固定收益计划中的年金和一次总付决策:计划规则的作用。

EBRI issue brief Pub Date : 2013-01-01
Sudipto Banerjee
{"title":"固定收益计划中的年金和一次总付决策:计划规则的作用。","authors":"Sudipto Banerjee","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Amidst growing concerns about workers outliving their retirement savings, a key question-both as a matter of national retirement policy and understanding the potential role of plan design and education in influencing individual decision-making-is how many retiring workers actually choose to annuitize (to take a stream of lifetime income) vs. opting for a lump-sum payment. The key finding of this study is that differences in defined benefit (DB) plan rules or features result in very different annuitization rates in DB plans. In fact, the results show that the rate of annuitization varies directly with the degree to which plan rules restrict the ability to choose a partial or lump-sum distribution. This study shows that annuitization rates vary significantly across these different plan types, which makes any attempt to combine the annuitization rates across these different plan types uninformative. Combining all the plans across the years 2005-2010, workers who made their payout decision between ages 50 and 75 had a minimum job tenure of five years, a minimum account balance of $5,000, and had an annuitization rate of 65.8 percent. But within this group of workers, those who had no plan restrictions on a lump-sum distribution had an annuitization rate of only 27.3 percent. In all the years studied, plans with no lump-sum distribution (LSD) options have the highest annuitization rates, very close to 100 percent. Traditional defined benefit and cash balance plans with no restrictionson LSDs had the lowest annuitization rates. In 2010, the annuitization rate for all plans combined was 65.5 percent, while for plans with no LSD option it was 98.8 percent, but the annuitization rate for defined benefit plans with no restrictions on LSDs was 44.3 percent, while for cash balance plans with no restrictions on LSDs it was 22.3 percent. For older workers across most plan types, annuitization rates increase steadily with account balance, but this is not the case for younger workers. Annuitization rates also increase with tenure, but for younger workers (20-50) with low tenure (less than 10 years), annuitization rates are very low. For older workers (50-75), annuitization rates are higher even in cases of low tenure. Annuitization rates are very low for those below age 40, but from that point onwards, annuitization rates increase for all types of plans. Annuitization rates appear to peak between 65 and 69, but then fall sharply.</p>","PeriodicalId":79588,"journal":{"name":"EBRI issue brief","volume":" 381","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Annuity and lump-sum decisions in defined benefit plans: the role of plan rules.\",\"authors\":\"Sudipto Banerjee\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Amidst growing concerns about workers outliving their retirement savings, a key question-both as a matter of national retirement policy and understanding the potential role of plan design and education in influencing individual decision-making-is how many retiring workers actually choose to annuitize (to take a stream of lifetime income) vs. opting for a lump-sum payment. The key finding of this study is that differences in defined benefit (DB) plan rules or features result in very different annuitization rates in DB plans. In fact, the results show that the rate of annuitization varies directly with the degree to which plan rules restrict the ability to choose a partial or lump-sum distribution. This study shows that annuitization rates vary significantly across these different plan types, which makes any attempt to combine the annuitization rates across these different plan types uninformative. Combining all the plans across the years 2005-2010, workers who made their payout decision between ages 50 and 75 had a minimum job tenure of five years, a minimum account balance of $5,000, and had an annuitization rate of 65.8 percent. But within this group of workers, those who had no plan restrictions on a lump-sum distribution had an annuitization rate of only 27.3 percent. In all the years studied, plans with no lump-sum distribution (LSD) options have the highest annuitization rates, very close to 100 percent. Traditional defined benefit and cash balance plans with no restrictionson LSDs had the lowest annuitization rates. In 2010, the annuitization rate for all plans combined was 65.5 percent, while for plans with no LSD option it was 98.8 percent, but the annuitization rate for defined benefit plans with no restrictions on LSDs was 44.3 percent, while for cash balance plans with no restrictions on LSDs it was 22.3 percent. For older workers across most plan types, annuitization rates increase steadily with account balance, but this is not the case for younger workers. Annuitization rates also increase with tenure, but for younger workers (20-50) with low tenure (less than 10 years), annuitization rates are very low. For older workers (50-75), annuitization rates are higher even in cases of low tenure. Annuitization rates are very low for those below age 40, but from that point onwards, annuitization rates increase for all types of plans. Annuitization rates appear to peak between 65 and 69, but then fall sharply.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":79588,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"EBRI issue brief\",\"volume\":\" 381\",\"pages\":\"1-20\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"EBRI issue brief\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EBRI issue brief","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

随着人们对退休储蓄寿命的担忧日益增加,一个关键问题——既是国家退休政策的问题,也是对计划设计和教育在影响个人决策方面的潜在作用的理解——是有多少退休工人实际选择年金化(获得终身收入流),还是选择一次性支付。本研究的主要发现是固定收益计划规则或特征的差异导致固定收益计划的年化率差异很大。事实上,结果表明,年金化率与计划规则对选择部分或一次性分配能力的限制程度直接相关。本研究表明,不同计划类型之间的年化率差异很大,这使得任何试图将不同计划类型之间的年化率结合起来的尝试都是缺乏信息的。综合2005年至2010年的所有计划,在50岁至75岁之间做出支付决定的工人的最低工作年限为五年,最低账户余额为5,000美元,年化率为65.8%。但在这组工人中,那些没有一次性分配计划限制的人的年化率仅为27.3%。在研究的所有年份中,没有一次性分配(LSD)选项的计划的年化率最高,非常接近100%。没有lsd限制的传统固定收益和现金余额计划的年化率最低。2010年,所有计划的年化率为65.5%,而没有LSD选项的计划的年化率为98.8%,但没有LSD限制的固定收益计划的年化率为44.3%,而没有LSD限制的现金余额计划的年化率为22.3%。对于大多数计划类型的年长员工来说,年化率随着账户余额的增加而稳步上升,但对于年轻员工来说并非如此。年化率也随着任期的增加而增加,但对于任期较短(少于10年)的年轻员工(20-50岁),年化率非常低。对于年龄较大的工人(50-75岁),即使在任期较低的情况下,年化率也更高。对于40岁以下的人来说,年化率非常低,但从这个年龄开始,所有类型的计划的年化率都会上升。年化利率似乎在65 - 69之间达到峰值,但随后急剧下降。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Annuity and lump-sum decisions in defined benefit plans: the role of plan rules.

Amidst growing concerns about workers outliving their retirement savings, a key question-both as a matter of national retirement policy and understanding the potential role of plan design and education in influencing individual decision-making-is how many retiring workers actually choose to annuitize (to take a stream of lifetime income) vs. opting for a lump-sum payment. The key finding of this study is that differences in defined benefit (DB) plan rules or features result in very different annuitization rates in DB plans. In fact, the results show that the rate of annuitization varies directly with the degree to which plan rules restrict the ability to choose a partial or lump-sum distribution. This study shows that annuitization rates vary significantly across these different plan types, which makes any attempt to combine the annuitization rates across these different plan types uninformative. Combining all the plans across the years 2005-2010, workers who made their payout decision between ages 50 and 75 had a minimum job tenure of five years, a minimum account balance of $5,000, and had an annuitization rate of 65.8 percent. But within this group of workers, those who had no plan restrictions on a lump-sum distribution had an annuitization rate of only 27.3 percent. In all the years studied, plans with no lump-sum distribution (LSD) options have the highest annuitization rates, very close to 100 percent. Traditional defined benefit and cash balance plans with no restrictionson LSDs had the lowest annuitization rates. In 2010, the annuitization rate for all plans combined was 65.5 percent, while for plans with no LSD option it was 98.8 percent, but the annuitization rate for defined benefit plans with no restrictions on LSDs was 44.3 percent, while for cash balance plans with no restrictions on LSDs it was 22.3 percent. For older workers across most plan types, annuitization rates increase steadily with account balance, but this is not the case for younger workers. Annuitization rates also increase with tenure, but for younger workers (20-50) with low tenure (less than 10 years), annuitization rates are very low. For older workers (50-75), annuitization rates are higher even in cases of low tenure. Annuitization rates are very low for those below age 40, but from that point onwards, annuitization rates increase for all types of plans. Annuitization rates appear to peak between 65 and 69, but then fall sharply.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Health Plan Switching: A Case Study--Implications for Private- and Public-Health-Insurance Exchanges and Increased Health Plan Choice. The 2017 Retirement Confidence Survey: Many Workers Lack Retirement Confidence and Feel Stressed About Retirement Preparations. How Does the Level of Household Savings Affect Preference for Immediate Annuities? Individual Retirement Account Balances, Contributions, Withdrawals, and Asset Allocation Longitudinal Results 2010–2014: The EBRI IRA Database. Narrow Provider Networks for Employer Plans.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1