feed icon rss

Your email was sent successfully. Check your inbox.

An error occurred while sending the email. Please try again.

Proceed reservation?

Export
  • 1
    UID:
    b3kat_BV040617191
    Format: 1 Online-Ressource (1 online resource (80 p.))
    Edition: Online-Ausgabe World Bank E-Library Archive Sonstige Standardnummer des Gesamttitels: 041181-4
    Content: Organizing individual retirement accounts through the institutional market and with constrained choice could substantially lower administrative costs. The tradeoff: rebidding problems, weaker performance incentives, inflexibility in the face of unforeseen contingencies, and an increased probability of corruption, collusion, and regulatory capture. What is the most cost-effective way to organize individual accounts that are part of a mandatory social security system? Defined-contribution individual-account components of social security systems are criticized for being too expensive. James, Smalhout, and Vittas investigate the cost-effectiveness of two methods for constructing mandatory individual accounts: Investing through the retail market with relatively open choice among investment companies (the method first used by Chile and adopted by most Latin American countries). Investing through the institutional market with constrained choice. For the retail market, they use data from mandatory pension funds in Chile and other Latin American countries and from voluntary mutual funds in the United States. For the institutional market, they use data from systems in Bolivia and Sweden and from larger pension plans and the federal Thrift Saving Plan in the United States. The institutional approaches aggregate numerous small accounts into large blocks of money and negotiate fees on a centralized basis, often through competitive bidding. They retain workers' choice on some funds. Fees and costs are kept low by reducing incentives for marketing, avoiding excess capacity at system start-up, and constraining choice to investment portfolios that are inexpensive to manage.
    Content: [Fortsetzung 1. Abstract] In developed financial markets, the biggest potential cost saving stems from constrained portfolio choice, especially from a concentration on passive investment. The biggest cost saving for a given portfolio and for countries with weak financial markets comes from reduced marketing activities. In the retail market, where annualized fees and costs range from 0.8 percent to 1.5 percent of assets, use of the institutional market in individual retirement account systems has reduced those fees and costs to less than 0.2 percent to 0.6 percent of assets. This reduction can increase pensions by 10-20 percent relative to the retail market. Countries that can surmount rebidding problems, weaker performance incentives, inflexibility in the face of unforeseen contingencies, and an increased probability of corruption, collusion, and regulatory capture should seriously consider the institutional approach, especially at the start-up of a new multipillar system or for systems with small asset bases. This paper—a product of Finance, Development Research Group—is part of a larger effort in the group to study pension systems. The authors may be contacted at ejames3@worldbank.org or dvittas@worldbank.org
    Note: Weitere Ausgabe: James, Estelle: Administrative Costs and the Organization of Individual Retirement Account Systems
    Additional Edition: Reproduktion von James, Estelle Administrative Costs and the Organization of Individual Retirement Account Systems 2001
    Language: English
    URL: Volltext  (Deutschlandweit zugänglich)
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 2
    UID:
    b3kat_BV049076491
    Format: 1 Online-Ressource (65 Seiten))
    Edition: Online-Ausg
    Content: April 1999 - Among three options for constructing funded social security pillars, one system - individual accounts invested in the institutional market, with constrained choice among investment companies - appears to offer reduced administrative and marketing costs, significant worker choice, and more insulation from political interference than a single centralized fund or individual investments in the retail market would offer. One of the main criticisms of the defined-contribution, individual-account components of social security systems is that they are too expensive. James, Ferrier, Smalhout, and Vittas investigate the cost-effectiveness of three options for constructing funded social security pillars: ° Individual accounts invested in the retail market with relatively open choice. ° Individual accounts invested in the institutional market with constrained choice among investment companies.
    Content: ° A centralized fund without individual accounts or differentiated investments across individuals. The authors asked several questions: What is the most cost-effective way to organize a system with mandatory individual accounts? How does the cost of an efficient individual account system compare with that of a single centralized fund? And are the cost differentials great enough to outweigh other important considerations? The authors concentrate on countries with well-functioning financial markets, such as the United States, but make comparative references to developing countries. Based on empirical evidence about U.S. mutual and institutional funds, the authors found that the retail market (option 1) allows individual investors to benefit from scale economies in asset management-but at the cost of the high marketing expenses needed to attract large pools of small investments.
    Content: By contrast, a centralized fund (option 3) can be much cheaper because it achieves scale economies without high marketing costs. But it gives workers no choice and is subject to political manipulation and misallocation of capital. The system of constrained choice (option 2) is much cheaper than the retail option and only slightly more expensive than a single centralized fund. It allows scale economies in asset management and record-keeping while incurring low marketing costs and allowing significant worker choice. It is also more effectively insulated from political interference than a single centralized fund. The authors estimate that option 2 would cost only 0.14 percent-0.18 percent of assets annually. Such large administrative cost savings imply a Pareto improvement-so long as choice is not constrained too much.
    Additional Edition: James, Estelle Mutual Funds and Institutional Investments
    Language: English
    URL: Volltext  (URL des Erstveröffentlichers)
    URL: Volltext  (Deutschlandweit zugänglich)
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 3
    Online Resource
    Online Resource
    Chicago :Irwin Professional Pub.,
    UID:
    almahu_9949568545802882
    Format: 1 online resource (xviii, 366 pages) : , illustrations
    Edition: Electronic reproduction. [Place of publication not identified] : HathiTrust Digital Library, 2010.
    Note: Master and use copy. Digital master created according to Benchmark for Faithful Digital Reproductions of Monographs and Serials, Version 1. Digital Library Federation, December 2002.
    Additional Edition: Print version: Smalhout, James H. Uncertain retirement. Chicago : Irwin Professional Pub., ©1996
    Language: English
    Subjects: Economics
    RVK:
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 4
    UID:
    b3kat_BV049076040
    Format: 1 Online-Ressource (80 Seiten))
    Edition: Online-Ausg
    Content: Organizing individual retirement accounts through the institutional market and with constrained choice could substantially lower administrative costs. The tradeoff: rebidding problems, weaker performance incentives, inflexibility in the face of unforeseen contingencies, and an increased probability of corruption, collusion, and regulatory capture. What is the most cost-effective way to organize individual accounts that are part of a mandatory social security system? Defined-contribution individual-account components of social security systems are criticized for being too expensive. James, Smalhout, and Vittas investigate the cost-effectiveness of two methods for constructing mandatory individual accounts: Investing through the retail market with relatively open choice among investment companies (the method first used by Chile and adopted by most Latin American countries). Investing through the institutional market with constrained choice.
    Content: For the retail market, they use data from mandatory pension funds in Chile and other Latin American countries and from voluntary mutual funds in the United States. For the institutional market, they use data from systems in Bolivia and Sweden and from larger pension plans and the federal Thrift Saving Plan in the United States. The institutional approaches aggregate numerous small accounts into large blocks of money and negotiate fees on a centralized basis, often through competitive bidding. They retain workers' choice on some funds. Fees and costs are kept low by reducing incentives for marketing, avoiding excess capacity at system start-up, and constraining choice to investment portfolios that are inexpensive to manage. In developed financial markets, the biggest potential cost saving stems from constrained portfolio choice, especially from a concentration on passive investment.
    Content: The biggest cost saving for a given portfolio and for countries with weak financial markets comes from reduced marketing activities. In the retail market, where annualized fees and costs range from 0.8 percent to 1.5 percent of assets, use of the institutional market in individual retirement account systems has reduced those fees and costs to less than 0.2 percent to 0.6 percent of assets. This reduction can increase pensions by 10-20 percent relative to the retail market. Countries that can surmount rebidding problems, weaker performance incentives, inflexibility in the face of unforeseen contingencies, and an increased probability of corruption, collusion, and regulatory capture should seriously consider the institutional approach, especially at the start-up of a new multipillar system or for systems with small asset bases. This paper-a product of Finance, Development Research Group-is part of a larger effort in the group to study pension systems.
    Additional Edition: James, Estelle Administrative Costs and the Organization of Individual Retirement Account Systems
    Language: English
    URL: Volltext  (URL des Erstveröffentlichers)
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 5
    UID:
    edoccha_9958126326502883
    Format: 1 online resource (80 pages)
    Series Statement: Policy research working papers.
    Content: Organizing individual retirement accounts through the institutional market and with constrained choice could substantially lower administrative costs. The tradeoff: rebidding problems, weaker performance incentives, inflexibility in the face of unforeseen contingencies, and an increased probability of corruption, collusion, and regulatory capture. What is the most cost-effective way to organize individual accounts that are part of a mandatory social security system? Defined-contribution individual-account components of social security systems are criticized for being too expensive. James, Smalhout, and Vittas investigate the cost-effectiveness of two methods for constructing mandatory individual accounts: Investing through the retail market with relatively open choice among investment companies (the method first used by Chile and adopted by most Latin American countries). Investing through the institutional market with constrained choice. For the retail market, they use data from mandatory pension funds in Chile and other Latin American countries and from voluntary mutual funds in the United States. For the institutional market, they use data from systems in Bolivia and Sweden and from larger pension plans and the federal Thrift Saving Plan in the United States. The institutional approaches aggregate numerous small accounts into large blocks of money and negotiate fees on a centralized basis, often through competitive bidding. They retain workers' choice on some funds. Fees and costs are kept low by reducing incentives for marketing, avoiding excess capacity at system start-up, and constraining choice to investment portfolios that are inexpensive to manage. In developed financial markets, the biggest potential cost saving stems from constrained portfolio choice, especially from a concentration on passive investment. The biggest cost saving for a given portfolio and for countries with weak financial markets comes from reduced marketing activities. In the retail market, where annualized fees and costs range from 0.8 percent to 1.5 percent of assets, use of the institutional market in individual retirement account systems has reduced those fees and costs to less than 0.2 percent to 0.6 percent of assets. This reduction can increase pensions by 10-20 percent relative to the retail market. Countries that can surmount rebidding problems, weaker performance incentives, inflexibility in the face of unforeseen contingencies, and an increased probability of corruption, collusion, and regulatory capture should seriously consider the institutional approach, especially at the start-up of a new multipillar system or for systems with small asset bases. This paper-a product of Finance, Development Research Group-is part of a larger effort in the group to study pension systems. The authors may be contacted at ejames3@worldbank.org or dvittas@worldbank.org.
    Language: English
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 6
    UID:
    edocfu_9958126326502883
    Format: 1 online resource (80 pages)
    Series Statement: Policy research working papers.
    Content: Organizing individual retirement accounts through the institutional market and with constrained choice could substantially lower administrative costs. The tradeoff: rebidding problems, weaker performance incentives, inflexibility in the face of unforeseen contingencies, and an increased probability of corruption, collusion, and regulatory capture. What is the most cost-effective way to organize individual accounts that are part of a mandatory social security system? Defined-contribution individual-account components of social security systems are criticized for being too expensive. James, Smalhout, and Vittas investigate the cost-effectiveness of two methods for constructing mandatory individual accounts: Investing through the retail market with relatively open choice among investment companies (the method first used by Chile and adopted by most Latin American countries). Investing through the institutional market with constrained choice. For the retail market, they use data from mandatory pension funds in Chile and other Latin American countries and from voluntary mutual funds in the United States. For the institutional market, they use data from systems in Bolivia and Sweden and from larger pension plans and the federal Thrift Saving Plan in the United States. The institutional approaches aggregate numerous small accounts into large blocks of money and negotiate fees on a centralized basis, often through competitive bidding. They retain workers' choice on some funds. Fees and costs are kept low by reducing incentives for marketing, avoiding excess capacity at system start-up, and constraining choice to investment portfolios that are inexpensive to manage. In developed financial markets, the biggest potential cost saving stems from constrained portfolio choice, especially from a concentration on passive investment. The biggest cost saving for a given portfolio and for countries with weak financial markets comes from reduced marketing activities. In the retail market, where annualized fees and costs range from 0.8 percent to 1.5 percent of assets, use of the institutional market in individual retirement account systems has reduced those fees and costs to less than 0.2 percent to 0.6 percent of assets. This reduction can increase pensions by 10-20 percent relative to the retail market. Countries that can surmount rebidding problems, weaker performance incentives, inflexibility in the face of unforeseen contingencies, and an increased probability of corruption, collusion, and regulatory capture should seriously consider the institutional approach, especially at the start-up of a new multipillar system or for systems with small asset bases. This paper-a product of Finance, Development Research Group-is part of a larger effort in the group to study pension systems. The authors may be contacted at ejames3@worldbank.org or dvittas@worldbank.org.
    Language: English
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 7
    UID:
    edocfu_9958069288002883
    Format: 1 online resource (65 pages)
    Series Statement: NBER working paper series no. w7049
    Content: April 1999 - Among three options for constructing funded social security pillars, one system - individual accounts invested in the institutional market, with constrained choice among investment companies - appears to offer reduced administrative and marketing costs, significant worker choice, and more insulation from political interference than a single centralized fund or individual investments in the retail market would offer. One of the main criticisms of the defined-contribution, individual-account components of social security systems is that they are too expensive. James, Ferrier, Smalhout, and Vittas investigate the cost-effectiveness of three options for constructing funded social security pillars: Individual accounts invested in the retail market with relatively open choice; Individual accounts invested in the institutional market with constrained choice among investment companies; A centralized fund without individual accounts or differentiated investments across individuals. The authors asked several questions: What is the most cost-effective way to organize a system with mandatory individual accounts? How does the cost of an efficient individual account system compare with that of a single centralized fund? And are the cost differentials great enough to outweigh other important considerations? The authors concentrate on countries with well-functioning financial markets, such as the United States, but make comparative references to developing countries. Based on empirical evidence about U.S. mutual and institutional funds, the authors found that the retail market (option 1) allows individual investors to benefit from scale economies in asset management-but at the cost of the high marketing expenses needed to attract large pools of small investments. By contrast, a centralized fund (option 3) can be much cheaper because it achieves scale economies without high marketing costs. But it gives workers no choice and is subject to political manipulation and misallocation of capital. The system of constrained choice (option 2) is much cheaper than the retail option and only slightly more expensive than a single centralized fund. It allows scale economies in asset management and record-keeping while incurring low marketing costs and allowing significant worker choice. It is also more effectively insulated from political interference than a single centralized fund. The authors estimate that option 2 would cost only 0.14 percent-0.18 percent of assets annually. Such large administrative cost savings imply a Pareto improvement-so long as choice is not constrained too much. This paper-a product of Poverty and Human Resources and Finance, Development Research Group-was prepared for a National Bureau of Economic Research Conference on Social Security held on December 4, 1998. The authors may be contacted at ejames3@worldbank.org or dvittas@worldbank.org.
    Note: March 1999.
    Language: English
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 8
    UID:
    edoccha_9958069288002883
    Format: 1 online resource (65 pages)
    Series Statement: NBER working paper series no. w7049
    Content: April 1999 - Among three options for constructing funded social security pillars, one system - individual accounts invested in the institutional market, with constrained choice among investment companies - appears to offer reduced administrative and marketing costs, significant worker choice, and more insulation from political interference than a single centralized fund or individual investments in the retail market would offer. One of the main criticisms of the defined-contribution, individual-account components of social security systems is that they are too expensive. James, Ferrier, Smalhout, and Vittas investigate the cost-effectiveness of three options for constructing funded social security pillars: Individual accounts invested in the retail market with relatively open choice; Individual accounts invested in the institutional market with constrained choice among investment companies; A centralized fund without individual accounts or differentiated investments across individuals. The authors asked several questions: What is the most cost-effective way to organize a system with mandatory individual accounts? How does the cost of an efficient individual account system compare with that of a single centralized fund? And are the cost differentials great enough to outweigh other important considerations? The authors concentrate on countries with well-functioning financial markets, such as the United States, but make comparative references to developing countries. Based on empirical evidence about U.S. mutual and institutional funds, the authors found that the retail market (option 1) allows individual investors to benefit from scale economies in asset management-but at the cost of the high marketing expenses needed to attract large pools of small investments. By contrast, a centralized fund (option 3) can be much cheaper because it achieves scale economies without high marketing costs. But it gives workers no choice and is subject to political manipulation and misallocation of capital. The system of constrained choice (option 2) is much cheaper than the retail option and only slightly more expensive than a single centralized fund. It allows scale economies in asset management and record-keeping while incurring low marketing costs and allowing significant worker choice. It is also more effectively insulated from political interference than a single centralized fund. The authors estimate that option 2 would cost only 0.14 percent-0.18 percent of assets annually. Such large administrative cost savings imply a Pareto improvement-so long as choice is not constrained too much. This paper-a product of Poverty and Human Resources and Finance, Development Research Group-was prepared for a National Bureau of Economic Research Conference on Social Security held on December 4, 1998. The authors may be contacted at ejames3@worldbank.org or dvittas@worldbank.org.
    Note: March 1999.
    Language: English
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
  • 9
    UID:
    gbv_1759670251
    Format: 1 Online-Ressource
    Series Statement: Policy Research Working Paper No. 2554
    Content: What is the most cost-effective way to organize individual accounts that are part of a mandatory social security system? Defined-contribution individual account components of social security systems are criticized for being too expensive. The authors investigate the cost-effectiveness of two methods for constructing mandatory individual accounts: a) Investing through the retail market with relatively open choice among investment companies (the method first used by Chile and adopted by most Latin American countries). b) Investing through the institutional market with constrained choice. For the retail market, they use data from mandatory pension funds in Chile and other Latin American countries and from voluntary mutual funds in the United States. For the institutional market, they use data from systems in Bolivia and Sweden and from larger pension plans and the federal Thrift Saving Plan in the United States. The institutional approaches aggregate numerous small accounts into large blocks of money and negotiate fees on a centralized basis, often through competitive bidding. They retain workers' choice o some funds. Fees and costs are kept low by reducing incentives for marketing, avoiding excess capacity at system start-up, and constraining choice to investment portfolio that are inexpensive to manage. In developed financial markets, the biggest potential cost saving stems from constrained portfolio choice, especially from a concentration on passive investment. The biggest cost saving for a given portfolio and for countries with weak financial markets comes from reduced marketing activities. In the retail market, where annualized fees and costs range from 0.8 percent to 1.5 percent of assets, use of the institutional market in individual retirement account systems has reduced those fees and costs to less than 0.2 percent to 0.6 percent of assets. This reduction can increase pensions by 10 - 20 percent relative to the retail market. Countries that can surmount rebidding problems, weaker performance incentives, inflexibility in the face of unforeseen contingencies, and an increased probability of corruption, collusion, and regulatory capture should seriously consider the institutional approach, especially at the start-up of a new multipillar system or for systems with small asset bases
    Note: Chile , Latin America , English , en_US
    Language: English
    Library Location Call Number Volume/Issue/Year Availability
    BibTip Others were also interested in ...
Close ⊗
This website uses cookies and the analysis tool Matomo. Further information can be found on the KOBV privacy pages