Romanian dilemmas on the road to multifunds Mihai

Romanian dilemmas on the road to multifunds Mihai BOBOCEA Secretary General Romanian Pension Funds' Association (APAPR) Sofia, 18 th September 2009 CEEC Forum – Multifunds in the Pension Systems of the CEE Countries

Who we are • Romanian Pension Funds' Association (APAPR); • 18 members: 13 pension fund companies + 5 custodian banks = 99% of private pensions market; • 5 million participants (2 nd + 3 rd pillar); • We believe in: professional ethics, transparency, efficiency, protecting the best interests of both our members and pension fund participants; • APAPR is a proud member of both EFRP and FIAP. CEEC Forum – Multifunds in the Pension Systems of the CEE Countries

Agenda 1) Background on Romanian private pension system development 2) Overview: CEE pensions and multifunds 3) Our dilemmas on the road to multifunds 4) Destination, an outline 5) Conclusion CEEC Forum – Multifunds in the Pension Systems of the CEE Countries

1. Background: private pensions development 2 nd pillar (mandatory private pensions) • Launched in May 2008 with a 2% contribution; • Contributions go up 0. 5 percentage points a year, to reach 6% in 2016; • Freeze at 2% in 2009, but IMF/WB/EC impose going back to initial calendar and recovery of the lost 0. 5% in the first year of economic growth (2010 – 2011? ); • 4. 8 million participants, out of which 4. 4 mn are active; • Net assets worth EUR 438 mn (estimate: EUR 540 mn at end of 2009). CEEC Forum – Multifunds in the Pension Systems of the CEE Countries

1. Background: private pensions development 2 nd pillar (mandatory private pensions) CEEC Forum – Multifunds in the Pension Systems of the CEE Countries

1. Background: private pensions development 3 nd pillar (voluntary private pensions) • Launched in May 2007, with tax break of EUR 200/year; • Tax break went up to EUR 400/year at 1 st January 2009; • “Corporate” product, occupational-like features (ex: employer can contribute on behalf of employee; no vesting); • 175, 000 participants, very slow growth expected; • Net assets worth EUR 38 mn (estimate: EUR 50 mn at end of 2009). CEEC Forum – Multifunds in the Pension Systems of the CEE Countries

1. Background: private pensions development 3 nd pillar (voluntary private pensions) CEEC Forum – Multifunds in the Pension Systems of the CEE Countries

2. Pensions and multifunds in CEE countries 2 nd pillar: 10 countries, 30. 5 mn participants, net assets worth EUR 50. 3 bn (data for end-2008); 3 rd pillar: 11 countries, 7. 6 mn participants, net assets worth EUR 11. 2 bn (data for end-2008); Est. 2015: ~50 mn participants, EUR 200 -250 bn net assets; Multifunds: - already adopted in 4/11 states: Estonia&Latvia (20022004), Slovakia (2005), Hungary (2009); - debated upon / proposed in: Bulgaria (3 rd pillar, 2010? ), Czech Republic (3 rd pillar v 2. 0, 2011? ), Poland (projects under debate), Romania (2011? ). CEEC Forum – Multifunds in the Pension Systems of the CEE Countries

3. Our dilemmas on the road to multifunds I. Shall we have multifunds implemented? When? • issue has been on the agenda for ~1 -2 years now, there is still no consensus (supervisor & market) on the opportunity to adopt this solution. Possibility: 2011 II. How much freedom (investment choice) for participants? • too much => information overload, most participants will walk the easy path (default option); also more expensive • too little => would affect system’s credibility and participants’ trust • fair balance between flexibility (freedom of choice) and potential speculative behavior • must limit the scope for bad (adverse) decisions CEEC Forum – Multifunds in the Pension Systems of the CEE Countries

3. Our dilemmas on the road to multifunds III. How many funds, what asset allocation limits? • 2 -3 -5 funds? What limits for asset allocation? • we have to change from current fund risk rating (based only on credit risk = % of assets in “safe” bonds) to market risk based ratings (% of assets in equity) for funds IV. Design of default option, a system on “autopilot” • how to link participants’ age (investment horizon) to corresponding type of fund? • what should be the default fund? Chile approach (default = corresponding fund with extremes blocked) vs. Slovakia & Baltics approach (default = conservative fund) • what options to “block” (ex: the dynamic fund for the older participants)? CEEC Forum – Multifunds in the Pension Systems of the CEE Countries

3. Our dilemmas on the road to multifunds V. How to transfer participants between fund types? • i. e. how to ensure an efficient, less risky transition? • should transition be automated when a certain age is reached (Hungary) or a smoother, gradual, transition, should be sought (Chile)? VI. Low potential for economies of scale • Romanian 2 nd pillar: very low contribution, very low participants’ income, very low fees charged by fund managers, a very concentrated market • => 2 major problems: - diversification risks for smaller funds - cost sustainability issues for all pension fund companies CEEC Forum – Multifunds in the Pension Systems of the CEE Countries

3. Our dilemmas on the road to multifunds VII. Transition to multifunds = more costs for pension fund companies. Can we take it? • past¤t investments made by pension companies to breakeven until year 2021; • new costs only seem acceptable if fund fee structure is reorganized: - higher fees for dynamic (equity-dense) fund - lower fees for conservative (bond-dense) fund - managing expenses (trading, custody, etc. ) must be transferred back from pension company to pension fund VIII. How to link multifunds with payout phase? • although it’s very early, payout phase legislation is currently being drafted, we must ensure an efficient transition from multifunds to payout phase. CEEC Forum – Multifunds in the Pension Systems of the CEE Countries

4. Destination, an outline What should multifunds ensure? • Closer to optimum (risk)–(investment horizon)–(return) correlation for all pension fund participants • Minimize market risk for participants close to payout • Fair trade-off between participants’ and pension fund companies’ costs and benefits from the new system • Bonus: more active implication of participants, more responsibility about investment choices, maybe more financial education & awareness CEEC Forum – Multifunds in the Pension Systems of the CEE Countries

5. Instead of conclusions… • Most important lesson from the current crisis: the end has come for the “one size fits all” approach; • Success / failure of multifunds resides in system design (careful at all details!); • Very risk-adverse legislation & authorities are a barrier to be seriously considered when adopting multifunds in Romania. Photo: diversityjobs. com CEEC Forum – Multifunds in the Pension Systems of the CEE Countries

Wish you all… … a q. Uick reco. Very! mihai. bobocea@apapr. ro www. apapr. ro CEEC Forum – Multifunds in the Pension Systems of the CEE Countries