Життєздатність пенсійних гарантійних схем щодо пенсій із визначеними виплатами в посткризовий період
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Many countries have established mandatory guarantee funds for such financial sector as banking, capital markets and insurance. But there are only few developed countries that provided some guarantees to those retired with pension benefits plans. The main feature of defined benefits schemes is that their participants know the size of the future pensions beforehand. However, provision of this level of pension demands constant correction of the size of contributions paid to the schemes that most often depend on a situation at the financial market and assets’ market value. But, nowadays plan sponsors (employers who pay contributions to the pension fund) become bankrupt more often than ten-fifteen years ago. Thus defined benefits pension schemes of their employees are underfunded. Developed countries apply different security mechanisms to protect defined pension benefits: solvency requirements, pension guarantee schemes (funds), and sponsor support. However, the most efficient are Pension benefit guarantee schemes in which the funding risks are born by the specially created pension guarantee funds. One of the oldest Pension benefit guarantee funds is the federal government’s Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) of the USA established in 1974 under the Enactment of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Ontario is the only jurisdiction in Canada with benefit guarantee insurance, the Pension Benefit Guarantee Fund, introduced in 1980, around the time when there had been a chain of plant closures at heavy industry. In some European countries (UK, Germany, Sweden and Switzerland) and Japan there are also national pension guarantee systems established to protect a pension fund and its beneficiaries against default risk of its sponsor. Many retirement benefits protection schemes were put in place as a result of political reactions to adverse events leading to loss of benefits for workers. The conducted in this paper analysis of mentioned schemes showed that there is no single approach in the creation and operation of guarantee schemes in pension benefit sector. Countries have there own economic and even more political reasons to establish such institutions. Also, there is growing concern about the funding status of defined benefit pension plans because of the increase in bankruptcy rates among plans’ sponsors. Therefore there are some arguments for and against Pension benefit guarantee schemes and possible governmental involvement in guarantee schemes. Arguments put forward in their favour is that they can provide some defence against the poor and incomplete design of the pension contract and the lack of diversification associated with defined benefit schemes. Arguments against – are risks that can arise as a consequence of their introduction. These risks include adverse selection, moral hazard, systematic risk and political risk.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,005 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,028 | 0,013 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».