评估费用公平性:有效计划费用结构的特征

Q4 Economics, Econometrics and Finance Journal of Retirement Pub Date : 2019-02-09 DOI:10.3905/jor.2019.6.3.023
Benjamin Goodman, David P. Richardson
{"title":"评估费用公平性:有效计划费用结构的特征","authors":"Benjamin Goodman, David P. Richardson","doi":"10.3905/jor.2019.6.3.023","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article develops a four-part framework for assessing the effectiveness of a retirement plan administrative fee structure. An administrative fee structure should satisfy three efficiency standards: (1) adequacy, (2) transparency, (3) administrative. It should also satisfy (4) a fairness standard based on both horizontal equity—participants with similar levels of assets pay similar levels of fees—and vertical equity—participants with a higher level of assets pay at least the same proportion in fees as those with lower asset balances. Using administrative data from a large plan, we demonstrate that an administrative fee structure charging a flat pro rata fee can satisfy all four standards. By contrast, we show that a pure per capita administrative services fee can satisfy the three efficiency standards but will fail the fairness standard. Indeed, our plan analysis shows that a flat per capita fee is highly regressive, with the lowest-asset participants paying equivalent pro rata fees that may be thousands of times larger than the highest-asset participants. A hybrid fee structure that uses a combination of per capita fees and pro rata fees, or capitates total fees paid by any individual, can reduce the unfairness of a pure per capita fee but will also weaken the efficiency standards because it is more complex to understand and administer.","PeriodicalId":36429,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Retirement","volume":"6 1","pages":"23 - 33"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing Fee Fairness: Characteristics of an Effective Plan Fee Structure\",\"authors\":\"Benjamin Goodman, David P. Richardson\",\"doi\":\"10.3905/jor.2019.6.3.023\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article develops a four-part framework for assessing the effectiveness of a retirement plan administrative fee structure. An administrative fee structure should satisfy three efficiency standards: (1) adequacy, (2) transparency, (3) administrative. It should also satisfy (4) a fairness standard based on both horizontal equity—participants with similar levels of assets pay similar levels of fees—and vertical equity—participants with a higher level of assets pay at least the same proportion in fees as those with lower asset balances. Using administrative data from a large plan, we demonstrate that an administrative fee structure charging a flat pro rata fee can satisfy all four standards. By contrast, we show that a pure per capita administrative services fee can satisfy the three efficiency standards but will fail the fairness standard. Indeed, our plan analysis shows that a flat per capita fee is highly regressive, with the lowest-asset participants paying equivalent pro rata fees that may be thousands of times larger than the highest-asset participants. A hybrid fee structure that uses a combination of per capita fees and pro rata fees, or capitates total fees paid by any individual, can reduce the unfairness of a pure per capita fee but will also weaken the efficiency standards because it is more complex to understand and administer.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36429,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Retirement\",\"volume\":\"6 1\",\"pages\":\"23 - 33\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-02-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Retirement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3905/jor.2019.6.3.023\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Economics, Econometrics and Finance\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Retirement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3905/jor.2019.6.3.023","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Economics, Econometrics and Finance","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文开发了一个由四部分组成的框架,用于评估退休计划管理费用结构的有效性。行政收费结构应满足三个效率标准:(1)充分性;(2)透明度;(3)行政性。它还应该满足(4)一个公平标准,该标准既基于横向权益——拥有相似资产水平的参与者支付相似水平的费用,也基于纵向权益——拥有较高资产水平的参与者支付的费用比例至少与那些拥有较低资产余额的参与者相同。利用一个大型计划的管理数据,我们证明了收取固定比例费用的管理费用结构可以满足所有四个标准。结果表明,单纯的人均行政服务费可以满足三个效率标准,但不能满足公平标准。事实上,我们的计划分析表明,人均费用是高度递减的,最低资产的参与者支付的费用可能是最高资产参与者的数千倍。混合收费结构使用人均收费和按比例收费的组合,或任何个人支付的资本总收费,可以减少纯人均收费的不公平,但也会削弱效率标准,因为它更复杂,难以理解和管理。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Assessing Fee Fairness: Characteristics of an Effective Plan Fee Structure
This article develops a four-part framework for assessing the effectiveness of a retirement plan administrative fee structure. An administrative fee structure should satisfy three efficiency standards: (1) adequacy, (2) transparency, (3) administrative. It should also satisfy (4) a fairness standard based on both horizontal equity—participants with similar levels of assets pay similar levels of fees—and vertical equity—participants with a higher level of assets pay at least the same proportion in fees as those with lower asset balances. Using administrative data from a large plan, we demonstrate that an administrative fee structure charging a flat pro rata fee can satisfy all four standards. By contrast, we show that a pure per capita administrative services fee can satisfy the three efficiency standards but will fail the fairness standard. Indeed, our plan analysis shows that a flat per capita fee is highly regressive, with the lowest-asset participants paying equivalent pro rata fees that may be thousands of times larger than the highest-asset participants. A hybrid fee structure that uses a combination of per capita fees and pro rata fees, or capitates total fees paid by any individual, can reduce the unfairness of a pure per capita fee but will also weaken the efficiency standards because it is more complex to understand and administer.
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
Journal of Retirement
Journal of Retirement Economics, Econometrics and Finance-Finance
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
27
期刊最新文献
The Impact of Investment Restrictions on Pension Participants: A Case Study of Nigeria Editor’s Letter The Role of Annuities in Managing Sequence of Returns Risk Approaching and in Retirement guest commentary Valuation of Financial Decision-Making Retirement Planning, Retirement Insecurity, and Financial Satisfaction
×
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