Operating costs of pension schemes

  • J. A. Bikker
  • J. de Dreu

Abstract

This chapter examines what type of pension scheme has the lowest operating costs. We first analyse the operating costs of Dutch pension funds, broken down by administrative and investment costs. Various cost-influencing factors are identified, including scale, pension fund type, plan type, outsourcing and reinsurance. Economies of scale are shown to be dominant in explaining differences in costs across pension schemes, leading to the conclusion that the consolidation of small pension funds could improve cost efficiency. In addition, the costs per participant of mandatory industry-wide pension funds turn out to be significantly lower than those of company pension funds. Next, the costs of pension schemes offered by pension funds and life insurers in the Netherlands are compared in an effort to distinguish between collective and private schemes. We find that the operating costs per participant of collective pension funds are many times lower than those of private schemes.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature

  1. Bateman, H., G. Kingston and J. Piggot, Forced saving: Mandating private retirement incomes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001.Google Scholar
  2. Bateman, H., O.S. Mitchell, ‘New evidence on pension plan design and administrative expenses: the Australian experience’, Journal of Pension Economics and Finance 3, 2004, pp. 63–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bikker, J.A., M. van Leuvensteijn, ‘Competition and efficiency in the Dutch life insurance industry’, Applied Economics, forthcoming, 2007.Google Scholar
  4. Bikker, J.A., P.J.G. Vlaar, ‘Conditional indexation in defined benefit pension plans’, Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance, forthcoming, 2007.Google Scholar
  5. Bikker, J.A., J. de Dreu, ‘Pension Operating costs of pension funds: the impact of scale, governance and plan design’, Journal of Pension Economics and Finance, forthcoming, 2007.Google Scholar
  6. Bikker, J.A., L. Spierdijk, P.J. van der Sluis, ‘Market impact costs of institutional equity trades’, Journal of International Money and Finance, forthcoming, 2007.Google Scholar
  7. Caswell, J.W., ‘Economic efficiency in pension plan administration: A study of the construction Industry’, Journal of Risk and Insurance 4, 1976, pp. 257–273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. CPB, ‘Competition in markets for life insurance’, CPB Document no. 96, The Hague: Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis, 2005.Google Scholar
  9. Dobronogov, A. and M. Murthi, ‘Administrative fees and costs of mandatory private pensions in transition economies’, Journal of Pension Economics and Finance 4, 2005, pp. 31–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. James, E., J. Smalhout, D. Vittas, ‘Administrative costs and the organization of individual retirement account systems: A comparative perspective’, in: Holzmann, R. and J.E. Stiglitz (eds.) New ideas about old age security: Toward sustainable pension systems in the twenty-first century, Washington, DC: World Bank, 254–307/ Policy Research Working Paper Series no. 2554, World Bank, Washington DC, 2001.Google Scholar
  11. Jensen, M.C., ‘The performance of mutual funds in the period 1945–1964’, The Journal of Finance 23, 1968, pp. 389–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Malkiel, B.G., ‘Returns from investing in equity mutual funds 1971 to 1991’, The Journal of Finance 50, 1995, pp. 549–572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Rooij, M.C.J. van, C.J.M. Kool, H.M. Prast, ‘Risk-return preferences in the pension domain: are people able to choose?’, Journal of Public Economics, forthcoming, 2007.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. A. Bikker
    • 1
  • J. de Dreu
    • 1
  1. 1.Supervisory Policy Division of DNBDutch Central Bankthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations