more flexible."
According to Swinkels, regulators should focus on more "appropriate" rules, such as minimum-enrolment requirements and minimum contribution levels, instead of requiring pension schemes to make guarantees. "New incentives should also be given to keep employees from taking their savings from their pension pots to buy a new house or car, as is currently the case in some European countries", he said. "Regulators should introduce a minimum investment horizon, with some diversification requirements for pension schemes to follow."
But Pablo Antolin, principal economist at the OECD financial affairs division's private pensions unit, said capital guarantees were relatively cheap, easy to implement and could help build confidence in the private pension system if a number of criteria were met. "Capital guarantees remain cheap only if they are fixed, benefit from long contribution periods and do not suffer from a switch in pension providers", he said
Full article (IPE subscription required)
© IPE International Publishers Ltd.
Key
Hover over the blue highlighted
text to view the acronym meaning
Hover
over these icons for more information
Comments:
No Comments for this Article