퇴직연금 TDF 성장의 배경

연금시장 2018. 9. 29. 20:26

최근 미국에서 가장 인기있는 투자전략인 TDF(target date funds)가 퇴직연금에서는 신통치 않을 수도 있다고 합니다.
미국의 한 조사기관(Investment Company Institute)에 의하면 미국 TDF에 보유된 자산은 2018년 3월말 1.1조 달러로 2005년 700억 달러에서 급성장하여 미국에서 가장 인기있는 투자전략이 되었습니다. 이 자산의 3분의 2는 DC퇴직연금에서 운용되고 있고, 퇴직연금사업자인 Vanguard의 조사에 따르면 DC가입자의 과반수가 한개의 TDF를 통해 자산운용하고 있습니다.
TDF는 퇴직연금 가입자가 예상한 은퇴시점에 적정소득을 창출하기 위해 주식 및 채권 자산을 자동으로 재조정하는 펀드인데, 은퇴시 일관된 소득을 제공하기에 어려울 수 있다는 비판이 나오고 있습니다.
미국 Princeton 대학과 Lionel Martellini교수 등 프랑스 Edhec 경영대학원의 교수들이 공동작업을 통해 TDF의 단점을 밝히고 개선하기 위한 목적으로 두가지 지표를 만들었습니다. (Edhec 경영대학원은 목표기반투자(Goals-based investing)에 매진하고 있는 Merrill Lynch Wealth Management의 지원을 받고 있습니다.)
그 지수 중 하나가 은퇴자가 은퇴후 1달러의 소득을 받기 위해 지불해야하는 비용(purchasing power)입니다. 올 상반기 성과에 따라 7월에 발표 된 자료에 따르면 2038년에서 2058년까지 20년간 매년 은퇴소득 1달러를 확보하기 위해 필요한 비용은 8.57달러입니다.
TDF의 가장 큰 단점은, 안전한 자산배분으로 간주하여 채권에 자산을 할당하는 행위가 위험할 수 있다는 점입니다. 채권이 소득을 제공할 지 몰라도 보장(guarantee)하지는 않는다는 겁니다. 채권은 연금상품과 유사하여 따박따박 현금 수입을 제공할 수 있지만, 유연성이 부족하다는 것입니다.
TDF의 채권 자산배분 비중 변화는 은퇴시 필요한 현금흐름에 대한 좋은 대용지표(proxy) 임에는 틀림없지만, 채권 포트폴리오가 시장 리스크에 민감한 단기 채권으로 구성되어 있고 은퇴자가 기대하고 있는 다른 소득에 대해서는 고려하고 있지 못하기 때문에 대체소득을 창출하는데는 실패할 수도 있습니다. 컨설팅 회사인 Target Date Solutions의 Ron Surz사장은 "단지 수익창출을 위해 TDF를 만들었던 회사들이 승자가 될 뿐이다"라고 말합니다.
미국은 DC가입자가 적립금운용방법을 선택하지 않을 경우 DC사업자는 가입자의 자산을 자동배분하는 Default fund를 제공하도록 2006년부터 법제화되어 있고, 이 법은 TDF의 목록을 포함해서 어떤 종류로 배분하는 것이 적정한지를 정하고 있습니다.
TDF의 급성장은 이런 법적 장치 덕분이고, TDF의 결함에도 불구하고 재무설계사와 연금 감독자가 TDF에 의존할 수 밖에 없는 것도 이 법때문이다라고 Surz는 말했습니다.
하지만 UBS의 Sandy Cunningham는 재무설계사들이 퇴직연금 가입자와 함께 고유 목표에 기반하여 재무설계하고 적절한 투자 전략을 정해야한다고 조언했습니다. 물론 결국 TDF의 구조처럼 주식위주 포트폴리오를 채권으로 변화시키겠지만, "DC가입자들은 처음 가입해서 주식에 더 높은 배분을 원하며 이는 연금자산을 더 빨리 키울 수 있는 최고의 기회를 제공 할 수 있을 것이다"라고 덧붙였습다.

 

출처 : https://www.ft.com/content/e5cf9c6e-9a24-11e8-88de-49c908b1f264?segmentid=acee4131-99c2-09d3-a635-873e61754ec6

Target date funds risk missing the mark for retirees

Academics argue that retirement investors are facing unforeseen risks

 

  Richard Henderson
  
   One of the most popular investment strategies employed in US retirement accounts is ill-suited for the job, according to research on retirement outcomes. These strategies, known as target date funds, automatically rebalance equity and bond assets over time with the aim of reaching an adequate allocation of income-producing investments by a saver’s expected retirement date.Their rise has been meteoric. Assets held in US target date mutual funds now stand at $1.1tn, compared with $70bn in 2005, according to first-quarter data compiled by the Investment Company Institute, a trade body. Two-thirds of such assets are held via defined contribution pension schemes. According to Vanguard, the $5.1tn asset manager and pension provider, half of its DC savers in the US hold their assets in a single target date fund. But academics suggest such products may struggle to deliver a consistent stream of income for retirees. A group of professors at Princeton University and French business school Edhec have joined forces to create two types of indices that explore the effectiveness of target date funds, in a bid to identify their shortcomings and suggest tweaks.The group’s work builds on that of the Edhec Risk Institute research unit, supported by Merrill Lynch Wealth Management, a proponent of “goals-based investing”, an alternative to target date funds.One index series aims to show the purchasing power retirees can expect by showing the price of generating one dollar of retirement income. Data released in July, spanning the performance of the index in the first six months of the year, show it will cost $8.57 to secure $1 of replacement income every year of retirement from 2038 to 2058.This underscores the importance of crafting investment products that generate sustained income for retirees, says Lionel Martellini, a professor at Edhec currently seconded to Princeton. He chairs the research unit that developed the indices.

Prof Martellini says the key shortcoming with target date funds the group has identified is the fact that the bond allocation, intended to be the safe portion of the portfolio, is often risky. This risk hinges on the fact that bond portfolios offer — but do not guarantee — income, according to the researchers.The fixed income allocation should look more like an annuity, Prof Martellini says, a financial product that pays a steady stream of income to the holder. But it must avoid the pitfalls of annuities, namely a lack of flexibility that means they cannot be passed on to a next of kin, for example.“That’s what we’re talking about — a bond portfolio that is a good proxy for the cash flow that people need. Such a simple move will add a large benefit to how much replacement income you can generate,” Prof Martellini says. Critics say target date funds fail to achieve this because their fixed income portfolios are composed of short-term bonds that are beholden to market risks and do not take into account retirees’ different income expectations.Others stress it is early days. “The overall idea of target date funds is good, but in terms of their metamorphosis they’re in the larvae stage — they’re ugly and scary and that needs to change,” says Ron Surz, president of consultancy Target Date Solutions and author of the Fiduciary Handbook for Understanding and Selecting Target Date Funds. “Fund companies have designed these to make a profit — they are the winners,” he says, while investors often lose out.A 2006 law required DC providers to offer a default fund into which individuals are automatically assigned if they do not choose their underlying investments. The law defined which types of strategies would be suitable: a list that included target date funds.This led to sharp asset growth but has also prompted financial advisers and those overseeing these pensions to rely on them despite their flaws, says Mr Surz. “Their motives are to not get sued,” he adds.Sandy Cunningham, a UBS adviser on this year’s FT 401 list, says advisers should work with clients to create a financial plan based on their unique goals, and then decide on an appropriate investment strategy. Still, the end goal requires a structural shift from equities dominating the portfolio to bonds, says Ms Cunningham — in effect the structure of a target date fund. “When you first join, you want a higher allocation to equities, which can provide the best opportunity to build a retirement fund faster.”

설정

트랙백

댓글

퇴직연금 재정부족 심각

연금시장 2018. 9. 28. 23:17

퇴직연금과 은퇴자 건강보험에 대한 적립부담을 고려할 때 미국 40개 주정부가 예산 집행에 필요한 재원이 부족하다고 합니다. 비영리 정부 감시단체인 Truth in Accounting (TIA)의 발표인데, 2017회계년도의 50개 주의 comprehensive annual financial reports (CAFRs)를 분석한 결과라고 하고, 주정부의 선출직 공무원들이 이런 비용들을 숨기는 통에 미래의 납세자들의 부담이 커질 것이라는 우려도 이야기합니다.

주정부 퇴직연금의 자산이 7%증가하는 통에 연기금 부족분은 다소 감소했지만, 은퇴자에 대한 건강보험에 필요한 부담 증가가 이 감소분 보다 더 많다는 분석입니다.
적립 부족액은 약 8천375억달러(약935조원)일 거라고 합니다.

 

출처 : https://www.forbes.com/sites/mayrarodriguezvalladares/2018/09/24/fortyusstatescannotaffordtopayalloftheirbills/#27a1ddcb718a

 

10,442 views

Forty U.S. States Cannot Afford To Pay All Their Bills

 

Forty states do not have enough money to pay all of their bills, according to quantitative analysis in Financial State of the States, the ninth annual report published this evening by Truth in Accounting (TIA). TIA is a non-partisan, not-for-profit government finances watchdog. To balance the budget, “elected officials have not included the true costs of the government in their budget calculations and have pushed costs onto future taxpayers.” TIA’s comprehensive analysis of the fiscal health of all 50 states is based on the states’ fiscal year 2017 comprehensive annual financial reports (CAFRs).

“With the robust growth in the economy, you would have expected a big improvement in state finances” stated TIA CEO Sheila Weinberg.  “Unfortunately, that is not the case. State finances still deteriorated. While unfunded pension liabilities slightly decreased due to a 7% increase in the value of pension assets, this decrease was more than offset by an increase in unfunded retiree health care benefits.”

Truth in Accounting, CEO Sheila WeinbergTIA

 

TIA’s analysis found that because government financial statements do not report all liabilities of a state, elected officials and citizens are making financial decisions without knowing the true financial condition of their government. A major challenge for investors is the lack of transparency and accuracy in a lot of government accounting. This makes it difficult for even experienced analysts of government financial documents and municipal bond investors to understand and evaluate a public-sector entity’s true financial health.

The total unfunded debt among the 50 states increased by $53.4 billion to more than $1.5 trillion in fiscal year 2017. Most of this debt comes from unfunded retiree benefit promises, such as pension and retiree healthcare debt. TIA’s analysis found that unfortunately “one of the ways states make their budgets look balanced is by shortchanging public pension funds. This practice has resulted in a $837.5 billion shortfall.” Other post-employment benefits, mainly retiree healthcare liabilities, totaled $663.1 billion.

 

Taxpayers in forty states are on the hook for their states' shortfalls.Truth in Accounting

TIA has a grading system for the states to give greater context to each state’s Taxpayer Burden or Taxpayer Surplus. To arrive at a taxpayer’s burden or surplus, you divide the state’s shortfall or surplus by the number of a state’s taxpayers.

  • A grade: Taxpayer Surplus greater than $10,000 (3 states).
  • B grade: Taxpayer Surplus between $100 and $10,000 (7 states).
  • C grade: Taxpayer Burden between $0 and $4,900 (12 states).
  • D grade: Taxpayer Burden between $5,000 and $20,000 (18 states).
  • F grade: Taxpayer Burden greater than $20,000 (10 states).

Only 6% of states have a grade of A, while 56% of states received a near failing grade of D or the failing grade F.TIA

States with a surplus are Alaska, North Dakota, Wyoming, Utah and South Dakota. Alaska is the state in the best financial condition, because it can pay all of its bills and has a surplus of $56,000 for each taxpayer in Alaska.  However, there is room for improvement, Alaska is not fully transparent with taxpayers. “None of its other post-employment benefits are reported in the financial statements.”  Given the level of energy resources that Alaska has, this surplus is not surprising. However, if energy prices were to decline significantly, that surplus would be at risk.

Sunshine states leave taxpayers with a surplus.TIA

The state in the worst financial shape is New Jersey.  It only has $25.5 billion available in assets to pay $221 billion worth of bills. This $195.5 billion shortfall means that each New Jersey taxpayer is on the hook for $61,400.  The state did report all of its pension debt, but according to TIA the state “continues to hide $34.3 billion of its retiree health care debt.  Moreover, New Jersey’s net position is “inflated by $27.7 billion, largely because the state defers recognizing losses incurred when the net pension liability increases.”  Other states that are leaving their taxpayers with significant tax burdens include Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Delaware, California, New York, and Vermont.

Sinkhole states leave taxpayers with a significant tax burden.TIA

A new financial reporting rule taking effect for the 2018 fiscal year will require states to report all unfunded other post-employment benefits (OPEB), particularly retiree health care liabilities, on their balance sheet.  In FY 2017, total unfunded OPEB liabilities among the 50 states was $663.1 billion. Two-thirds of that, or $439.5 billion, however, was not reported on states’ balance sheets. Essentially this is “hidden debt.”   

These states have the largest difference in reported vs. total unfunded retiree health care promises, or hidden debt.TIA

In addition to analyzing states’ finances, TIA has also analyzed the financial condition of the most populated cities in the U.S. two years in a row. 64 out of the 75  most populated cities do not have enough money to pay all of their bills. These cities have racked up $335.4 billion in unfunded municipal debt. TIA found Irvine and Stockton, California to be in the best financial shape and New York and Chicago to be in the worst shape. The next update to the Financial State of the Cities is planned for January 2019.

Recently, TIA has also started branching out to analyze the state of finances of other municipalities. This September, TIA gave Westchester County and the Village of Scarsdale, both in New York state, a near-failing grade of ‘D.’  TIA’s analysis found that “Westchester County's elected officials have made repeated financial decisions that have left the county with a debt burden of $2.8 billion, according to the analysis. That burden equates to $8,400 for every local taxpayer. Westchester County's financial problems stem mostly from unfunded retirement obligations that have accumulated over many years. Of the $5.8 billion in retirement benefits promised, the county has not funded $173.5 million in pension and $2.5 billion in retiree health care benefits.” According to the report about the Village of Scarsdale, its “financial condition is not only disconcerting, but also misleading as government officials have failed to disclose significant amounts of retirement debt on the village’s balance sheet. As a result, residents and taxpayers have been presented with an inaccurate and untruthful accounting of their government’s finances.”

In order to provide more transparency and accountability in the budgeting process, TIA recommends that municipalities use Full Accrual Calculations and Techniques (FACT) based budgeting.  The purpose of FACT is to get states and municipalities to move beyond cash-based methods to include accrual of all expenses.  This would provide a “full-cost” and more truthful basis for budgeting. According to Weinberg, TIA is also currently working “to improve the Financial Reporting Model for state and local governments, so governments would be required to report their general and other governmental funds' balance sheets and income statements using a full accrual basis.”

설정

트랙백

댓글

삼가 멀리스경(Sir James Mirrlees)의 명복을 빕니다

연금시장 2018. 9. 23. 01:09

교과서에서 봐서 괜히 친숙했던 어르신, James Mirrlees 경이 2018년 8월30일에 작고하셨습니다. 전세계 연금재정, 조세정책 등에 굵직한 궤적을 그리셨던 그 두터운 Mirrlees 리포트를 처음 봤을 때의 경의로움이 갑자기 떠오릅니다.

영국의 수학박사였던 멀리스 경은 1936년에 정보비대칭성 관련 이론으로 노벨경제학상을 수상하고, 그가 가지고 있는 경제학적 사고를 조세제도 설계와 연결시켜서 2011년 영국의 조세제도 전반에 대한 문제점을 다룬 "The Mirrlees Review"를 발간합니다.

분량이 어마어마해서 1권 "Dimensions of Tax Design"은 총 63명의 의견을 담아 1000천 쪽으로 5년동안 집필했고, 2권 "Tax by Design"은 10명이 400쪽을 채웠습니다.

이분이 생각한 이상적인 조세제도는 중립적(seeking neutrality)이고 누진적(achieving progressivity as efficiently as possible)이어야 한다는 것이고, 세제개혁시 조각조각 찢어서 생각하지 않고 하나의 큰 틀로 인지해서 추진해야 한다고 주장하였습니다.

특히 퇴직연금에 있어서 납세자(근로자)와 고용주의 납입금액에 대하여 면세하고, 연금액 투자수익에 대해서 면세한 후 근로자가 연금을 수령할 때 과세하는 EET(Exempt-Exempt-Taxed) 체제에 대해서, 사회에 긍정적인 경제활동을 장려하는 측면에서 중립성의 예외를 인정하고 은퇴인구에 대한 정부의 복지정책 측면에서는 원칙적으로 동의하였지만, 개인사업자의 경우 부담금에 대한 특혜(손금산입)에도 불구하고 연금 수령에 대해서 과세되지 않는 것은 조세제도의 중립성 원칙에 부합하지 않는다고 지적한 바 있습니다.

향후 어떤 나라도 조세개혁을 할때는 참고해야할 수 밖에 없는 교과서를 만드신 이 업적은 영원히 고인의 이름과 함께 할 것 같습니다.

삼가 고인의 명복을 빕니다.

 

 

출처 : https://marketdesigner.blogspot.com/2018/08/james-mirrlees-1936-2018.html?m=1

 

 Thursday, August 30, 2018

James Mirrlees 1936-2018

Here's the brief initial announcement from the University of Cambridge:

Professor Sir James Mirrlees 1936-2018


"It is with great sadness that I write to say that Professor Sir James Mirrlees has passed away. Jim died yesterday at his home in Cambridge.

"Jim is widely known as the author of some of the most luminous and influential papers in modern economics. He was awarded a Nobel Prize for his work in public economics in 1996. But over and above his great intellectual achievement, Jim was widely respected and held in great affection for his generosity in encouraging and supporting economists from all over the world."
Sanjeev Goyal FBA
Chair, Faculty of Economics
**********

Jim last visited Stanford less than a year ago, last October, to participate in a conference remembering Ken Arrow.
Here's a video of his talk, which begins with an introduction by John Shoven, explaining a little-known early connection between Jim and Ken:

설정

트랙백

댓글

새로운 저축계좌 신설 등 퇴직연금제도 규제완화

연금시장 2018. 9. 22. 21:42

9월13일 미 하원 세입위원회(House Ways and Means Committee)는 은퇴자금 관련 세법(Internal Revenue Code) 법안 “Family Savings Act of 2018″ bill을 진통 끝에 의결했습니다. (의결에 참석한 공화당 의원은 모두 찬성하고 민주당 의원은 전원 반대했다네요.)

법안의 주된 내용은

둘이상의 사용자가 같이 운영하는 연합형 퇴직연금제도(MEPs, “multiple employer plans”)에 대한 규제완화

필요시 은퇴자금의 계좌간 이동을 용의하게하는 통산성(portability) 강화

고령자의 최소 연금인출 요건 완화

새로운 저축계좌(USA, universal savings account) 신설

특히 신설된 USA는 계좌에서 벌금없이 각종 비용을 차감할 수 있도록 완화된 중도인출요건을 적용했고, 적격 가입자가 연간 2천5백달러(약 280만원)까지 소득공제 받으면서 납입 가능하다고 합니다.

 

 

출처 : https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2018/09/14/house-panel-oks-retirement-bill-leaves-annuity-iss/?cmp_share=share_facebook&slreturn=20180822083556

 

House Panel OKs Retirement Bill That Leaves Life Insurers Hungry

 
The House Ways and Means Committee marks up H.R. 6757 Thursday. (Photo: House Ways and Means) The House Ways and Means Committee marks up H.R. 6757 Thursday. (Photo: House Ways and Means)

 

Life insurance groups say they are happy to see the House Ways and Means Committee vote to endorse H.R. 6757 — a package of proposed Internal Revenue Code changes related to retirement savings and other forms of saving.

 

But the American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI) and the Insured Retirement Institute (IRI) say they want the House to pass more of the provisions included in another retirement savings bill, the Retirement Enhancement and Savings Act (RESA) bill.

House Ways and Means members voted 21-14 Thursday to support H.R. 6757 — the “Family Savings Act of 2018″ bill.

All Republicans who participated voted in favor of the bill. All Democrats who participated voted against it.

H.R. 6757 would:

 

  • Make it easier two or more employers to join together to offer “multiple employer plans,” or MEPs.
  • Add a lifetime income “portability” provision. If a retirement plan got rid of a lifetime income arrangement, it could use this provision to let the lifetime income arrangement users move the associated assets into another retirement savings arrangement.
  • Ease the current required minimum distribution rules for older retirement plan users.
  • Create a new type of savings account, the “universal savings account” (USA), that could be used to pay for any type of expense. An eligible individual would be able to contribute up to $2,500 to a USA each year without including the cash in taxable income.

The MEP provision and the lifetime income portability provision come from the RESA proposal, according to the ACLI.

The ACLI says it believes the version of H.R. 6757 that the House Ways and Means Committee approved leaves out two key RESA provisions.

One RESA provision left out would encourage retirement plan sponsors to add annuitization options, or arrangements that can convert part or all of a worker’s plan assets into a lifetime stream of retirement income.

The other RESA provision left out would require a retirement plan to give each participant an illustration showing how the participant’s savings would translate into monthly retirement income.

Susan Neely, the ACLI’s new president, said in a statement that the House can and should do more to help Americans prepare for long periods of retirement.

“It can do this by making it easier for employers to offer annuities in their retirement plans,” Neely said in the statement. “Annuities can guarantee lifetime income for workers. They can help employers offer a plan that resembles in certain ways a traditional pension that guarantees a paycheck for life to a retiree.”

IRI President Cathy Weatherford put out a statement praising House Ways and Means Chairman Kevin Brady for his work on H.R. 6757.

“We appreciate Chairman Kevin Brady’s leadership in advancing this important legislation through the committee,” Weatherford said. “However, we should not miss this opportunity to do more to significantly boost retirement security.”

Congress should do more to increase workers’ access to products that can provide guaranteed lifetime retirement income, Weatherford said.

설정

트랙백

댓글

근로자 과반수 이상이 은퇴후 대비 자산이 전혀 없습니다

연금시장 2018. 9. 20. 22:35

근로자의 과반수 이상이 은퇴후를 대비한 자산이 전혀없다고 합니다.

미국워싱턴에 소재한 비영리연구소 NIRS(National Institute on Retirement Security)는 미국의 근로가능한 연령대 인구가 약 1억명인데 이중에 57%가 은퇴후를 대비한 자산이 전혀없다라는 조사결과를 발표했습니다.

55세부터 64세 근로자의 68%가 보유하고 있는 은퇴대비 자산은 단지 일년 연봉(약 4만달러) 수준인데 은퇴후 기본적인 생활을 유지하는 데에는 턱없이 부족한 수준입니다.

근로자의 77%는 67세까지 일을 한다고 해도 은퇴자산이 본인이 예상하는 최소한의 수준에 미달할 거라고 합니다.

 

출처: http://www.pionline.com/article/20180918/ONLINE/180919833/majority-of-working-age-americans-have-no-retirement-savings-8211-nirs-report

 

Majority of working-age Americans have no retirement savings – NIRS report

The median retirement account balance among working-age Americans is zero, according to a research report by the National Institute on Retirement Security, a non-profit research group based in Washington.

Using U.S. Census Bureau data, the institute also found 57% of working-age Americans — more than 100 million people — don't have retirement assets in an employer-sponsored defined contribution plan, pension plan or individual retirement account.

"Retirement is in peril for most working-class Americans," Diane Oakley, the report's author and NIRS executive director, said in a news release Monday.

 

The report found about 80% of working Americans have less than one year's income saved in retirement accounts. "Also, 77% of Americans fall short of conservative retirement savings targets for their age based on working until age 67, even after counting an individual's entire net worth — a generous measure of retirement savings," the news release said.

The NIRS report noted that even among retirement account savers, the typical worker had a balance of just $40,000.

"This is far off track from the savings levels Americans need if they hope to sustain their standard of living in retirement," Ms. Oakley said.

The report added 68% of individuals ages 55 to 64 have retirement savings "equal to less than one time their annual income, which is far below what they will need to maintain their standard of living over their expected years in retirement."

설정

트랙백

댓글

감독원, 연금에 대한 재검토 촉구

연금시장 2018. 8. 31. 00:11

퇴직연금 일시금이 제대로 계산되어 지급되었는지 재검토할 것을 영국 감독원이 촉구했읍니다.

퇴직자가 퇴직후에도 연기금에서 연금을 수령하는 미국이나 영국의 DB형 퇴직연금제도에서도 퇴직자가 원할 경우 연금이 아닌 일시금으로 수령할 수 있습니다.

그런데 최근 저금리가 지속되어 인플레이션을 감당하지 못하는 수준이 되다보니 연금수령보다 차라리 일시금을 수령해서 달리 노후를 대비하겠다는 사람이 늘고 있습니다.

이 과정에서 생각지도 못한 문제가 생겼습니다. 일시금을 연기금에서 빼가는 퇴직자에게 제대로 가치평가를 하지않고 후하게 줘서 내보낸다면 어찌될까요?
연기금의 재정건전정은 악화되고 그 피해는 고스란히 여전히 연금으로 수령하는 은퇴자들과 기금적립단계에 있는 재직자들에게 돌아가는 거죠.

그래서 영국 감독원(The Pensions Regulator)은 일시금으로 빼갈때의 값인 “cash equivalent transfer values”  (CETVs)가 과하다고 여겨지는 14개 연기금에 대해 가치산정 과정을 재검토해보라고 촉구했습니다.

 

출처 : https://www.ft.com/content/c9d497b0-aaa2-11e8-94bd-cba20d67390c?segmentid=acee4131-99c2-09d3-a635-873e61754ec6
 

 Pension schemes at risk from lump sum payouts, warns regulator
  
  
     Josephine Cumbo, Pensions Correspondent
  

   The Pensions Regulator has urged 14 company retirement schemes to consider cutting the cash offers made to members to give up their “gold standard” benefits, amid concern that “overly generous” payouts could damage the remaining funds.The amount of money flowing out of company “defined benefit” schemes reached a record £21bn over the past year, as tens of thousands of current and former workers converted their future retirement income stream into a cash lump sum. Many unretired members of these retirement plans, usually tied to final salary levels, were tempted to give up their pension rights by six-figure cash deals, at historical highs largely due to the effect of low interest rates inflating the lifetime value of the benefits.The Pensions Regulator wrote in February to the trustees of 14 plans experiencing high levels of requests from members to transfer their defined benefit rights, urging them to review the “cash equivalent transfer values” (CETVs), or deals offered. Concern over such transfers, which have accelerated since reform gave savers more freedom over their pension pots, have previously focused on the risk to individual savers of giving up a guaranteed lifetime income. But the letter also made clear the regulator was worried by the potential damage to the company pension funds of paying out large cash sums.“In light of the recent events concerning your scheme sponsors, we would expect you to take advice from your scheme actuary about whether the basis on which CETVs are calculated remained appropriate,” it said in a letter released following a freedom of information request.The regulator said this process would allow the trustees to “judge whether a reduction, or further reduction, should be applied to CETVs” in light of their assessment of the strength of the employer standing behind the pension scheme, also known as the covenant.The letter was sent to trustees of schemes, which were not named, as part of a drive to protect members from transfers that were not in their best interests, and from pension scams, as transfer activity peaked.Approximately 180,000 defined benefit pensions transfers took place in the two years to the end of March 2018, according to the regulator’s estimates.Steve Webb, director of policy with Royal London, which lodged the freedom of information request, said there was a concern that those transferring out were being offered cash lump sums on relatively generous terms at a time when the pension scheme itself might be in deficit or the employer regarded as vulnerable.“If large numbers of members transfer out on generous terms there would be a risk that the funding position of the scheme could worsen and the risk of remaining members not getting their full pensions could increase,” said Sir Steve. He believed the letter had been sent to the country’s largest schemes.

     Martin Hunter, principal with Xafinity Punter Southall, a consultancy, said: “The key overriding principle for trustees is to make sure the transfer offered is fair to the member, but the trustees need to make sure the remaining members are not disadvantaged by a transfer, if there’s a big deficit in the scheme.”Industry experts said CETVs had fallen at some defined benefit schemes after the letter was sent.“There are some schemes that are reducing their transfer values, because the funding level is low and or they have significant concerns about the covenant,” said Graham McLean, head of scheme funding, with Willis Towers Watson, the professional services firm.About £21bn of defined benefit transfers took place between April 2017 and March 2018, according to the Financial Conduct Authority. But the Office for National Statistics reported £37bn in transfers out of occupational schemes in 2017, up from £12.8bn the year before. This figure included transfers from defined contribution pension schemes, but experts said the figure was predominantly defined benefit transfers.The Pensions Regulator declined to say to whom the letter had been sent. Lloyds Banking Group and Barclays, who have both seen some of the highest levels of pension transfer activity of all FTSE 100 employers, said they had not been asked by the regulator to review the CETVs offered.

설정

트랙백

댓글

수수료 부담없이 연금받기

연금시장 2018. 8. 22. 02:59

은퇴자들이 은퇴자금은 다 써버렸는데도 살아있다면 이것도 큰 문제(outliving pension savings)입니다.

이런 은퇴자들의 장수리스크(longevity risk)를 해결한 금융상품이 종신연금인데, 수수료 많이 떼면서 보험회사에 맡기기 싫기는 영국 사람들도 마찬가지인가 봅니다.

은퇴자들끼리 풀을 만들고 각자가 알아서 좌수단위로 투자하고 인출하되 사망하면 자녀에게 유산을 남기는 대신에 남은 자산을 전부 풀안의 다른 참가자에게 넘깁니다. 소위 장수크레딧(longevity credit)을 주는 거죠. 그럼 오래 살면 먼저 사망한 사람이 남기고 간 크레딧을 먹고 중간상인에게 수수료 안 내도 되는 거죠.

물론 역선택(adverse selection ) 있습니다. 그래서 waiting period로 10년을 기본으로 하는 것을 제안하네요.

(사견) 블록체인이 보편화된다면 굳이 금융회사없이도 pool안에 들어가 가입자들끼리 장수크레딧을 주고 받을 수 있지 않을까 조심스럽게 생각해봅니다.

 

출처 : http://www.theactuary.com/features/2018/08/pooling-pensioners-resources/

 

Pooling pensioners’ resources 

Catherine Donnelly discusses the new drawndown products that increase returns through longevity credits. 


09 AUGUST 2018 | CATHERINE DONNELLY

©Ikon
©Ikon


Elderly people outliving their pension savings is a genuine risk in a drawdown world. As the workplace pensions system gets under way in the UK, but with default contribution rates too low to provide a reasonable chance of a comfortable retirement, this problem will increase. 

New products that pool longevity risk can reduce the chance of a poor retirement income. Pooling enables pensioners to generate returns that are in addition to their investment returns. While the risk of outliving one’s retirement savings is not eliminated, it is mitigated. This is a massive benefit in a drawdown environment. 

The reason for the reduction in longevity risk is simple: the members of the pool become the beneficiaries of each other. When one of the pool members dies, the value of their allocated assets is shared out among the pool’s participants. The value received by each member is called a longevity credit. 

A longevity credit is paid only when someone dies. In this way, pensioners gain from pooling if they remain alive. They do not lose any of their money, except upon their own death. 

As a simple example, the pooling can operate in a unit-linked fund environment. Pensioners can choose units as they would normally, but with the chosen units earmarked to be part of the pool. Upon the death of a member, each pool participant receives a proportion of the value of the deceased member’s units. This could be paid out as a cash sum or re-invested in additional units, according to the stated preferences of each participant. 

In the past, the popular choice for guaranteeing a lifetime income was the life annuity contract. The insurance company bears all the risk, the cost of which will be passed onto the customer. Is it necessary for all these risks to be eliminated for the customer, though? If customers benefit from the pooling of lives while maintaining investment control of their assets, they can reduce the risk of outliving their assets without having to pay for costly investment and longevity guarantees. 

Consider a 67-year-old man who has the choice of investing £100,000 in either a drawdown product or a pooled product. He wishes to have a an income of £5,000 per annum, withdrawn at the start of each year. For simplicity, assume there are no investment returns. Suppose that the longevity credit received is equal to its expected value and is added to his wealth at the start of each year. 

Figure 1 shows the development of his fund value, according to how much of his asset value is assigned to the pool. Pooling 50% of his fund value at all times, he never runs out of money while alive. Pooling 35% of his total fund value, he exhausts his fund at 101 – still a valuable result. In the drawdown product, he has no money left at 87, having had 20 years’ payment of £5,000 per annum. 


Figure 1. Fund value at each age for a pensioner who withdrawers £5,000 per annum and has no investment returns, according to what percentage of their assets is allocated to the pool. 

Figure 1
Figure 1

 



Some features 

The example above is, of course, idealised. In practice, longevity credits will be volatile in size and frequency. As investment returns are also volatile, the calculation of the overall risk of a pensioner’s financial position needs to take account of the volatility of investment returns and longevity credits together. 

The volatility of the longevity credit depends on the composition of the pool. Numerical results in Donnelly, Guillén and Nielsen (2014) show that pools can operate with only a few hundred members, assuming moderate heterogeneity in the age-wealth membership profile. 

What about the pensioner’s investment choice? Is it restricted, and do they have to invest the same way as everyone else in the pool? Not at all. One could choose to invest entirely in equities, another in cash. With explicit mortality pooling methods, the decision to pool assets with others is separate from the decision of how to invest those assets. 

The separation of the return on assets into two parts – investment return and longevity credit – allows further innovation. For example, an insurer could offer to remove the downside risk that the longevity credit is less than expected, for a fee. This is explored in Donnelly and Young (2017). 


Practical implementation
 

While the benefits of mortality pooling are clear, what about the practical implementation? 

To ensure fairness among members, a reasonable estimate of everyone’s mortality risk is needed. The estimate of mortality risk can be updated as often as desired, to reflect current expectations of mortality. 

However, adverse selection must also be considered. A person who is in excellent health may receive a larger longevity credit than they should, on an actuarially fair basis. The opposite goes for someone who is poorly. 

One solution is to have a waiting period before people can join the pool – such as 10 years. This takes the viewpoint of solidarity: at the outset, few will know if they will be sick or healthy in 10 years’ time. If the pensioner dies before the period has elapsed, all their asset value is paid to their estate, rather than to pool participants. After the waiting period has elapsed, rather than trying to track everyone’s health status, average mortality risk estimates could be used to calculate longevity credits. 

A product that pools longevity risk, Mercer LifetimePlus, has already been launched in Australia. While the pooling mechanism is not revealed in the product literature, its existence demonstrates that there is a commercial appetite for such products. 

Outlook 

In an IFoA autumn webinar, Catherine Donnelly will outline methods of explicitly pooling mortality risk. The study of new mortality pooling products is part of the IFoA’s Actuarial Research Centre (ARC), within the funded project ‘Minimising longevity and investment risk while optimising future pension plans’. It is led by Catherine Donnelly of Heriot-Watt University and Jens Perch Nielsen of Cass Business School, City University London. 

Keeping it in proportion 

Several mechanisms for sharing out longevity credits are known. The general approach is that each member of the pool receives a credit that is proportional to their own risk of dying and their own asset value (where only the assets allocated to the pool are counted). 

An attractive feature for any mechanism is actuarial fairness: members should not expect to lose or gain from their participation in the pool. This means that the expected value of the longevity credits received by a member while they are alive should equal the expected value of their own asset value conditional on their death. The advantage to members is in the timing of when they gain and when they lose. They ‘gain’ while they remain alive, and only ‘lose’ upon their death. 

The mechanism proposed by Donnelly, Guillén and Nielsen (2014) is actuarially fair and works for any group of participants, no matter what their individual asset values or mortality risk. This and other mechanisms, and how they can be integrated into products for retirement, are studied within the IFoA funded project ‘Minimising longevity and investment risk while optimising future pension plans’ as part of the Actuarial Research Centre. 

'연금시장' 카테고리의 다른 글

세계3위 국민연금!  (0) 2018.09.08
감독원, 연금에 대한 재검토 촉구  (0) 2018.08.31
연기금 채권 발행  (0) 2018.08.11
퇴직연금의 안전자산 투자 증가  (0) 2018.08.05
감옥에서 노후를 보내고 싶어요  (1) 2018.08.04

설정

트랙백

댓글

수명증가 추세가 처음으로 둔화되었습니다

보험영업 2018. 8. 13. 01:01

인간의 수명이 계속 늘어나기만 할 것 같았는데 그렇지만은 않네요.
영국에서 기대여명의 증가율이 남자 65세는 71%, 여자 65세는 90% 낮아졌다고 합니다.

부과방식의 공적연금은 그간 기대여명이 계속 늘어나는 통에 꾸준히 연금 수령 나이를 늦춰왔는데 이젠 재고해야하지 않냐는 언급이 있습니다.

출처: http://www.theactuary.com/news/2018/08/uk-life-expectancy-improvements-among-worst-in-developed-world/

 

UK life expectancy rises among worst in developed world

Life expectancy improvements in the UK were among the worst recorded across the developed world between 2011 and 2016, new official figures have revealed.

08 AUGUST 2018 | CHRIS SEEKINGS
British women saw the biggest slowdown ©iStock
British women saw the biggest slowdown ©iStock


The data shows that British women saw the biggest slowdown, with average life expectancy increases slumping 90% to 1.2 weeks, compared with 12.9 weeks over the previous six years.

Only the US recorded a greater downturn than the UK for males, with British men seeing their life expectancy improvements fall nearly 76% from 17.3 weeks to 4.2 weeks.

This is in stark contrast to life expectancy growth recorded among several Scandinavian countries, and a reversal of the 2006-2011 data when the UK was among the top performers.

Former pensions minister, Steve Webb, said the “worrying” trends highlight the need for more government research, suggesting there may be “longer term factors at work”.

“There is a real human cost behind these statistics and we urgently need to understand more about why this is happening,” he continued.

“If other countries can ride out economic storms and continue to drive up life expectancy, there is no reason why the UK should not be able to do so.”

The data shows that the slowdown in life expectancy improvements was most pronounced among 65-to-79-year-olds in the 20 countries studied, with females more affected than males.

The UK also experienced the biggest slowdown in life expectancy growth for both males and females aged 65, falling by 71% and 90% respectively.

Royal London pensions specialist, Helen Morrissey, said the assumption that dramatic life expectancy improvements will continue forever “continues to be challenged.” 

“Planned increases in the state pension age will need to be reviewed to take account of the latest data, and pension schemes may find that their liabilities are lower than expected,” she continued.

“Much more work is needed to understand the reasons for this data so that pension funds and providers understand whether this is a temporary slowdown or part of a much longer-term trend.”

설정

트랙백

댓글