G11 Portfolio Choice; Investment Decisions
Refine
Year of publication
- 2020 (3) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (3)
Language
- English (3)
Has Fulltext
- yes (3)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (3)
Keywords
- Annuity (2)
- 401(k) plan (1)
- Household finance (1)
- Life cycle saving (1)
- Longevity risk (1)
- NAV-price-spread (1)
- Open-end real estate funds (1)
- Retirement (1)
- Secondary market (1)
- Trading restrictions (1)
Institute
Shares of open-end real estate funds are typically traded directly between the investor and the fund management company. However, we provide empirical evidence for the growth of secondary market activities, i.e., the trading of shares on stock exchanges. We find high trading levels in situations where the fund management company suspends the issue or redemption of shares. Shares trade at a discount when the fund management company suspends the redemption, whereas shares trade at a premium when the fund management company suspends the issue. We also find evidence that secondary market trading activity is increasing since German regulation introduced a minimum holding period and a mandatory notice period for open-end real estate funds.
The US Treasury recently permitted deferred longevity income annuities to be included in pension plan menus as a default payout solution, yet little research has investigated whether more people should convert some of the $18 trillion they hold in employer-based defined contribution plans into lifelong income streams. We investigate this innovation using a calibrated lifecycle consumption and portfolio choice model embodying realistic institutional considerations. Our welfare analysis shows that defaulting a modest portion of retirees’ 401(k) assets (over a threshold) is an attractive way to enhance retirement security, enhancing welfare by up to 20% of retiree plan accruals.
We have designed and implemented an experimental module in the 2014 Health and Retirement Study to measure older persons' willingness to defer claiming of Social Security benefits. Under the current system’ status quo where delaying claiming boosts eventual benefits, we show that 46% of the respondents would delay claiming and work longer. If respondents were instead offered an actuarially fair lump sum payment instead of higher lifelong benefits, about 56% indicate they would delay claiming. Without a work requirement, the average amount needed to induce delayed claiming is only $60,400, while when part-time work is stipulated, the amount is slightly higher, $66,700. This small difference implies a low utility value of leisure foregone, of under 20% of average household income.