{"title":"Pension Risk Management with Funding and Buyout Options","authors":"Samuel H. Cox, Yi-Jia Lin, Tianxiang Shi","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2919884","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There has been a surge of interest in recent years from defined benefit pension plan sponsors in de-risking their plans with strategies such as “longevity hedges” and “pension buyouts” (Lin et al., 2015). While buyouts are attractive in terms of value creation, they are capital intensive and expensive, particularly for firms with underfunded plans. The existing literature mainly focuses on the costs and benefits of pension buyouts. Little attention has been paid to how to capture the benefits of de-risking within a plan’s financial means, especially when buyout deficits are significant. To fill this gap, we propose two options, namely a pension funding option and pension buyout option, that provide financing for both underfunded and well funded plans to cover the buyout risk premium and the pension funding deficit, if a certain threshold is reached. To increase market liquidity, we create a transparent pension funding index, calculated from observed capital market indices and publicly available mortality tables as well as pension mandatory contributions, to determine option payoffs. A simulation based pricing framework is then introduced to determine the prices of the proposed pension options. Our numerical examples show that these options are effective and economically affordable. Moreover, our sensitivity analyses demonstrate the reliability of our pricing models.","PeriodicalId":189265,"journal":{"name":"Fox: Marketing & Supply Chain Management (Topic)","volume":"59 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-03-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"10","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fox: Marketing & Supply Chain Management (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2919884","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 10
Abstract
There has been a surge of interest in recent years from defined benefit pension plan sponsors in de-risking their plans with strategies such as “longevity hedges” and “pension buyouts” (Lin et al., 2015). While buyouts are attractive in terms of value creation, they are capital intensive and expensive, particularly for firms with underfunded plans. The existing literature mainly focuses on the costs and benefits of pension buyouts. Little attention has been paid to how to capture the benefits of de-risking within a plan’s financial means, especially when buyout deficits are significant. To fill this gap, we propose two options, namely a pension funding option and pension buyout option, that provide financing for both underfunded and well funded plans to cover the buyout risk premium and the pension funding deficit, if a certain threshold is reached. To increase market liquidity, we create a transparent pension funding index, calculated from observed capital market indices and publicly available mortality tables as well as pension mandatory contributions, to determine option payoffs. A simulation based pricing framework is then introduced to determine the prices of the proposed pension options. Our numerical examples show that these options are effective and economically affordable. Moreover, our sensitivity analyses demonstrate the reliability of our pricing models.
近年来,固定收益养老金计划发起人对通过“长寿对冲”和“养老金收购”等策略降低计划风险的兴趣激增(Lin et al., 2015)。虽然收购在创造价值方面很有吸引力,但它们是资本密集型的,而且成本高昂,尤其是对资金不足的公司而言。现有文献主要关注养老金买断的成本和收益。很少有人关注如何在计划的财务手段范围内获取去风险的好处,尤其是在收购赤字很大的情况下。为了填补这一缺口,我们提出了两种方案,即养老金筹资方案和养老金买断方案,在达到一定阈值时,为资金不足和资金充足的计划提供融资,以弥补买断风险溢价和养老金资金赤字。为了增加市场流动性,我们创建了一个透明的养老金基金指数,根据观察到的资本市场指数和公开可用的死亡率表以及养老金强制性供款来计算,以确定期权收益。然后引入基于模拟的定价框架来确定拟议养老金期权的价格。我们的数值例子表明,这些选择是有效的和经济上负担得起的。此外,我们的敏感性分析证明了我们定价模型的可靠性。