Heterogeneity effects on the management of retirement fund

2018 ◽  
Vol 51 (19) ◽  
pp. 2043-2060
Author(s):  
T. Danswasvong ◽  
S. Suchintabandid
Weed Science ◽  
2001 ◽  
Vol 49 (6) ◽  
pp. 798-805 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin M. Williams II ◽  
David A. Mortensen ◽  
Alex R. Martin ◽  
David B. Marx

2019 ◽  
Vol 172 ◽  
pp. 1174-1185 ◽  
Author(s):  
Junho Oh ◽  
Kue-Young Kim ◽  
Weon Shik Han ◽  
Minji Kim ◽  
Eungyu Park

Author(s):  
Gizelle D. Willows ◽  
Thomas Burgers ◽  
Darron West

Background: There is growing uncertainty in global society with regard to how retirement savings should be approached. The primary reason for this is that most societies do not save enough and their citizens run out of money during retirement. Aim: This study investigates whether the limitations imposed by Regulation 28 of the Pension Funds Act of South Africa encourage optimal asset allocation and reduce investment risk for retirement savings when contrasted with discretionary investment. Setting: The study looks at hypothetical individuals who are subject to tax and retirement consequences as administered by South African legislation. Methods: A quantitative risk and return analysis was performed while considering two hypothetical investors who are identical in all aspects other than their choice of investments. Results: The findings indicate that Regulation 28 is effective in reducing the investment risk of retirement savings; however, it may also force the investor to sacrifice wealth. Conclusion: Depending on the tax bracket in which the investor sits, discretionary investment may be preferential to investing in a retirement fund under the mandate of Regulation 28.


2015 ◽  
Vol 134 ◽  
pp. 60-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Avinoam Rabinovich ◽  
Kasama Itthisawatpan ◽  
Louis J. Durlofsky

2012 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 296-306
Author(s):  
Ntombizozuko Dyani

AbstractCohabitation is left largely unregulated in South Africa, which means that many cohabitants are left destitute or financially worse off when their cohabiting partners die. The Pension Funds Act 24 of 1956, in particular section 37C, is one of the few pieces of legislation that afford legal protection to cohabitants who are left financially worse off due to the death of their partners. However, three previous pension funds adjudicators gave different views as to how to interpret this provision. This note seeks to compare three decisions by three different adjudicators and concludes that the latest decision in Hlathi is the most preferred, because it interprets section 37C progressively, taking into account the spirit, purport and objects of the Bill of Rights.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document