Regulatory Controversies of Private Pension Funds

Abstract

No AccessPolicy Research Working Papers25 Jun 2013Regulatory Controversies of Private Pension FundsAuthors/Editors: Dimitri VittasDimitri Vittashttps://doi.org/10.1596/1813-9450-1893SectionsAboutPDF (0.1 MB) ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In Abstract:March 1998 Although controversial, investment and other draconian regulations for private pension funds are suitable for countries with weak capital markets and little tradition of private pension provision. But regulations should be relaxed as private pension funds gain in maturity. Like other financial institutions, private pension funds require a panoply of prudential and protective regulations to ensure their soundness and safeguard the interests of affiliated workers. These regulations include authorization criteria (such as minimum capital, fit and proper, and business plan requirements), asset segregation and external custody, professional asset management, external audits and actuarial reviews, extensive information disclosure, and effective supervision. These regulations resemble those applied to banks and insurance companies and are not particularly controversial. But private pension funds in developing countries are often subject to structural and operational controls that are more controversial. Such controls include special authorizations and market segmentation, one account per worker and one fund per company rules, nondiscrimination provisions, regulations on fees and commissions, investment limits, minimum profitability rules, and state guarantees. Vittas discusses the use of such regulations in developing countries that have implemented systemic pension reforms. He draws a distinction between this approach and the more relaxed regulatory regime that relies on the prudent person rule found in more advanced countries. He argues that the draconian regulatory approach can be justified on several grounds, but especially by the compulsory nature of the pension system, the absence of strong and transparent capital markets, and the lack of a long tradition of private pension funds. But the regulations should be progressively relaxed as private pension funds and their affiliated workers gain in experience, sophistication, and maturity. This paper-a product of the Development Research Group-is part of a larger effort in the group to study pension funds and institutional investors. Previous bookNext book FiguresReferencesRecommendedDetailsCited ByA Reporting Strictness Index for Pension FundsSSRN Electronic JournalInstitutional Investors, Pension Reform, and Emerging Securities MarketsSSRN Electronic Journal View Published: November 1999 Copyright & Permissions Related RegionsLatin America & CaribbeanRelated CountriesCzech RepublicChileRelated TopicsSocial Protections and LaborPrivate Sector DevelopmentFinance and Financial Sector Development KeywordsAUDITSBANKBANKSCAPITAL MARKETSCOLLATERALCONTRIBUTIONECONOMIC DEVELOPMENTFUND ASSETSINFORMATIONINSURANCEINSURANCE COMPANIESINTERESTSINVESTMENTMONEYPENSION FUNDPENSION PLANPENSION SYSTEMSPRIVATE PENSIONPRIVATE PENSION FUNDSVALUATION PDF DownloadLoading ...

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 29 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.