The Scholar | Pension360

Changing the Conversation About Pension Reform

Keith Ambachtsheer, Director Emeritus of the International Centre for Pension Management at the University of Toronto, wants to change the conversation around pension reform from “dysfunctional” to “constructive”.

In a recent article in the Financial Analysts Journal, Ambachtsheer explains how the reform conversation can be “re-framed” and become more productive. He writes:

The sustainability of traditional public sector defined benefit (DB) plans has become front-page news and the subject of acrimonious debates usually framed in stark terms of DB versus DC (defined contribution). This either/or framing is unhelpful: It simply perpetuates the strongly held views of the defenders and critics of these two opposing pension models. Moving the pension reform yardsticks in the right direction requires that we stop this dysfunctional either/or framing and move on to a more constructive conversation about what we want our pension arrangements to achieve and what that tells us about how to design them.

[…]

So, how do I propose to change the conversation about pension reform from dysfunctional to constructive? By reflecting on the implications of five pension design realities:

1. All good pension systems have three common features.

2. All pension systems have embedded risks that must be understood and managed.

3. Some of these risks have an intergenerational dimension.

4. Pension plan sustainability requires intergenerational fairness.

5. Achieving this fairness has plan design implications.

The three design features common to all good pension systems are:

1. inclusiveness—all workers are afforded a fair opportunity to provide for their retirement;

2. fitness-for-purpose—the system is purposefully designed to start paying a target pension for life on a target retirement date; and

3. cost-effectiveness—retirement savings are transformed into pension payments by “value for money” pension organizations.

Surely, no rational person would disagree with these three features. So far, so good.

Ambachtsheer goes on to talk about the failings of DB plans in recent years – but says it would be a “tragedy” to scrap them for DC plans:

Remember how we talked ourselves into a “new era” paradigm as the last decade of the 20th century unfolded? As it ended, most DB plan funded ratios were well over 100%. Did we treat these balance sheet surpluses as “rainy day” funds to see the plans through the coming lean years? We did not. Predictably, we spent the surpluses on benefit increases and contribution holidays. After all, was this not a new era of outsized economic growth rates and stock market returns? Was taking on more risk not synonymous with earning even higher returns?

A decade later, we know that the answers to these turn-of-the-century rhetorical questions are no and no. On top of these stark economic realities, red-faced actuaries are now confessing that they have been underestimating increases in retiree longevity for quite some time.

Given the current poor financial condition of many public sector DB plans, it should come as no surprise that people on the far right of the political spectrum want to do away with this type of pension arrangement altogether. Doing so would be a tragedy. I agree with Leech and McNish that none of these weaknesses need be fatal if we repair them now.

But how to repair DB plans? Ambachtsheer offers the idea of defined ambition (DA) plans. He writes:

It seems to me that ditching the dysfunctional DB/DC language is the best way to start these repairs. Political leaders in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Australia have already done so. They now speak of defined ambition (DA) pension plans. Vigorous debates on how best to design and implement DA plans are taking place in all four countries.3 In my view, a good DA pension plan has six critical features:

1. A target income-replacement rate—how much postwork income is needed to maintain an adequate standard of living?

2. A target contribution rate—given realistic assumptions about working-life length, longevity, and net real investment returns, how much money needs to be set aside to achieve the pension target?

3. Course correction capabilities—the plan provides regular updates on progress toward targets and offers course correction options when needed.

4. Fully defined property rights and no intergenerational wealth shifting—the plan design is tested for intergenerational fairness and clear property rights.

5. Long-horizon wealth-creation capability—the pension delivery organization can acquire and nurture healthy multi-decade cash flows (e.g., streams of dividends, rents, tolls) through a well-managed long-horizon investment program.

6. Payment-certainty purchase capability—plan members can acquire guaranteed deferred life annuities at a reasonable price.

The entire article, which contains more analysis than excerpted here, can be read here.

Photo by AJC1 via Flickr CC License

Does Investment Return Affect Pension Costs?

Does Investment Return Affect Pension Costs? Larry Bader, who worked as an actuary for 20 years before moving to Wall Street, tackled that question in the latest issue of the Financial Analysts Journal.

An excerpt of his answer:

Answer: It doesn’t.

Yes, a higher return on plan assets reduces the funding requirements for the pension plan and the expense that the sponsor must report. But the plan’s true economic cost is independent of the investment performance of the plan assets.

To see why this is so, suppose that you establish a fund to pay for your child’s college education and I do the same for my child. We make equal contributions to our respective funds, and we both face the same tuition payments. But being a smarter, bolder, or luckier investor, you grow your college fund to twice the size of mine. Can we now say that your child’s education costs less than my child’s education? Surely not. Our tuition payments are the same; it’s just that you have a larger education fund available to help pay your child’s tuition.

Or think of it this way: Suppose that your college education fund performed miserably and a similar fund that you had set up to buy a small vacation home struck it rich. Would you now say that college tuition has become very expensive but vacation homes very cheap? Can you now afford to buy a vacation mansion — or private island — but not to send your child to college? Behavioral economics suggests that you might think along those lines, but common sense says, “Get over it.”

Similarly, a higher pension fund return does not lower the economic cost of the plan. The economic cost reflects solely the amount and timing of the pension payments, which are unaffected by the size or growth of the assets.

To read the full answer, click here.

What Types of People Should Manage Institutional Money?

What traits does it take to be a successful manager of institutional money? A high IQ? A steady temperament? A penchant for going on lucky streaks?

Jack Gray, of the Paul Woolley Centre for Capital Market Dysfunctionality at University of Technology, Sydney, dives deep into this question in a recent article published in the Rotman International Journal of Pension Management.

From the article:

Successful investors are likely to be overweight on several the following traits:

• A paradoxical blend of arrogance, to discover and arbitrage opportunities ahead of the market, and humility, to simultaneously be skeptical about those discoveries.

• A commitment to the principle “know thyself” – for instance, recognizing when previously justified contrarianism has degenerated into unjustified stubbornness.

• The ability to make effective decisions under uncertainty, ambiguity, and pressure. A temperament that seeks comfort and stability will likely be ill-suited to investing.

• The confidence to encourage and absorb dissent yet to know when to act. Almost all organized human endeavors have at their core a paradigm of broadly agreed beliefs, stylized facts, and patterns of thought that impose a uniformity of views.

Ideas that challenge the paradigm tend to be ignored, not absorbed: Markowitz’s thesis was not rated as genuine economics, while Akerlof’s ground-breaking paper on the pricing impact of information asymmetry (Akerlof 1970) was twice rejected. Both eventually won Nobel prizes.

• The wisdom to know when to cooperate, a rare trait in a culture that has elevated competition to quasi-religious status. Much (though not all) investment information is “non-rival,” so that its value increases through sharing, as evident in open-source ventures. Yet by temperament, training, and incentives, many have an antipathy to sharing. In a study that engaged students in a game in which participants do better by cooperating, 60% of general students cooperated while only 40% of economics students did (Frank et al. 1999).

• The self-control to value patience, and so resist the short-term imperative and its eternal concomitant, being busy.

• A willingness to question and be curious, traits lacking in many boards that oversee other people’s money. After spending time embedded in American pension funds, the anthropologists O’Barr and Conley (1992) reported “a surprising lack of interest in questioning and surprisingly little interest in considering alternatives.”

Gray goes on to write that we can put people into two categories: hedgehogs and foxes. And while the investment world has plenty of the former, it is short on the latter. From the article:

Isaiah Berlin (1953) bequeathed us a crude but useful typology of people: hedgehogs view the world through the lens of a single defining, and usually substantial, idea; foxes view it through multiple lenses. Both types are needed in investing, but we are over-populated with hedgehogs who better fit compartmentalized corporate structures and are more fecund. We need more foxes, people with broader perspectives willing to trespass—a notion coined by Albert Hirschman (1981)—into foreign fields.

[…]

Cultural change is needed to recognize, support, and reward foxes, who tend to be spurned by tribal hedgehogs as soft-headed dilettantes. To Charlie Munger (1994), having different mental models is the most important thing in investing, because they expose new opportunities and drive a dialectic of risk. Investment organizations should seek more people with “contrary imaginations,” as the psychologist Liam Hudson (1967) phrases it: people with exceptional intelligence in alternative but meaningful ways; people with intelligence about the humanities, especially history and psychology, the disciplines that underlie and drive markets; people with emotional intelligence to direct and manage others; and people with organizational intelligence to get things done.

Gray provides much more analysis in the full article, which can be read here.

Photo by Nick Wheeler via Flickr CC License

The Case For Long-Termism in Pension Investments

Pension funds, more so than other investors, operate on a particularly long time horizon.

But that doesn’t mean funds can’t succumb to short-term thinking.

Keith Ambachtsheer, Director Emeritus of the International Centre for Pension Management at the University of Toronto, makes the case for more long-term thinking at pension funds in a recent paper published in the Rotman International Journal of Pension Management.

He lays the groundwork of short-term thinking at pension funds by presenting this statistic:

My 2011 survey of 37 major pension funds found that only 8 (22%) based performance-related compensation on measures over four years or more.

In other words, pension funds aren’t rewarding long-term thinking. But how can that be changed? From the paper:

A good start is to insist that the representatives of asset owners become true fiduciaries, legally required to act in the sole best interest of the people (e.g., shareholders, pension beneficiaries) to whom they owe a fiduciary duty….the resulting message for the governing boards of pension and other long-horizon investment organizations (e.g., endowments) is that they must stretch out the time horizon in which they frame their duties, as well as recognizing the interconnected impact of their decisions on multiple constituents to whom they owe loyalty (e.g., not just current pension beneficiaries but also future ones).

Increasingly, fiduciary behavior and decisions will be judged not by a cookie-cutter off-the-shelf “prudent person” standard by a much broader “reasonable expectations” standard.

A logical implication of these developments is that the individual and collective actions of the world’s leading pension funds are our best hope to transform investing into more functional, wealth-creating processes.

It will take work, but a shift to long-termism will be worth it, according to the paper:

Institutional investors around the globe, led by the pension fund sector, are well placed to play a “lead wagon” fiduciary role as we set out to address these challenges. Indeed, the emerging view is that pension sector leaders have a legal obligation to look beyond tomorrow, and to focus the capital at their disposal on the long term.

Will the effort be worth it? Logic and history tell us that the answer is “yes.” Qualitatively, long-termism naturally fosters good citizenship; quantitatively, a 2011 study that calculates the combined impact of plugging the upstream and downstream “leakages” in conventional investment decision making with a short-term focus found that the resulting shift to long-termism could be worth as much as 150 basis points (1.5%) per annum in increased investment returns (Ambachtsheer, Fuller, and Hindocha 2013).

Read the entire paper, titled The Case for Long-Termism, here [subscription required].

Pension Funds, Asset Allocation and Bad Habits

All too often, investors can fall victim to recency bias and return chasing.

Pension funds, it turns out, are no exception.

Three researchers – Andrew Ang, Amit Goyal and Antti Ilmanen – analyzed 978 pension funds’ target allocations over a 22-year period to determine whether the funds were chasing returns, and the cost of such chasing.

The paper was published in the most recent issue of Rotman International Journal of Pension Management. An excerpt where the researchers summarize their findings:

Many pension funds rebalance their asset-class allocations regularly to specific target weights, such as the conventional 60% stocks and 40% bonds. But there is anecdotal evidence that funds may let their allocations drift with relative asset-class performance. This may reflect passive buy-and-hold policies, a desire to maintain asset-class allocations near market-cap weights, or more proactive return chasing. We focus on the last possibility.

[…]

Our key findings are easily summarized: pension funds, in the aggregate, do not recognize the shift from momentum to reversal tendencies in asset returns beyond the one-year horizon, and instead the typical pension fund keeps chasing returns over multi-year horizons, to the detriment of the institution’s long-run wealth.

We hope that this evidence will help at least some pension funds to reconsider their asset allocation practices.

Chief Investment Officer magazine further summarizes the paper’s findings:

Corporate and public pension funds alike tended to increase exposure to asset classes with strong returns in both the short and longer term, the paper noted. Even performance three years prior influenced allocation patterns. While the study split out pension funds by size and plan sponsors, they found no statistically significant variance in behavior.

The researchers then turned to a data set provided by AQR, covering global equity, bond, and commodity markets since 1900. Based on more than a century of market activity, the study found momentum patterns on a one-year time horizon. Beyond that, the only statistically significant result showed that two years following a given return, performance was likely to have moved in the opposite direction.

The entire paper, titled Asset Allocation and Bad Habits, can be read here [subscription required].

Photo by Andreas Poike via Flickr CC License

How Should Investors Manage Climate Change Risk?

CalPERS is measuring the carbon footprint of its portfolio. CalSTRS is helping to fund a study on the market impact of climate change.

For the first time, institutional investors are beginning to wonder: How will climate change impact the value of our investments?

Howard Covington of Cambridge University and Raj Thamotheram of the Network for Sustainable Financial Markets tackled that question in a recent paper, titled How Should Investors Manage Climate Change Risk, in the most recent issue of the Rotman International Journal of Pension Management. From the paper:

The consequences of high warming, if we collectively go along this path, will emerge in the second half of this century; they are therefore remote in investment terms….Capital markets anticipate the future rather well, which suggests that investment values may respond strongly over this time scale as views on the most likely path begin to crystallize. Technologies for producing and storing electrical energy from renewable fuel sources, for energy-efficient housing and offices, and for reducing or capturing and disposing of greenhouse gas emissions from industrial processes are moving along rapidly. In important areas, costs are falling quickly. Given appropriate and moderate policy nudges and continuing economic and social stability, it is overwhelmingly likely that the global economy will substantially decarbonize during this century.

If…an emissions peak in the 2020s becomes a plausible prospect, investment values for fossil fuels, electrical utilities, and renewable energy (among others) will react strongly. The value of many fossil fuel investment projects will turn negative as assets lose their economic value and become stranded; companies and countries will face significant write-downs, with clear consequences for financial asset prices.

As the authors note, we don’t know exactly how the earth will eventually react to greenhouse gasses. Different responses will have different implications for the global economy. From the paper:

If we are unlucky, and the climate’s response comes out at the upper end of the range while emissions go on climbing, the likelihood of the global economy’s potentially heading toward rolling collapse will significantly increase. A run of extreme weather events in the 2020s, particularly events that lead to sharp increases in prices for staple crops or inundate prominent cities, might then focus the attention of the capital markets on the consequences. A broad adjustment of asset values might then follow as investors try to assess in detail the likely winners and losers from the prospect of an increasingly turbulent global social, economic, and political future.

We are not suggesting that this kind of outcome is unavoidable, or even that it is the most likely. We are merely noting that the chance of events’ unfolding in this way over the next 10 to 15 years is significant, that it will rise sharply in the absence of a robust climate deal next year, and that long-term investors need to factor this into their investment analysis and strategy.

If these scenarios correctly capture the likely outcomes, then we have reached a turning point for the global economy. For the past 150 years, the exploitation of fossil fuels has generated enormous value for investors, both directly and by enabling global industrialization and growth; but it is now rational to anticipate that continued and increasing emissions from fossil fuel use might, over several decades, lead to the destruction of investment value on a global scale. Moreover, capital markets may adjust to this possibility on a relatively short time scale.

So how should institutional investors respond?

Broadly speaking, there are three main ways that investors can help. The first is to raise the cost of capital for companies or projects that will increase greenhouse emissions. The second is to lower the cost of capital for companies or projects that will reduce greenhouse emissions. The third is to use their influence to encourage legislators and regulators to take action to accelerate the transition from a high- to a low-emissions economy.

Formally adopting a policy of divesting from the fossil fuel sector can be helpful with the first of these, provided that the reasons for doing so are made public, so that other investors are encouraged to consider their own positions. Alternatively, active investors might take significant shareholdings in fossil fuel companies, so as to exert a material strategic influence to prevent investments that encourage long-term value destruction.

Supporting investments in renewable energy sources and related sectors is particularly effective where the potential exists to disrupt traditional industries. Tesla Motors is a case in point, since the potential for rapid growth of electric vehicles could transform the auto industry. Through the related development of high-performance, low-cost battery packs, it may also transform both the domestic use of solar power and the electrical utility business.

There is little time left for legislators to agree on the terms for orderly cooperative action to reduce emissions. Investors concerned about long-term value should act now to encourage the adoption of mechanisms to ensure an early peak and rapid decline in greenhouse missions. By the end of 2015, the chance for this kind of action will have largely passed.

The above excerpts represent only a portion of the insights the paper has to offer. The rest of the article can be read here [subscription required].

Photo by Penagate via Flickr CC

The Ethics of Plan Design

Retirement plan designers often encounter ethical dilemmas over the course of their careers.

A recent paper in the Journal of Pension Benefits, authored by Kelly Marie Hurd, dives into some ethical scenarios that might be presented to plan consultants.

First: Clients need to know the regulations surrounding the plan – even if they don’t necessarily want to hear them:

To a client, the laws and regulations can feel like a foreign language at best or at worst can seem like a hindrance. However, they also can be an excellent safety net to help clients understand the importance of avoiding discrimination issues. The various tests that must be performed each year help keep the plan on the right path, and taking the time to explain those requirements, at least in a general way, during the implementation stage can go a long way to ensuring that your client has a basic understanding of what is and what is not permissible.

It’s also important the plan consultant untangle the web of competing interests being brought to the table:

Different types of retirement plan professionals bring different perspectives to the plan design process, perspectives that may be complementary or competing…

An investment advisor may be primarily concerned with enrollment and access for employees to boost participation in the plan, as well as maintaining relationships with the participants to help them meet their financial goals. While all of these are reasonable perspectives, they also may lead to differences of opinion when it comes to plan design. For example, the investment advisor may want to push auto-enrollment, while the TPA has concerns about the possibility for missed enrollments that would then lead to potentially costly corrections. Rather than competing over such questions, the investment advisor and TPA should work collaboratively to communicate the pros and cons of the different design options to arrive at the design that is best for the client to target benefits, expand participation, etc., while ensuring that the client has a compliant and qualified plan.

Finally, the author presents this scenario:

There are many times you wish you could explain something to your client about how the plan works in simple language, but the solution leads you into an area where you are explaining discrimination to your client in a way that might influence his or her hiring practices. I have a client, a professional office, where the owner employs three staff members. The owner is nearing retirement and hoping to put away the maximum amount each year, although he does not draw a large salary. The plan is a cross-tested plan, which means that to get to a 70 percent coverage level, all three of the staff members need to benefit at the same percentage as the owner. And in this company, the office manager is only a few years younger than the owner.

It seems like such an easy suggestion to tell the client to hire a part-time college-age worker and make him or her eligible for the plan, but at the end of the day that is a potentially abusive manipulation of both the retirement plan regulations and age discrimination laws. Rather than suggest demographic changes, I revisit the plan design each year to see if there is a better option based on the existing demographics. There may not always be a cookie-cutter solution, but it is our illustrious burden to continue to strive for that perfection.

To read the entire paper, titled “The Ethics of Plan Design”, click here [subscription required].

Photo by Stephen Wu via Flickr CC License

The Value of an Investment Policy Statement

Pension funds, both public and private, each have an Investment Policy Statement (IPS). An IPS provides a formal framework for investing the pension fund’s assets, including asset allocation targets and investment objectives.

But what are the values of having such a statement? A recent paper by Anthony L. Scialabba and Carol Lawton, published in the Journal of Pension Benefits, dives deep into that question.

Regarding the value of the statement, it can be used to show that trustees are indeed acting as “prudent investors”. From the paper:

With regard to the duty of prudence, conduct is what counts, not the results of the performance of the investments. An IPS can show that a prudent investment procedure was in place. In addition, an IPS can protect plan fiduciaries from inadvertently making arbitrary and ill-advised decisions. The directions outlined in the IPS can provide the fiduciaries with confidence in bad economic times that they made sound investment decisions in accordance with the plan sponsor’s or administrator’s intentions.

An IPS can also be a good communication tool, both for plan participants and for trustees:

An IPS can enhance employee morale in providing clear communication of the plan’s investment policy to participants. A plan sponsor can post a plan’s IPS on the Internet to provide participants with helpful insight into how the plan’s investments are chosen and maintained. This can reassure employees and encourage participation because they know that the investment fiduciaries have a sound investment structure in place. In addition, an IPS can enhance the morale of management if its members serve on the investment committee of a plan, as they are given guidance by which to judge their decisions and performance.

The authors also note that having a strong IPS – and sticking to it – can translate into strong investment performance.

There are some drawbacks to IPSs as well. To read about them, and read the rest of the paper (titled “Investment Policy Statements: Their Values and Their Drawbacks”), click here [subscription required].

Exploring Defined Benefit Distribution Decisions By Public Employees

When public workers with defined benefit plans leave their jobs, they are usually given the option to either withdraw their accrued retirement savings as a lump sum or keep their retirement account open, to be redeemed upon retirement.

If the employee elects to go the lump-sum route, they can roll that money over into an IRA or simply accept it as taxable income and pay the associated penalty for early withdrawal.

Employees around the country make this decision every day. But it’s one with significant retirement implications, and there’s little understanding as to what drives people to decide one way or the other.

In a paper recently published in the Journal of Public Economics, Robert L. Clark, Melinda Sandler Morrill and David Vanderweide explore the decision-making process.

The basic findings of the paper:

Using administrative data from the North Carolina state and local government retirement systems, we find that over two-thirds of public sector workers under age 50 separating prior to retirement from public plans in North Carolina left their accounts open and did not request a cash distribution from the pension system within one year of separation.

Furthermore, the evidence suggests many separating workers, particularly those with short tenure, may be forgoing substantial monetary benefits due to lack of knowledge, understanding, or accessibility of benefits. We find no evidence of a bias toward cash distributions for public employees in North Carolina.

More detailed findings from the paper:

We find that fewer than one-third of all terminating public employees requested a LS [lump sum] within one year of separation, despite the finding that for over 70% of terminations, the LS was larger than the estimated PDVA. These results indicate a low probability of leakage from retirement funds, although many workers are seemingly forgoing the possibility of higher retirement income possible from rolling over funds to an IRA.

We offer several potential explanations for why the distributional choice from a public pension plan is more complex than a simple wealth comparison at a point in time. First, separating participants in TSERS qualify for retiree health insurance from the State Health Plan with no premium as long as they are receiving a monthly annuity from TSERS…Despite the difference in coverage of retiree health insurance in the two systems, we do not see a large difference in the distributional choices between separating workers that will qualify for retiree health insurance and those that will not.

Second, we consider the likelihood that terminated participants may plan to return to public employment. The expectation of returning to public employment might make maintaining the account the optimal choice for these individuals…

…workers are not responding to incentives of outside investment options. We do find that when the state unemployment rate rises, individuals are significantly less likely to withdraw funds. This could be due to selection into who is separating employment, or it may be that individuals more heavily rely on defaults in times of economic turmoil.

The final explanations we consider for why public sector workers in North Carolina do not withdraw funds at a higher rate are financial literacy, peer effects, and inertia. The default is to leave funds in the system. The behavior we observe is consistent with many individuals accepting the default option and forgoing potentially more valuable benefits.

The paper, titled “Defined benefit pension plan distribution decisions by public sector employees”, can be read in full here.

Photo by www.SeniorLiving.Org

Linking Benefits to Investment Performance in US Pension Systems

Some countries, such as Norway, have incorporated a pension model called “risk-sharing”—a model where COLAs (and sometimes even benefit amounts) are contingent on investment performance. In other words, plan participants bear much more investment risk than participants in traditional DB plans.

What if that policy were extended to every public pension system in the United States? What effect would it have on liabilities?

Robert Novy-Marx and Joshua D. Rauh published a paper on the topic in the Journal of Public Economics last month.

From the paper:

Replacing COLAs across the US with PLAAs [performance-linked annuity adjustments] with a 5% hurdle and a guarantee that benefits would not fall below their initial level at retirement reduces the present value of legacy liabilities by $575 billion (or 12%) and the unfunded legacy liability by around 25%. Without minimum benefit guarantees, the legacy liability falls by $1.2 trillion (or 26%) and the unfunded legacy liability falls by 53%.

These reforms would also lower the annual required revenue increases to fund state plans within 30 years. These required increases stand at $1147 per household per year under current plan rules. They fall to $770 per household per year with PLAAs if benefits are not guaranteed to remain above a minimum level, but to only $1016 per year if benefits are guar-anteed not to fall below the initial level at retirement.

Of course, those numbers would come at a price for retirees: they’d bear extra risk during retirement under this policy. From the paper:

The PLAA arrangement leaves participants bearing risk only during retirement, not during the time they are working. Standard intuition from the lifecycle portfolio literature suggests that given a choice, individuals prefer to bear risk during the earlier years of their lives instead of the later years.

[…]

In a utility framework, we find that depending on the parameters, PLAAs with the hurdle rates and floors that we study in this paper can have either gains or losses relative to a COLA in terms of expected utility. Of course, the PLAAs we compare to COLAs here are generally substantially cheaper to provide, particularly with 5% hurdle rates and above. Even where expected utility is reduced, there are points of the distribution where the utility outcomes from the PLAAs surpass those of the COLAs, due to the benefits of equity exposure to CRRA utility agents with relatively modest degrees of risk aversion.

The rest of the paper can be read here.

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /home/mhuddelson/public_html/pension360.org/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 3712