Ordinary Credit Units, Benefit with Salary Scale, and Projecting Credit Units

Sunarta Susanto

doi:10.47194/orics.v1i3.147

Authors

Sunarta Susanto
sunarta18001@mail.unpad.ac.id

Keywords:

pension fund, traditional unit credit, projected unit credit

Abstract

In determining the benefits of a pension fund, proper calculations are needed so as not to provide a pension that is too small or too large for someone. The importance of discussing the problems in pension funds is to understand the various problems that exist in determining pension funds. The purpose of making the solution to the selected questions is because the author feels that a discussion about these questions is needed. The problems that exist are sought to be solved using the Traditional Unit Credit (TUC) method and the Projected Unit Credit (PUC) method. The result obtained from the problem under discussion is that if only changes in the age part are entered, it means that it is only necessary to multiply the previously obtained normal cost by the difference from the age in the specified year with the entered age. For those who survive, the normal fee is IDR 33,125, if there are 92 participants who are still alive, the normal fee is IDR. 3,047,490, if there are 96 participants who are still alive, the normal fee is IDR 3,180,000, and if all participants are still alive, the normal fee is IDR 3,312,510. It is hoped that the discussion of the selected questions will help readers understand how to solve problems in determining pension funds.

References

Benartzi, S., & Thaler, R. (2007). Heuristics and biases in retirement savings behavior. Journal of Economic perspectives, 21(3), 81-104. Chen, K. (2018).

Occupation pension for public employees in the People's Republic of China: A new approach with defined benefit underpin pension plan. Review of Development Economics, 22(3), 990-1004.

Donnelly, C. (2014). Quantifying mortality risk in small defined-benefit pension schemes. Scandinavian Actuarial Journal, 2014(1), 41-57. Giang, T. L., & Pfau, W. D. (2008).

Demographic changes and the long-term pension finances in Vietnam: a stochastic actuarial assessment. Journal of population ageing, 1(2), 125-151.

Gollier, C. (2008). Intergenerational risk-sharing and risk-taking of a pension fund. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5-6), 1463-1485.

Hardy, M. R., Saunders, D., & Zhu, X. (2014). Market-consistent valuation and funding of cash balance pensions. North American Actuarial Journal, 18(2), 294-314.

Lim, J. Y. (2020). The Determinants of Public Pension Debt in US States. Transylvanian Review of Administrative Sciences, 16(60), 53-71.

Maloletko, A. N., Kaurova, O. V., Erokhin, S. G., Matraeva, L. V., & Bakumenko, L. P. (2016). Comparative analysis of approaches to providing information regarding actuarial activities of pension funds in various countries. Journal of Economic & Management Perspectives, 10(2), 241-251.

Peek, J., Reuss, A., & Scheuenstuhl, G. (2008). Evaluating the impact of risk-based funding requirements on pension funds. OECD Journal: Financial Market Trends, 2008(1), 197-219.

Permana, B. N., Purnamasari, Y., & Purnamasari, I. (2017). Penerapan Metode Projected Unit Credit dan Entry Age Normal pada Asuransi Dana Pensiun. EKSPONENSIAL, 7(2), 171-178.

Wahyudi, S., Hasanudin, H., & Pangestutia, I. (2020). Asset allocation and strategies on investment portfolio performance: A study on the implementation of employee pension fund in Indonesia. Accounting, 6(5), 839-850.