Are lifecycle funds appropriate as default options in participant-directed retirement plans?
| Data(s) |
2014
|
|---|---|
| Resumo |
The appropriateness of default investment options in participant-directed retirement plans like 401(k) has been in sharp focus given that most participants fail to nominate an investment option to direct their contributions. In United States (US), prior to the Pension Protection Act (PPA) of 2006, plan fiduciaries often selected a money market fund as the default option. Whilst this ‘low risk and low return’ investment option was considered to be a ‘safe’ choice by many fiduciaries who were fearful of litigation risk, it was heavily criticized for resulting in inadequate wealth at retirement, particularly when retirees were living much longer and facing inflation risk (see, for example, Viceira, 2008; Skinner, 2009)... |
| Formato |
application/pdf |
| Identificador | |
| Publicador |
Elsevier |
| Relação |
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/70064/2/70064.pdf DOI:10.1016/j.econlet.2014.04.020 Basu, Anup K., Chen, En Te, & Clements, Adam (2014) Are lifecycle funds appropriate as default options in participant-directed retirement plans? Economics Letters, 124(1), pp. 51-54. |
| Direitos |
Copyright 2014 Elsevier This is the author’s version of a work that was accepted for publication in Economics Letters. Changes resulting from the publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections, structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was subsequently published in Economics Letters, [Vol 124, Issue 1] DOI: 10.1016/j.econlet.2014.04.020 |
| Fonte |
QUT Business School |
| Palavras-Chave | #140000 ECONOMICS #140207 Financial Economics #140213 Public Economics- Public Choice |
| Tipo |
Journal Article |
