In the middle of the debate about pension reform, there is one outstanding issue: the development and the effectiveness of the governance in which the multi-agency working.
A multi-lingual scheme is the idea that they should provide results that are consistent with their risk level. However, research carried out by educators with Arturo Cifuentes (ClapesUC), shows that it did not happen, in fact, when it analyzes five year periods, most of the time it is. passing, it has been more dangerous. the property has no less rent. The issue is important for pensions in the country and, to date, had not gone near. In fact, the problem that the AFP regulates is not the problem, but the regulatory framework of the investment policy that they must follow.
A number of documents describe this situation. The first "fifteen years of a marked grant: assessing knowledge of the pensions of Chilean", by Hans Schlechter (ClapesUC), Bernardo Pagnoncelli, and Cifuentes, reveals that the study of multicultural growth has taken place. negative judgment. Although the survey indicates that funds are ranked well on the basis of their risk (with F as the highest risk and E the least risk), "their aggregate coverage did not extend over time t according to their profile.
Subsequently the paper states that, in particular, partners A and B receive more risks, but they do not receive any feedback which they poses. Over five years, the situation is worsening, as all the funds come back together, "which implies that it was not better to maintain one kind of fund. "
This situation has been particularly the case of the younger workforce, who joined the system around 2007 and perhaps funded A. The document suggests, for example, that they can be seen. were investing 100 UF in 2007, they would only have 102.12 UF in November 2015. The evidence shows that it did not attempt to control the image of the return of assets held through the Fund. allocating assets without adjusting in the timescale required. The figures for risk return are very precisely against the desired objectives.
The problem is that the reason for this is that the asset managers in the AFPs are connected to this, as it is the regulatory framework that takes the minimum and maximum levels of each type. T to have an asset. The same authors show that these managers, too at the end of the day, are losing out on this ruling.
What is proposed?
In the second study, involving Cifuentes and Pagnoncelli, with Tomás Gutiérrez and Davi Valladao, the solution is attempted to solve the answers.
The authors recommend that the current system, in which the assets are divided by type, is replaced by the boundary system measured by VaR (Value-for-Risk) or CVaR. T resource. risk assessment), which inhibits investment directly with the risk it takes, and not the quality class. This would not only align the risks with the responses, but would give managers more flexibility.
Indeed, in another document, which is now on show by ClapesUC (Pension Funds in Mexico and Chile: Comparison Hazard Comparison, with Schlechter, Pagnoncelli and Cifuentes), Chilean's multi-currency system will be compared with about the Mexican. In the last country, maximum limits are used for smaller, but not-for-asset classes and with risk limits at pack level, which are different to each asset.
Under this scheme, the Mexican multifunds system has been "displaying a lot more feedback according to its profile award for each asset," which is in the survey. Thus the results of this money will be allocated, as usual, that is, the most risky are the higher responses and vice versa.