I think that this article has missed the point. Whereas the post-1995 pension funds, a.k.a. "new pension funds", collect deposits from paying members to provide a range of savings and insurance benefits, Manager Policies do the same although using a different structure. It is correct that the pension funds pool risks for benefit payable in case of death or disability so that all members bear the cost and only those few claimants receive the benefits. For Manager Insurance policies, the insurance company collects premiums paid for benefits paid in case of death or disability, takes a profit margin, and then pools the monies in a 'collective' fund from which the insurance company will pay those few claimants. No one is suggesting that the insurance companies are willing to pay out the benefits without first collecting sufficient premiums from all policy holders in order to pay those few claimants. In short the structure is different but the pooling of risk is common. We might say that the insurance company provides the insurance for these benefits and similarly that the pension funds provides insurance for their members. The differences show not only in the structure, but also in the running costs, then ultimately the management fees, and in the terms of benefit. The advantages of the pension funds have not been eroded (since 1995) and are very relevant today. However at least some of the advantages of the more expensive Management policies have been eroded of late, and in particular with respect to new policies to be issued from 2013.
Colombia recalls ambassador to Venezuela amid border crisis (Reuters)
from the article: Bottom Shekel / The humanity of the pension funds