@article {Schaus71, author = {Stacy Schaus and Will Allport and Justin Blesy}, title = {DC Plans: International Experience and the Need to Address Retirement Security }, volume = {2}, number = {1}, pages = {71--88}, year = {2014}, doi = {10.3905/jor.2014.2.1.071}, publisher = {Institutional Investor Journals Umbrella}, abstract = {Despite having participants with similar retirement-outcome goals, the three countries with the greatest reliance on defined-contribution (DC) plans{\textemdash}Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom{\textemdash}have adopted dramatically different approaches to plan design and investment management. Typical glide paths in these countries, though, tend to have one thing in common: They may leave investors exposed to excessive risk. The authors contrast the key features of DC plans in these countries and call for a more thorough analysis of the risk of loss, as well as the sources of risk, in investment defaults. Glide-path design should focus on desired outcomes, respect risk-capacity limits, and incorporate risk diversification, inflation hedging, and market-shock protection strategies.TOPICS: Retirement, developed, risk management}, issn = {2326-6899}, URL = {https://jor.pm-research.com/content/2/1/71}, eprint = {https://jor.pm-research.com/content/2/1/71.full.pdf}, journal = {The Journal of Retirement} }