CONFIDENTIAL #
機密
2
Guarantees
wide
There is
variation in guarantee practices elsewhere. The approach in each country is influenced by the nature of the schemes, whether they are voluntary or mandatory, and the strength of ongoing supervision. In most cases, government is not directly exposed to the costs of a guarantee system. Instead the financial guarantees are usually underwritten by participants.
Government's role is restricted to legislating the system and setting up an operating
mechanism.
Employees may have many
to which their
extent
guaranteed under the RPS providers, insolvency of
regarding
the
expectations
retirement benefits are (e.g. against insolvency of employers, investment losses
etc.) - most of which are impractical.
The introduction of a guarantee against losses due to fraud and theft is recommended : the authority may provide financial assistance, in the form of a loan, where a loss due to fraud or theft causes a reduction in assets below the level of mandatory liabilities. The authority will have the power to recoup any financial assistance granted through a retrospective levy charged
charged on all complying schemes. The levy will be charged in proportion to mandatory liabilities.
On the insolvency of an employer it is recommended that unpaid mandatory contributions should rank as unpaid wages i.e. a priority claim for employees.
No additional guarantee is proposed against insolvency of an authorised provider Government should rely on existing legislation (i.e. Banking Ordinance, Insurance Companies Ordinance and Trustee Ordinance) to regulate the authorized providers.
The ORSO provides a reasonable regulatory framework for the RPS but some amendments may be needed to provide additional cover for mandatory benefits.
Preservation and Portability
Most countries leaving service.
require
preservation
of benefits upon
CONFIDENTIAL #
機