MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124408240

Long-Term Returns: a Reality Check for Pension Funds and Retirement Savers

2013· article· en· W3124408240 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueC.D. Howe Institute Commentary · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPensionBondPortfolioStock (firearms)Investment performanceEconomicsInvestment decisionsInvestment (military)Term (time)Institutional investorCapital marketInvestment strategyActuarial scienceRate of returnPoint (geometry)Financial economicsFinanceBusinessReturn on investmentBehavioral economicsCorporate governanceMicroeconomics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Expectations for investment returns play an important role in establishing business capital cost and capital structure, as well as influencing individual savings behaviour, risk-taking, and long-term funding of institutional obligations such as pensions. Proper and realistic forecasting makes for better long-term investment decisions improving retirement planning. In this Commentary, we demonstrate why pension plan administrators and individual savers should avoid using historical rates of returns to forecast future returns, and provide our own forecast for long-term investment returns on a balanced portfolio of bonds and stocks using current and prospective market information. Our empirical analysis of Canadian data provides substantial evidence that forecasts based on past performance should not form a basis for decision-making, as they consistently point in the wrong direction. The history of stock and bond markets is punctuated with extreme situations – such as the recent global financial crisis – that make drawing on the outcome of these events inappropriate as a predictor of future performance. Thus, relying on historical performance to inform long-run return forecasts in pricing future pension liabilities is almost certain to be misleading. Prospectively, using information available as of February 2013, we predict long-term returns in the neighbourhood of 2.5 percent (0.5 percent real) on long-term bonds and of 6.9 percent (4.8 percent real) on stocks. For a balanced portfolio (50/50 split), we therefore expect a real return of 2.7 percent for the next decade. To incorporate potential risks to this scenario, we have performed a series of long-term simulations that give a sense of varied possible outcomes. We found significant downside risks. There is a 25 percent probability that portfolio returns will be lower than forecasted by more than one percentage point on a 30-year horizon, and lower by more than 2 percentage points on a 10-year horizon. Finally, we draw implications for pension funds and individual savers. The use of more realistic investment return expectations would reveal bigger pension liability for some defined-benefit pension plans. They also mean individuals should save more for their retirement to avoid a larger-than-expected drop in their retirement lifestyles.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.162
Threshold uncertainty score0.878

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.065
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.267 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it