Tài liệu Pension fund assets climb back to pre-crisis levels but full recovery still uncertain ppt

LINK DOWNLOAD MIỄN PHÍ TÀI LIỆU "Tài liệu Pension fund assets climb back to pre-crisis levels but full recovery still uncertain ppt": http://123doc.vn/document/1054895-tai-lieu-pension-fund-assets-climb-back-to-pre-crisis-levels-but-full-recovery-still-uncertain-ppt.htm

© OECD 2011 – Pension Markets in Focus – July 2011 – Issue 8 5
PENSION MARKETS in focus
The relatively better aggregated performance of
pension funds in Colombia, Latvia, Ukraine, Peru and
Romania in comparison to OECD countries is because
their systems are still in their infancy with investments
increasing at a fast pace in a low market price
environment and with fairly good investment returns
since acquisition.
Annual average net investment returns (in local
currency terms) over the last three years (2008-10) were
highest in Turkey (16.5% in nominal terms, 7.5% in real
terms), followed by Denmark (6.8% nominal, 4.3% real),
Mexico (6.8% nominal, 1.8% real), and Germany (4.7%
nominal, 3.3% real) (Table 1). All other countries
experienced nominal returns below 5% on average
over 2008-10 and real returns below 3%. Pension funds in
twenty out of the twenty-six OECD countries that report
net investment income experienced a negative real
rate of return over the period. The worst performance
was observed in Spain (-2.0% nominal, -3.8% real),
Australia (-2.8% nominal, -5.6% real), and Estonia (-3.7%
nominal, -7.7% real). The average, yearly net return over
the period was 0.4% in nominal terms and -1.4% in real
terms.
Non-OECD countries generally experienced better
investment performances over 2008-10 (Table 2).
Colombia‟s pension fund industry was the best
performer with an 18.6% nominal rate of return (13.5% in
real terms), while Bulgaria‟s was the worst (-4.4% in
nominal terms, -9.6% in real terms).
Table 2. Pension fund nominal and real
3-year average annual returns in selected
non-OECD countries over 2008-2010 (%)
3-year average return
Nominal Real
Colombia 18.6 13.5
Romania 17.0 9.8
Albania 8.3 5.1
Nigeria 5.9 -5.7
Costa Rica 5.7 -2.9
Pakistan 3.9 -10.3
Macedonia 3.0 0.0
Peru 0.4 -2.9
Bulgaria -4.4 -9.6
Country

Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics.
PENSION FUND INVESTMENT STRATEGIES
The proportions of equities and bonds in pension
fund portfolios remained relatively stable in most
countries, the main exception being some
countries where portfolios have been substantially
rebalanced towards other asset classes, primarily
domestic bonds.
Equity holdings in investment portfolios were a key
channel through which the financial turmoil affected
institutional investors and banks, causing a fall in the
value of their portfolio holdings. However, this
transmission channel appears to have generally been
mitigated for pension funds in more than half of OECD
countries where equity holdings do not make up more
than 30% of overall investment portfolios.
In most OECD countries for which we received data,
bonds – not equity – remain by far the dominant asset
class, accounting on average for 50% of total assets,
suggesting an overall conservative stance (Figure 3).
Countries like the United States, Australia, Finland and
Chile still showed significant portfolio allocations to
equities, in the range of 40% to 50%.
In Austria, Finland, Poland and the Netherlands, the
weight of equities in portfolios increased substantially
from 2009 to 2010 (in the range 6 to 7 percentage
points), while the bond allocation fell by a similar
amount. This shift is largely due to differences in
performance between the two asset classes which
were not compensated by rebalancing policies.
Pension funds in Germany, Estonia and Korea, on the
other hand, reduced their bills and bonds allocations,
while increasing other asset classes but not equities.
Another major change in investment strategies took
place in Greece. In 2010 there was a sharp rise of 12
percentage points in the proportion of cash and similar
assets (e.g. money market instruments) held by pension
funds, while their allocation to equities fell by a similar
percentage.
Most large pension funds use a rebalancing strategy. In
a period of falling equity prices, funds will buy more
equities to keep the percentage of equities in the
investment portfolio at the targeted level. Conversely,
funds sell equities if prices have risen. At macro-level,
this strategy tempers both upward and downward
movements in the equity market which is beneficial to
financial stability.




6 © OECD 2011 – Pension Markets in Focus – July 2011 – Issue 8
PENSION MARKETS in focus
Figure 3. Pension fund asset allocation for selected
investment categories in selected OECD countries, 2010
As a % of total investment
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
United States
Finland
Australia (2)
Chile
Belgium
Poland
Norway
Canada (3)
Austria
Turkey
Portugal
Netherlands
Iceland
Mexico
Denmark
Hungary
Spain
Italy (4)
Japan (5)
Israel
Germany (6)
Estonia (7)
Greece
Slovenia
Slovak Republic
Czech Republic
Korea (8)
Equities
Bills and bonds
Cash and deposit
Other (1)

Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics.
Figure 4. Pension fund asset allocation for selected investment categories
in selected non-OECD countries, 2010
As a % of total investment
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Hong Kong (China)
Peru
Colombia
Pakistan
Nigeria
Ukraine
Bulgaria
Jamaica
Romania
Macedonia
Latvia
Albania
Costa Rica
Equities
Bills and bonds
Cash and deposit
Other

Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics.


© OECD 2011 – Pension Markets in Focus – July 2011 – Issue 8 7
PENSION MARKETS in focus

Despite the recovery in financial markets, asset
allocation remains challenging as pension funds and
sponsoring companies need to take complex strategic
decisions on the asset allocation mix in the context of
highly changeable market conditions.
Bonds also remain the dominant asset class in most
non-OECD countries monitored, accounting on
average for 55% of total assets. Non-OECD countries
with significant portfolio allocations to equities (in the
range of 40% to 55%) include Hong Kong (China), Peru
and Colombia. Cash and deposits also represent a
large share of total assets in Latvia, Ukraine and
Macedonia (in the range of 30% to 55%).
IMPORTANCE OF PENSION FUNDS
RELATIVE TO THE SIZE OF THE ECONOMY
The OECD weighted average asset-to-GDP ratio
for pension funds increased from 68.0% of GDP in
2009 to 71.6% of GDP in 2010. The United States
saw an increase of 5 percentage points in the
value of its asset-to-GDP ratio in 2010, equivalent
to a gain of USD 1 trillion in assets, from USD 9.6
trillion to USD 10.6 trillion.
By December 2010, OECD pension fund assets in
relation to national economies amounted to 71.6% of
GDP on average, still down from 78.2% in 2007, but

Figure 5. Importance of pension funds relative to the size of the economy
in selected OECD countries, 2010
As a % of GDP

134.9
123.9
90.9
86.6
82.1
72.6
71.6
67.0
60.9
49.7
49.0
48.9
33.2
25.2
15.8
14.6
13.8
12.6
11.4
7.9
7.8
7.4
7.4
6.3
5.3
5.2
4.6
4.0
3.8
2.5
2.3
0.2
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Netherlands
Iceland
Australia
United Kingdom (1)
Finland
United States
Weighted average
Chile
Canada
Denmark
Ireland (2)
Israel
Simple average
Japan (3)
Poland
Hungary
New Zealand
Mexico
Portugal
Spain
Norway
Slovak Republic
Estonia (4)
Czech Republic
Austria
Germany
Italy
Korea
Belgium
Slovenia
Turkey
France (5)
Greece

Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics.


8 © OECD 2011 – Pension Markets in Focus – July 2011 – Issue 8
PENSION MARKETS in focus
substantially higher than the equivalent figure in 2008 of
60.3%. The Netherlands has still the largest proportion of
pension assets to GDP (134.9%), followed by Iceland
(123.9%) and Australia (90.9%).
Only two countries registered asset-to-GDP ratios lower
in 2010 than in 2009 - Portugal (-2 percentage points)
and Japan (-1.4 percentage points). Finland, the United
Kingdom and the United States exceeded the OECD
weighted average asset-to-GDP ratio of 71.6%, with
figures in the range 70 to 90%.
Outside the OECD, Hong Kong‟s pension fund industry
was the first ever to surpass the OECD (simple) average,
with asset to GDP ratio of 34.7% in December 2010. In
most other non-OECD countries the ratios remain below
20% (Figure 6).
Figure 6. Importance of pension funds
relative to the size of the economy in
selected non-OECD countries, 2010
As a % of GDP
34.7
25.1
20.2
16.1
15.3
14.4
14.4
8.9
5.7
4.1
3.4
1.6
0.9
0.9
0.7
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Hong Kong (China)
El Salvador (1)
Peru
Colombia (1)
Weighted average
Uruguay (1)
Brazil
Simple average
Bulgaria
Dominican Republic (1)
Russian Federation
Indonesia (2)
Romania
Latvia
China
India (3)
Ukraine
Pakistan

Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics.
GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
In absolute terms, the United States has the largest
pension fund market within OECD countries, with
assets worth USD 10.6 trillion. In relative terms,
however, the United States’ share of OECD
pension fund assets shrank from a level of 67% in
2001 to 55% in 2010.
Other OECD countries with large pension fund systems
include the United Kingdom with assets worth USD 1.9
trillion and a 10% share of the OECD pension fund
market; Japan, USD 1.4 trillion and 7%; the Netherlands
and Australia, USD 1.1 trillion and 6%; Canada, USD
1 trillion and 5%; and Switzerland, USD 0.55 trillion and
3%. For the remaining 27 countries, total pension fund
assets in 2010 were valued at approximately USD 1.5
trillion, accounting for 8% of the OECD total (Figure 7).
When both OECD and non-OECD economies are
combined, the world pension fund total at the end of
2010 was equivalent to USD 19.3 trillion, of which 96% or
USD 18.6 trillion were accounted for by OECD countries
and 4% or USD 0.7 trillion by non-OECD economies
(Table 3).
Figure 7. Geographical distribution of pension fund
assets in OECD countries, 2010
As a % of total OECD
United States
55%
United Kingdom
(1)
10%
Japan (2)
7%
Netherlands
6%
Australia
6%
Canada
5%
Switzerland (3)
3%
Other
8%

Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics.


© OECD 2011 – Pension Markets in Focus – July 2011 – Issue 8 9
PENSION MARKETS in focus
Table 3. Total investment of pension funds in OECD
and selected non-OECD countries, 2007-2010
In millions of USD and national currency

2007 2008 2009 2010 2007 2008 2009 2010
Australia 964 365 916 789 811 719 1 089 723 1 152 641 1 097 855 1 040 770 1 187 994
Austria 18 014 18 343 19 532 19 751 13 150 12 546 14 063 14 912
Belgium 20 262 16 677 19 165 17 627 14 792 11 407 13 799 13 308
Canada 888 645 772 383 806 350 1 017 672 954 620 824 563 920 352 1 048 446
Chile 105 602 89 482 106 596 136 254 55 173 152 46 750 887 59 785 337 69 523 453
Czech Republic 8 241 11 225 11 332 12 182 167 197 191 705 215 871 232 422
Denmark 100 864 161 649 133 980 154 380 548 978 824 240 718 055 867 884
Estonia (1) 970 1 076 1 323 1 419 11 087 11 506 14 898 16 753
Finland 173 973 164 826 184 821 196 101 127 000 112 737 133 071 148 056
France (2) 1 921 2 718 4 167 4 570 1 402 1 859 3 000 3 450
Germany 154 470 172 351 175 501 171 352 112 763 117 884 126 361 129 371
Greece 34 49 63 70 25 34 45 53
Hungary 15 068 14 886 16 886 19 082 2 766 268 2 567 247 3 412 000 3 964 528
Iceland 26 749 18 987 14 351 15 606 1 713 955 1 670 875 1 774 719 1 907 678
Ireland (3) 118 633 92 867 100 278 100 000 86 602 63 519 72 200 75 500
Israel 54 394 85 400 90 656 106 376 223 454 306 418 356 459 397 740
Italy 68 686 78 498 86 818 93 788 50 140 53 691 62 509 70 810
Japan (4) 1 122 878 1 120 049 1 351 190 1 388 329 132 228 600 115 799 900 126 433 000 121 840 700
Korea 29 786 27 790 29 632 40 146 27 684 625 30 593 454 37 779 083 46 386 464
Luxembourg 512 569 1 172 374 390 844
Mexico 103 031 110 216 104 254 130 362 1 125 979 1 229 261 1 407 867 1 646 712
Netherlands 1 058 153 979 925 997 922 1 056 769 772 452 670 244 718 504 797 860
New Zealand 14 535 13 601 13 755 19 572 19 781 19 388 22 008 27 158
Norway 27 385 27 186 27 852 32 123 160 435 153 541 175 191 194 170
Poland 51 115 57 927 58 143 73 980 141 348 139 609 181 354 223 013
Portugal 30 625 29 653 30 441 26 125 22 356 20 282 21 918 19 725
Slovak Republic 3 132 4 640 5 508 6 466 2 286 3 174 3 966 4 882
Slovenia 860 1 041 1 266 1 437 628 712 911 1 085
Spain 118 465 114 230 118 159 111 122 86 479 78 130 85 074 83 897
Sweden 39 452 35 307 33 435 266 606 232 922 255 868
Switzerland 504 601 496 957 551 450 605 459 538 524 598 930
Turkey 7 920 10 934 14 017 17 318 10 296 14 200 21 682 25 845
United Kingdom (5) 2 186 472 1 698 841 1 753 016 1 943 110 1 092 671 927 723 1 124 262 1 258 106
United States 10 939 952 8 223 882 9 591 549 10 587 679 10 939 952 8 223 882 9 591 549 10 587 679
Selected non-OECD economies
Albania 0 1 2 2 45 93 154 203
Argentina (6) 31 198 32 881 96 714 103 247
Brazil 224 218 224 950 242 909 301 496 436 565 412 506 485 678 530 400
Bolivia (6) 2 559 3 428 4 246 5 042 20 088 24 822 29 809 35 398
Bulgaria 1 629 1 723 2 256 2 700 2 328 2 303 3 173 3 996
China 19 980 37 081 41 492 152 000 253 300 280 900
Colombia 31 212 35 079 30 928 46 304 64 867 218 69 025 803 67 015 269 87 911 524
Costa Rica 1 631 2 130 2 336 2 764 842 379 1 120 971 1 339 188 1 453 484
Dominican Republic (6) 797 1 142 1 602 2 122 26 504 39 531 57 730 78 264
Egypt 4 022 21 847
El Salvador (6) 3 656 4 256 4 763 5 335 31 990 37 243 41 675 46 684
Hong Kong (China) 64 404 60 042 67 397 78 113 502 445 467 535 522 448 606 941
India (5) 3 280 150 000
Indonesia (5) 9 617 11 489 87 904 869 104 437 000
Jamaica 2 522 2 698 2 530 173 912 196 410 222 402 259 067
Kenya 3 936 272 284
Latvia 182 206 92 109
Liechtenstein 1 862 2 091 2 512 2 235 2 266 2 728
Macedonia 70 116 198 269 3 125 5 037 8 751 12 494
Nigeria 1 791 2 454 9 285 13 513 858 580 1 098 980 1 382 500 2 031 001
Pakistan 11 10 12 16 648 735 1 008 1 375
Panama (6) 144 531 144 531
Peru 19 591 17 350 23 337 31 086 61 280 50 740 70 279 87 974
Romania 6 371 811 1 466 14 934 2 473 4 663
Russian Federation (7) 34 195 34 228 35 822 51 306 874 728 850 662 1 137 002 1 558 066
Serbia 52 107 3 051 7 222
South Africa 165 630 1 166 923
Thailand 12 796 13 967 15 069 441 710 465 297 516 651
Trinidad and Tobago 3 698 23 400
Ukraine 116 144 612 1 144
Uruguay (6) 2 913 3 975 3 821 5 814 68 371 83 275 86 239 116 629
Regional indicators
Total OECD 18 959 763 15 570 956 17 266 298 18 590 491
Total selected non-OECD 636 038 450 967 487 206 748 492
Total G20 (8) 18 712 968 15 133 494 16 780 699 18 693 996
Euro area 1 768 708 1 677 464 1 746 136 1 806 598
BRICS 444 023 259 178 315 811 397 574
Latin America 19 766 198 16 201 368 17 909 077 19 515 680
Asia 1 321 776 1 318 183 1 605 042 1 686 544
Total World 19 595 800 16 021 922 17 753 504 19 338 984
0.7%
-3.6%
-0.4%
8.5%
-0.4%
Average growth rates 2007-2010
USD millions
National currency millions
OECD countries
-0.7%
5.6%
0.0%

Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics.


10 © OECD 2011 – Pension Markets in Focus – July 2011 – Issue 8
PENSION MARKETS in focus
PENSION FUND INDUSTRY STRUCTURE
In recent years, occupational pension plan
sponsors in many countries have shown an
increasing interest in defined contribution (DC)
plans, as demonstrated by the number of
employers that have closed defined benefit (DB)
plans to new entrants and encouraged
employees to join DC plans.
DB plans, however, still play an important role, largely
due to their historical prominence, as the favoured
structure for workplace pensions in many countries. In
DC plans, participants bear most of the risks, while
employers assume the risks in traditional DB plans
sponsoring. So called “Hybrid and mixed” DB plans can
also be found in some countries (e.g., Canada,
Iceland, Portugal), which involve some degree of risk
sharing between employers and employees. In a post-
crisis context, improvements in effective design and
management of default strategies in accordance with
member needs and risk tolerances, will improve clarity
around responsibility and should ultimately result in
furthering governance of DC plans.
Assets accumulated in defined benefit (DB) and
defined contribution (DC) plans were almost equal
across the OECD area as a whole (Figure 8). However,
national markets vary considerably. For example, in
Chile, Czech Republic, Greece, Poland and the Slovak
Republic, all pension funds are DC, while DB dominates
in Finland, Norway and Germany. In other OECD
countries, there is a combination of both DC and DB
arrangements. As compared to 2009, the share of
traditional DB assets in total pension funds‟ assets
decreased significantly in Korea (-7.1 pp), Turkey (-4.5
pp), New Zealand (-4.0 pp), Israel (-2.6 pp) and Mexico
(-2.3 pp) to the profit of DC pension plans and
hybrid/mixed DB plans. The introduction of automatic
enrolment in many OECD countries in future years may
also further contribute to fuel this trend.
In DC plans, the transfer of a number of risks may
challenge individuals to face complex investment
choices, which bring to the fore the need for improving
transparency in information to members and their
financial education.

Figure 8. Relative shares of DB, DC and hybrid/mixed
pension fund assets in selected OECD countries, 2010
As a % of total assets
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Chile
Czech Republic
Greece
Hungary
Poland
Slovak Republic
Denmark
Italy
Australia
Mexico
New Zealand
Turkey
United States
Israel
Korea
Iceland
Portugal
Canada
Finland
Norway
Germany (1)
Defined contribution
Defined benefit
Hybrid/Mixed

Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics.


© OECD 2011 – Pension Markets in Focus – July 2011 – Issue 8 11
PENSION MARKETS in focus
Figure 9. Private pension assets by type of financing vehicle
in selected OECD countries, 2010
As a % of GDP and in absolute terms (USD billion)
(552 )
(17 )
(2019 )
(17371 )
(1124)
(217)
(280 )
(107 )
(159)
(28)
(131)
(232)
(113)
(3)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Denmark
Iceland
Canada
United States
Australia
Finland
Sweden (1)
Israel
Korea
Portugal
Spain
France (2)
Italy (3)
Slovenia
Pension funds
Book reserve
Pension insurance contracts
Other

Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics.
TYPES OF FINANCING VEHICLES
Pension assets also grew in vehicles other than
pension funds. Pension insurance contracts, in
particular, account for almost two thirds of the
total assets of funded pension arrangements in
Denmark and Korea and represent 105% and 10%
of their GDP, respectively. On the other hand,
pension funds are the only financing vehicle for
private pension plans in countries such as the
Czech Republic, Hungary, New Zealand, Poland,
the Slovak Republic and Switzerland.
Based on the OECD classification, there are three main
types of funded private pension plans: pension funds
(autonomous), book reserves (non-autonomous) and
pension insurance contracts. There is also a residual
category, “Other”, which includes pension plans
managed by other financial institutions such as banks or
investment companies and any private pension
arrangements not included above. The distinction
between these plans is the financing vehicle (see
“Private Pensions: OECD Classification and Glossary”
www.oecd.org/daf/pensions/gps for definitions).
Information on these other arrangements, however, is
not readily available for all OECD countries, especially
for products sold in the retail market (personal pension
plans). Information on the specific size of the proportion
of life insurance investments that correspond to pension
plans is available for a few OECD countries. Following
the OECD classification, these plans are referred to as
pension insurance contracts.
PRIVATE PENSION OPERATING COSTS
In general, countries with defined-contribution
systems and those with large numbers of small
funds appear to have higher operating costs than
countries with only a few funds offering defined-
benefit, hybrid, or collective defined-contribution
pension arrangements.
One way to judge the efficiency of private pension
systems is to look at the total operating costs in relation
to assets managed. The total operating costs of private
pension systems include all costs of administration and
investment management involved in the process of
transforming pension contributions into retirement
benefits. Operating costs include marketing the plan to
potential participants, collecting contributions, sending
contributions to investment fund managers, keeping
records of accounts, sending reports to participants,
investing the assets, converting account balances to
annuities, and paying annuities.


12 © OECD 2011 – Pension Markets in Focus – July 2011 – Issue 8
PENSION MARKETS in focus
Figure 10. Operating costs in selected OECD countries, 2010
As a % of total assets
1.4
1.3
1.0
0.9
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6
Czech Republic
Spain
Hungary
Slovenia
New Zealand
Australia
Slovak Republic
Greece
Poland
Netherlands
Finland
Israel
Canada
Norway
Belgium
Iceland
Denmark

Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics.
Figure 10 shows operating costs in selected OECD
countries expressed as a percentage of total assets in
2010. The Czech Republic, Spain and Hungary exhibited
the highest operating costs of all OECD countries
monitored, at respectively, 1.4%, 1.3% and 1.0%.
Operating costs in Slovenia, New Zealand and Australia
were in the range 0.5% to 0.9%.
On the other hand, operating costs accounted for less
than 0.3% of total assets in Canada (0.29%), Norway
(0.27%), Belgium (0.25%), Iceland (0.23%), and Denmark
(0.09%).
Operating costs in selected non-OECD countries tend
to be higher than in OECD countries, in particular in
Ukraine where operating costs represent 5.9% of assets
under management (Figure 11).
Figure 11. Operating costs in selected non-OECD
countries, 2010
As a % of total assets
5.9
1.9
1.9
1.3
1.2
1.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Ukraine
Macedonia
Latvia
Nigeria
Bulgaria
Costa Rica

Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics.


© OECD 2011 – Pension Markets in Focus – July 2011 – Issue 8 13
PENSION MARKETS in focus
CONCENTRATION OF ASSETS AND
MEMBERSHIP
Figure 12 illustrates the degree of concentration across
countries measured by total assets and members of the
three largest pension funds in 2010. It shows a group of
countries, such as Austria, Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia,
Estonia, Poland and Greece, with a high concentration
in terms of assets and membership. On the left-hand
side of the figure, countries with a more fragmented
market can be found. This is the case in Australia,
Finland, Italy, New Zealand, Norway, Mexico, Slovak
Republic and Spain.
The large concentration in certain countries, such as
Greece, can be attributed to a limited number of funds
dominated by one or two major market player as well
as to the fact, that some of the funds are newly
established.
Figure 12. Concentration of total assets compared to the membership of the
three largest pension funds in selected countries, 2010

Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics.


14 © OECD 2011 – Pension Markets in Focus – July 2011 – Issue 8
PENSION MARKETS in focus
PERFORMANCE OF PUBLIC PENSION RESERVE FUNDS
Public pension reserve fund (PPRF) assets continue to grow throughout 2010 but at a slower pace. By the
end of the year, the total amount of PPRF assets, within OECD countries for which such data was
available, was equivalent to USD 4.8 trillion, compared to USD 4.6 trillion in 2009. The average growth rate
in comparison to 2009 was 5.0% and the average asset-to-GDP ratio in 2010 was 19.6%.
Table 4. Size of public pension reserve fund markets
in selected OECD countries and other major economies, 2010
USD billions % of GDP % increase
Selected OECD countries
United States Social Security Trust Fund 1940 2 609.0 17.9 2.7
Japan (1) Government Pension Investment Fund 2006 1 312.8 25.9 n.d.
Korea National Pension Fund 1988 280.4 27.6 16.7
Canada Canadian Pension Plan 1997 136.0 8.6 13.0
Sweden National Pension Funds (AP1-AP4 and AP6) 2000 124.7 27.2 8.1
Spain Social Security Reserve Fund 1997 85.3 6.1 7.3
France (1) AGIRC-ARRCO n.d. 71.7 2.7 n.d.
Australia Future Fund 2006 65.8 5.5 8.4
France Pension Reserve Fund 1999 49.0 1.9 11.1
Ireland National Pensions Reserve Fund 2000 32.3 15.9 9.3
Belgium Zilverfonds 2001 23.3 5.0 4.3
Norway Government Pension Fund - Norway 2006 23.1 5.6 16.9
Portugal Social Security Financial Stabilisation Fund 1989 12.8 5.6 2.5
New Zealand (2) New Zealand Superannuation Fund 2001 11.2 7.9 17.1
Chile Pension Reserve Fund 2006 3.8 1.9 12.2
Mexico IMSS Reserve n.d. 3.6 0.3 -6.7
Poland Demographic Reserve Fund 2002 3.4 0.7 39.1
Total selected OECD countries (3) 4 848.1 19.6 5.0
Other major economies
Saudi Arabia General Organisation for Social Insurance (1,4) 1969 400.0 106.4 n.d.
China National Social Security Fund 2001 126.5 2.2 10.3
Argentina Sustainability Guarantee Fund 2007 45.7 12.3 26.4
Total other major economies (3) 572.2 75.9 14.6
Memo item: Sovereign Wealth Funds with a pension focus (5)
Norway Government Pension Fund - Global 1990 509.1 122.8 16.6
Russian Federation National Wealth Fund 2008 88.4 5.9 -2.7
Country
Name of the fund or institution
Founded in
Assets

Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics.

Total amounts of public pension reserve fund (PPRF)
assets were equivalent to USD 4.8 trillion by the end of
2010 within the OECD countries for which we received
data (Table 4). The largest reserve is held by the US
social security trust fund at USD 2.6 trillion, while Japan‟s
government pension investment fund is second at USD
1.3 trillion. Canada, Korea and Sweden also
accumulated large reserves. (see Pension Markets in
Focus, Issue 4, for definitions of the types of sovereign
and public pension reserve funds).
Table 4 also shows PPRFs in three major non-OECD
countries that are G20 members: Argentina, China and
Saudi Arabia. Reserves accumulated in Saudi Arabia‟s
general organisation for social security are estimated to
have reached over USD 400 billion at the end of 2009,
making them the third largest PPRF in the world, after
the US and Japan. China‟s national social security funds
reached USD 126.5 billion at the end of 2010, an
amount similar to the AP funds in Sweden.
The reserves put aside by the PPRFs for which we
received data increased by 5.5% on average between
2009 and 2010. The largest increase was observed for
Poland‟s demographic reserve fund, with 39.1% (see
last column of Table 4). PPRFs in Argentina, New
Zealand, Norway and Korea also experienced high
increases, larger than 15%. In most countries however,
the increase was lower in 2010 than in 2009 (7.3% on
average for OECD countries between 2008 and 2009, in
comparison to 5.0% between 2009 and 2010).