Given the worldwide concern that individuals are not saving sufficiently for retirement, many governments are taking action to try and rectify this tendency. A key focus area is implementing policies to dissuade individuals from accessing accumulated retirement funds when changing jobs. While traditional economic theories assume that individuals act rationally and make optimal decisions without outside intervention, current policy interventions support behavioural theories of decision-making where sub-optimal choices occur due to limitations in human decision-making. Therefore, interventions are based on the assumption that individuals act irrationally. Despite these interventions, many individuals still

Purpose Regulatory documents and the literature recommend individuals with various characteristics to be included on a board, which should improve the efficiency of the board and promote company performance. Stakeholders have different expectations from a company, for which the literature holds the board accountable. Shareholders, for example, want superior returns, while government requires the implementation of transformation initiatives, especially in South Africa. It will therefore be valuable to several interested parties to know which board characteristics are likely to promote their objectives. Design/methodology/approach Binary logistic regression is used to analyse the relationship between various board characteristics and the risk-adjusted performance of a company. The dataset comprised 170 companies, from the 13 largest sectors/ subsectors of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange for the period 2009 to 2015. Findings Percentage female (negative), chief executive officer remuneration (negative), chairman remuneration (positive) and non-executive director remuneration (positive) and the payment gap (positive) showed statistically significant relationships with the odds that a company is categorised as a top performer based on its risk-adjusted return. Practical implications The findings inform various parties whether the benefits ascribed to the various board characteristics, by the literature and regulations, are actually obtained. Originality/value The study moved away from the practice of looking for linearity in corporate relationships and expanded the list of board characteristics reviewed. It used a risk-adjusted performance measure, introduced innovative diversity measures, and focussed on South Africa.

Background: Inadequate retirement savings is an international challenge. Additionally, individuals are not cognisant of how asset allocation choices ultimately impact retirement savings. Life cycle and balanced funds are popular asset allocation strategies to save towards retirement. However, recent research is questioning the efficacy of life cycle funds that switch to lower risk asset classes as retirement approaches.Aim: The purpose of this study is to compare the performance of life cycle funds with balanced funds to determine whether either dominates the other. The study compares balanced and life cycle funds with similar starting asset allocations as well as those where the starting asset allocations differ.Setting: The study has a South African focus and constructs funds using historical data for the main local asset classes; that is, equity, fixed income and cash, as well as a proxy for foreign equity covering the period 1986–2013.Method: The study makes use of Monte Carlo simulations and bootstrap with replacement, and compares the simulated outcomes using stochastic dominance as decision-making criteria.Results: The results indicate that life cycle funds fail to dominate balanced funds by first-order or almost stochastic dominance when funds have a similar starting asset allocation. It is noteworthy that there are instances where the opposite is true, that is, balanced funds dominate life cycle funds. These results highlight that while the life cycle funds provide more downside protection, they significantly suppress the upside potential compared to balanced funds. When the starting asset allocations of the balanced and life cycle funds differ, the stochastic dominance results are inconsistent as to the efficacy of the life cycle fund strategies considered.Conclusion: The study shows that whether one fund is likely to dominate the other is strongly dependent on the underlying asset allocation strategies of the funds. Additionally, the length of the glide path and the risk and return characteristics of the investable universe are also likely to influence the findings.