Pension Agreement

Checked on: 29 July 2022

The National Pension Agreement and how it will work in practice

In early July 2020, the employers’ organisations, the unions and the Cabinet settled on the practical details of the National Pension Agreement. The main principles were originally presented on 5 June 2019. The National Pension Agreement deals primarily with pensions that employees accrue with their employers, for example your pension with Philips Pensioenfonds. The National Pension Agreement represents a fundamental reform of the Dutch pension system. The details of the Pension Agreement should be final in legislation by 1 January 2022 at the latest. By 1 January 2026 at the latest, all pension funds in the Netherlands should have adapted their schemes to the new rules. In May 2021, the minister indicated that the legislative process is being delayed and that the new pension system will come into effect on 1 January 2023 at the latest. The end date is therefore also be shifted to January 1, 2027.

A lot still needs to be done before all pension schemes are adjusted. Firstly, these practical details of the National Pension Agreement still need further refinement before the arrangements can be codified in law. Secondly, the employers’ organisations and unions have numerous decisions to make, both at the industry level and at the level of individual companies. Lastly, decisions will also be made by the boards of the pension funds. As a consequence, it is currently still unclear when the pension plans that Philips Pensioenfonds administers will be adjusted to the new rules.

Do you have any questions about the Pension Agreement and its details? Below you will find a number of questions and answers that provide more insight into the new Pension Agreement and its elaboration.

Questions and answers

About the Pension Agreement

  • The National Pension Agreement primarily involves a fundamental overhaul of the pensions that employees accrue with their employers within the Dutch pension system, for example your pension with Philips Pensioenfonds.

    The National Pension Agreement provides for two types of pension plan. Employers and unions can agree on one of these options. Under each of those pension plans, you accrue pension savings that are yours alone. The first option is similar to defined contribution plans that already exist, and involves accruing an individual pension capital (the so-called flexible premium plan). In the second option, which is entirely new, the pension savings represent a share in a collectively invested pension capital (the so-called solidarity contribution plan). Besides plans in which you accrue individual pension savings (known as defined contribution plans), other plans currently exist under which members receive a commitment for pension entitlements. At Philips and Signify, this is done on the basis of a fixed contribution paid by the companies. If this contribution is sufficient to award the aspired pension accrual, it is granted. If not, the accrual percentage will be reduced. Pension plans such as these no longer exist within the new pension system, which instead will only feature the following types of pension plan:

    1. Flexible premium plan (an individual defined contribution plans): under these plans, members do not accrue pension entitlements, but rather an individual pension capital. The pension capital is invested according to an age-dependent life cycle in which young people invest more in risky categories than older people because the young people have a longer investment horizon. Generally, members may decide for themselves (within a set of defined parameters) how that capital should be invested and what risks they are willing to take. When you retire, you will draw your pension benefits from your own individual capital. Similar pension plans already exist in the current system.
    1. Solidary contribution plan (previously referred to as 'New pension contract'): these are also defined contribution plans. Members accrue pension capital as individual savings. Unlike option 1, however, your pension savings are collectively invested in the pension fund, together with the pension capital of other members. Your pension savings consist of a share in that collectively invested capital. The returns generated by the various asset classes are divided among the members, according to their age: following a strong investment year, the pension savings of younger members will grow proportionately more than those of older members, and vice versa after a poor investment year. The thought process behind this setup is that younger members have more time than older members to recover from a poor investment year, and so can afford to take greater investment risks. This is a new type of pension plan, which has no equivalent under the existing pension system.

    A key aspect of the National Pension Agreement is a new way of accruing pension rights, and the pension premium that is paid for it. Currently, every employee who earns the same salary accrues the same amount of pension every year, regardless of age. Given that the premiums contributed by younger members will generate returns over a longer period than the premiums of older members, the pension accruals of those younger members are cheaper. This is taken into account at Philips Pensioenfonds and employers also pay less premiums for young people than for older people*. However, this is not the case with a lot of pension funds and the same premium is charged for all members, regardless of their age. Both with Philips Pensioenfonds and with those other funds, the pension accrual is the same for everyone. Given that pension accrual is cheaper for younger members, the Cabinet, employers’ organisations and unions believe that it is fairer for them to pay lower premiums to accrue the same amount of pension with all pension funds (like they do now with Philips Pensioenfonds) - or to accrue more pension for the same premiums, which is the option chosen in the National Pension Agreement. Under the new system, all members of a particular pension plan will have access to the same premiums. Younger members will then accrue more pension, while older members accrue less.

    In itself there seems to be something to say that this is fairer than the current system, but this switch does create a transition problem. All existing pension accruals will be disadvantaged by the switch to the new system. This applies most to the group of participants aged around 45. After all, they will accrue less pension in the future, without having had a higher pension accrual in the past. According to the government and the social partners, this disadvantage must be compensated.

    This can involve significant costs. You can find more information about compensation in the question "Will disadvantaged members be compensated?"

    * If all the contributions paid by the employers are added up and this total amount is expressed as a percentage of the pension base sum (the pension base is the salary over which pension is built up), this results in 29.4% for the flex scheme. This is the total contribution percentage owed, which can also be found in the pension regulations. This percentage applies for a period agreed between employers and pension fund. Employees pay a personal contribution of 2% (Philips) or 5% (Signify), which is part of the mentioned 29,4%. 

  • The memo that Social Affairs and Employment Minister Wouter Koolmees sent to the Dutch House of Representatives on 22 June 2020, setting out the basic outline of the practical details of the National Pension Agreement, contains the following description of the purposes and parameters of a new system:

    'In the National Pension Agreement that was adopted in 2019, the following have been agreed as the purposes that the new pension system must fulfil:

    • The new pension system must offer a greater probability that pensions will retain their purchasing power. Pensions will be more likely to go up in good years, but more likely to go down in lean times.
    • The system must become more transparent and more personalised
    • The system must better reflect developments in society and on the labour market.

    The National Pension Agreement also contains a series of parameters:

    • Retirement pensions must be paid for life.
    • The reform should not be used to economise. Sufficient opportunity should exist to realise the current targets for projected pensions.
    • The premiums and pension benefits should be as stable as possible.
    • The transition should have a balanced impact on everyone involved and across all generations.
    • Anyone who is disadvantaged by the transition must be properly compensated.
    • Wherever possible, existing pension entitlements and pension benefits must carry over to the new pension contract selected.
    • Pension administrators must have sufficient possibilities to record returns on the investments.
    • The transition must be practicable and financially viable.'

    The new system clearly satisfies a number of these purposes and parameters: for example, it is evident that pensions based on individual savings will be more personalised, and that the new system will lead to greater stability in pension premiums.

    However, it is already apparent that the new system will almost definitely not satisfy other points, or not offer any improvement. This applies, for example, to the stability of pension benefits. For still other elements, it is impossible to predict at this point whether they can be fulfilled: that will not become clear until it is established precisely what shape the country's various pension plans will take. This will require numerous decisions, both at the political level and by employers, unions and pension fund boards. This is illustrated by the purpose that members who are disadvantaged as a result of the transition to an equal premium percentage for all participants, regardless of age, must be properly compensated.

    Some of the issues that are clearly not met or of which it remains to be seen whether or not they will be met because further decision-making is required, will be discussed below in this Q&A.

    Some of the issues of which it is unclear whether they will be fulfilled are addressed in this Q&A.

  • Under the new system, each member will have their own personal savings. Each member will be able to see what the value of those savings is at any given moment and what factors cause that value to go up (such as the premiums contributed and investment gains) or down (including the benefits withdrawn and investment losses). In that sense, pensions will be transparent under the new system. What will be unclear however is what benefits members should expect to receive in the end from their pension savings: those benefits will depend on uncertain future developments, for example what returns the investments will generate. Given that investment returns will have a more immediate impact on the value of individual members’ pensions under the new system, this means less certainty regarding the benefits. In that sense, therefore, pensions will not be any more transparent under the new system.

    In short: the new system is more transparent about what is in the individual pension savings of the members at some point, but not about the level of the pensions to be paid.

  • The new pension system is certainly feasible. There are two variants. The so-called flexible premium plan (or the individual defined contribution scheme as this scheme is referred to above) is easier to implement than the solidary contribution plan.

  • No, unfortunately that is not true. Since pension values will be affected more directly by economic fluctuations, some members will have a lower pension under the new pension system than under the existing rules - even if they are compensated. Although the pensions might be higher than under the present system, they could also be lower. As soon as it is clear exactly how the new Philips and Signify pension plans will be structured, we can run calculations to see how high our members may expect their pensions to be. However, those calculations must necessarily be based on various assumptions regarding investment returns and movements in interest rates over multiple years. It will be unsure therefore whether those predictions will be accurate, even allowing for a margin of error.

    What we do know, however, is that the possibility is very real that a particular group of members will lose out (without compensation): mainly active members in the middle age bracket. Members in this group will accrue less pension in the future, without having benefited from a higher pension accrual when they were younger. The premise in the National Pension Agreement is that this group will have to be compensated properly if it is established that they will lose out.

  • The possibility is very real that in particular middle-aged active members will be disadvantaged by the National Pension Agreement. This was acknowledged when the Agreement was signed, together with the need for a proper compensation plan. It is unclear, however, who will finance that compensation. According to the National Pension Agreement, the compensation must be cost-neutral for both employers and members. The possibility of the pension funds paying the compensation is explicitly being considered: an option is being created under the law that will make it possible for pension funds to cover the costs of the compensation, at least in part. That would mean that some or all of the compensation would be paid from the pension funds’ assets. It remains to be seen whether Philips Pensioenfonds will go this route. If it does, it will be important to make sure that this takes place in a balanced manner. It will be impossible to determine until all the details of the new pension plan and how it will be funded have been decided. The Board of Trustees will need to weigh and balance all the interests that are at stake. However, even if proper compensation is provided for active members who are disadvantaged by the implementation of the new pension system, it still cannot be guaranteed that no-one will lose out under the new pension system. Most likely, the compensation will be based on a scenario of economic neutrality: if the economy then suffers a downturn, the compensation will not be enough to prevent the disadvantage.

    Incidentally, there is only a positive compensation. Those who do not need compensation, nothing is taken away.

  • Yes, solidarity between younger and older members is expected to still exist in most pension schemes, but less than in the current system. The so-called longevity risk (see question 22) and the death and disability risks continue to be borne jointly. In addition, the longevity risk in a flexible contribution scheme probably cannot be borne by all participants together, but between the mutual pension recipients on the one hand and the mutual pension accruers and non-contributory policyholders on the other. In view of the size of our Fund, this is not an insurmountable objection.

    From now on, however, there is no longer any question of age solidarity with regard to pension accrual. From now on, every participant with the same salary will receive the same premium paid into his pension pot. A young person can accrue more pension with this premium than an older colleague. In the current pension system, both young and old accrue the same pension. In fact, a young person contributes to the pension accrual of his or her older colleague with most pension funds. That is no longer the case in the new pension system.

    In the new pension system, the investment return directly benefits the participant through his or her personal pension pot. The pension therefore becomes more personal. More personal means that there is less solidarity on this point as well. And because there is less solidarity, pensions will also move more directly with the economy. Whether or not you see this as a positive development depends on how much you value certainty about your pension benefit. Incidentally, there is the option of dampening the movement of a pension that has commenced in line with the economy by spreading financial windfalls and setbacks over a maximum of 10 years. In fact, this can also be seen as a form of solidarity between generations.

    If the solidarity contribution scheme is opted for by employers (for information about this type of scheme, see the question 'What are the main features of the Pension Agreement?'), the solidarity between generations that remains in the new system will also take shape via the so-called solidarity reserve. This reserve may differ per pension fund and may (in the long term) not exceed 15% of the total assets. At high returns, part of this can be added to this reserve. If things go wrong, the low return can be supplemented from this. The higher the reserve, the more solidarity remains in the new system. And the more solidarity, the more stable the benefits.

    If the choice is not made for the solidary contribution scheme, but for a flexible contribution scheme, a choice can be made to form a risk-sharing reserve. This reserve probably offers fewer opportunities for solidarity between generations than the solidarity reserve within a solidarity contribution scheme. For example, the risk-sharing reserve may not be used to directly compensate for disappointing investment results.

  • In the new system, the investment risk lies with the participant. This is in fact already the case in the current scheme of Philips Pensioenfonds. However, in the new system you will see the investment results more directly in your pension pot or in the amount of your benefit. Your pension will move more directly with the economy. This gives you the chance of a higher pension (if investment returns are positive), but you also run the risk of a lower pension (in the event of disappointing investment returns). Your pension will therefore become less certain. Incidentally, when choosing the solidary contribution scheme (and therefore not a flexible contribution scheme), a so-called solidarity reserve is also formed. This reserve may differ per pension fund and may (in the long turn) not exceed 15% of the total assets. At high returns, part of this can be added to this reserve. If things go wrong, the low return can be supplemented from this. The benefits will therefore become slightly more stable, but still less stable than in the current system. A risk-sharing reserve can be created in the flexible premium scheme, but its effectiveness in absorbing disappointing investment results appears to be limited.
    The stability of the benefits can also be increased in both schemes by spreading the financial results (both positive and negative) over a number of years.

  • This depends on the plan chosen by employers. If the solidarity contribution plan is chosen, you will not be making your own investment decisions. You may have your own pension fund, but this pension fund will remain collectively invested, just like now. This means, the total pension capital of all collective members is invested by the pension fund. You do not have your own choices with regard to investments.

    If the flexible contribution plan is chosen, you will have the opportunity to make your own investment decisions. For example, you could decide within certain limits how to spread your pension savings across several investment funds such as an equity fund or a bond fund.

  • After transition to the new system, the new rules will in any case directly apply to new pension accrual. The following applies to the pensions of active members, pension recipients and non-contributory policyholders already accrued at the time of transition to the new system. The basic principle is that the new rules will also apply to the accrued pension rights, if the social partners ask for that. In pension jargon, this is called ‘entitlement conversion’. However, this basic rule will not necessarily apply if it disproportionately disadvantages certain groups of members. It is uncertain at this time whether Philips Pensioenfonds will convert the existing pension entitlements: this will be decided further down the road. No decision can be made at this time, as it is unclear how the employers and the unions will structure the new pension plan, and the rules for entitlement conversion have not yet been detailed. If Philips Pensioenfonds converts existing entitlements, all accrued pension rights will be converted into an individual capital for each member - including the pensions that members are already drawing. Those members will then withdraw an amount in pension from that capital every year.

    According to the current draft texts with regard to the new pension system, a decision by the pension fund board to enter is binding for all members of the fund. There is no individual right of appeal. The Accountability Body must, however, provide advice on entry.

  • The new pension system must of course be compliant with the relevant laws and regulations. That includes European regulations - and in this case specifically the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR), which states that every person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his or her possessions. At a minimum, this covers the pensions that employees and retired members have previously accrued. EU Member States have the authority to deprive persons of their possessions or to control property if this is required for reasons of public interest. The ECHR lists a series of criteria for determining whether the deprivation of possessions or control of property is legitimate. Ultimately, the European Court of Human Rights will have to decide whether those criteria are satisfied. In the memo that Social Affairs and Employment Minister Wouter Koolmees presented to the Dutch House of Representatives on 22 June 2020, describing the main principles for the practical details of the National Pension Agreement, it is assumed that the likelihood that the European Court will rule, if asked, that these criteria are not met, is small: ’Potential risks of an unjustified infringement of the right to own property will be (...) very minor.’

  • No. The available power at the time of entry is available. The companies are not obliged to make additional deposits.

  • It is not clear yet what will be done with the indexation deficit when the new pension system is adopted. That will depend on various factors, for example whether or not the existing pensions will be converted under the new pension plan (for more information about entitlement conversion, see ‘What pension funds will fall under the new pension system?’). If Philips Pensioenfonds converts existing entitlements, all accrued pensions, including those that have already started, will be converted into a personal pension capital: your personal pension pot. 

    The calculation of your personal pension capital will factor in, in so far the reserves of the fund are sufficient, the indexation deficit, although precisely how will partly depend on the conversion method that is adopted. It is currently unclear what that method will be. And of course it is also very important for the amount that ends up in the participants' personal pension pots, how large the Fund's buffer is at the time of entry. The higher the amounts in the personal pension pots, the higher the pension. Although there will formally be no question of making up for indexation arrears upon arrival, it is therefore possible (but not certain) that the pensions will be higher immediately after the transition to the new system than before. And if the economy subsequently develops favourably, it is also possible that this will lead to an increase in your pension, which under the current system would only have been possible through catch-up indexation. This could be seen as catching up on indexation arrears. For the record, it should be noted that it is of course not certain that the pensions will increase after the transition to the new system, because this depends on developments in the financial markets and the consequences thereof for the value of the investments in your personal pension pot. 

    If Philips Pensioenfonds does not convert existing entitlements, then the current rules regarding (catch-up) indexation will in principle continue to apply to the pensions that have not yet been converted. In principle, because the Minister has indicated that it will still be considered whether these rules will be amended.

  • No, they will not by definition suffer any disadvantage. It is impossible to say precisely how adopting the new system will impact the various groups of members until it becomes clear exactly what shape the pension plan will take at Philips Pensioenfonds and what the rules regarding entry will look like.

    This will hinge on the pension fund's financial position at the time of the transition, but also on other factors, including for example:

    • Which of the two regulation types is chosen;
    • Depending on the choice of plan: how large the solidarity buffer or risk-sharing reserve is and how it is filled (is part of the current buffer used for this?);
    • If compensation for middle-aged active members is the case: How much compensation will be needed, and how will it be financed?
    • What figure will be used for the projected returns? The projected returns represent the returns that are used at a member's retirement date to estimate the future pension benefits. The lower the projected returns are, the lower the monthly pension will be, and vice versa. You can find more information about the projection yield in the question "Will actuarial interest rates lose their relevance under the new pension system?"

    Only once all the details of how the pension plan will work and how it will be financed will we be able to calculate how the pension plan is likely to affect individual members and groups of members, and to assess whether everything (with or without entitlement conversion) is properly balanced.

  • Actuarial interest rates as we know them will disappear entirely in the new pension system.

    The so-called projection yield* is important in the new pension system. That is the return that is expected to be made in the future with the investments in the individual pension savings of the member. That expected return, or projection return, depends on the investments in the pension savings. The higher the expected future return, the higher the pension payment. In general it is important that the projection efficiency is determined in a prudent manner. After all, an excessively high projection return does lead to a higher pension benefit in the beginning, but that benefit will have to be lowered later if the actual return falls short of the projection return. Incidentally, market interest rates (from which those actuarial interest rates are derived) will still be relevant under the new system, however, in particular for retired members.

    For retired members, there will be relatively many bonds in the individual pension savings. The (market) interest on those bonds partly determines the projection yield and thus the level of the pension payment.

    * If the member in an individual defined contribution plan chooses to purchase a fixed pension benefit , the projection return is not important and the amount of the pension benefit depends on the purchase rate of the pension provider.

  • For now, you will not notice any effects of the National Pension Agreement. First, the arrangements will need to be codified in law, which will involve making numerous decisions. Besides, Philips, Signify and the unions will have to decide on the companies’ pension plans. Moreover, the Board of Trustees will have to decide whether or not the pension plans that the companies have agreed with the unions can be administered. Although all this can partly happen simultaneously, it will be a while before we can share any news. We will keep you informed of any developments.

  • No action is required on your part. The Dutch Cabinet is working with the employers’ organisations and the unions to finalise the details of the National Pension Agreement. Philips, Signify and the unions will decide what the future will be of the pension plans at Philips Pensioenfonds. Also, the Board of Trustees of Philips Pensioenfonds will need to make decisions. These steps will take time, so it might be a while before it becomes clear how you personally will be affected by the National Pension Agreement.

  • According to the memo describing the main principles for the practical details of the National Pension Agreement, employers and unions will make arrangements about their new pension plan (flexible premium plan or solidary contribution plan), about proper compensation of active members for a possible disadvantage, about entitlement conversion and about when the new pension system will be adopted. By law, employers will be obliged to record all these choices, and the considerations and calculations underlying them, in a transition plan. The pension fund's board will take that transition plan into advisement in its decision on accepting the contract. Pension funds will be obliged to draw up a plan of implementation for the transition, describing what preparations they will make and what actions they will take to administer the new pension plan. The implementation plan must support their ability to administer the new pension plan, bearing in mind a balanced consideration of the interests involved and the laws on equal treatment.

    The initiative for making arrangements about the new pension plan, entitlement conversion and compensation of active members formally rests with the employers and the unions. However, it will only be possible to administer that pension plan if the pension fund accepts the contract to administer it. The pension fund's Board of Trustees can only accept that contract if it believes that the interests of all the various groups of members have been given balanced consideration. Given the requirement that the pension fund's board must agree, in practice the employers and unions would do well to involve their pension funds in an early stage of their planning. This is of course also advisable with a view to efficiently drawing on the pension funds’ expertise. Philips and Signify have a long-standing tradition of involving Philips Pensioenfonds early on in the development of new pension plans, and will do so again in this case.

  • The situation at Philips Pensioenfonds is different from many other pension funds: a relatively high proportion of Philips Pensioenfonds’s members are already drawing their pensions. In addition, the level of the funding ratio, and therefore of the buffer, is in general different for each pension fund. Both these points could be relevant in the discussions (both among the Board of Trustees and with Philips, Signify and the unions) about issues such as entitlement conversion, compensation of active members and the size and form of the solidarity or risk-sharing reserve, and will therefore be expressly addressed in those discussions. It will be very important to consider all the relevant facts and circumstances in relation to each other. Only once it is decided precisely how the pension plan will be given shape and financed can we calculate how it could impact the various groups of members and assess whether everything is balanced.

  • The current pension agreements between Philips and Signify on the one hand and the trade unions on the other will run until January 1, 2025 at the latest. Until then, the current pension scheme will remain unchanged. It is not yet clear how high the pension accrual will be in 2024. For 2022 and 2023, the accrual percentage is a maximum of 1.65%. If Philips, Signify and the unions do not reach agreements in time about a pension scheme under the new pension system, they will still have to make agreements about what the pension scheme will look like from 1 January 2025 to 1 January 2027 at the latest under the current pension system.

  • On the retirement date, the annual pension is determined, among other things, on the basis of life expectancy. This concerns the annual pension that someone receives from his or her own pension pot. That would mean that the pension pot is empty as soon as a participant has reached the expected age of death. If a participant becomes older than was expected in advance, this participant would no longer receive any pension from that moment on. That is of course not the intention.

    The Pension Agreement stipulates that this so-called longevity risk is covered. In this way there is also pension income if someone gets older than expected. Whether the longevity risk is fully covered depends on its further elaboration. The legislator will have to determine in the coming period exactly how this will be arranged. The pension pot of participants who die earlier than expected will probably be divided among the participants who live longer than expected. If fewer participants die than expected, the longevity risk is not fully covered. But part of the so-called solidarity or risk-sharing reserve may also be used to fully cover the longevity risk.

    The survivor's pension is hardly mentioned in the Pension Agreement. It is therefore not known what the situation is for a surviving relative who lives longer than expected. However, it may be expected that the longevity risk for a surviving relative will also be (largely) covered.

  • That's not clear yet. At the moment the main changes seem to be:

    • The survivor's pension is now insured on a risk basis. So it is no longer built. On the retirement date, not only an old-age pension but also a survivor's pension must be insured from the pension capital.
    • At the end of the employment, there is no longer any survivor's pension insured. The coverage can probably be continued, but it will be financed from the individual pension pot.
    • The amount of the survivor's pension will change. The amount will probably no longer depend on the number of years of service and it is expected that the franchise will no longer be taken into account.
    • The definition of partner is going to change.

    On the retirement date, participants will have to insure not only a retirement pension from the capital, but also a survivor's pension. The survivor's pension will be well arranged during the employment, and the level will probably be higher than it is now. However, something has to be arranged for the period between leaving employment and retirement, because in principle no survivor's pension is then insured. It seems that at the end of employment a member can opt for continued coverage of the survivor's pension. The risk premium for this is then financed from the own pension pot.

    For participants who already receive a survivor's pension, this pension will be treated in the same way as a retirement pension that has commenced. If it is decided to transfer the accrued pensions into the new pension system (so-called sailing in), the new rules will also apply to a survivor's pension that has commenced. The survivor's pension will therefore also move more along with the economy. Incidentally, the social partners must submit a request for entry to the pension fund. The board of the pension fund ultimately decides on this. The board can only decide to enter if it is of the opinion that this is balanced for all participants.

  • Formally, it is the companies and the trade unions that jointly determine the level of ambition of the pension scheme. The pension premium must be sufficiently high to realize the desired pension, given the risks that the Fund (after consultation with the participants) considers acceptable in the investment policy. If the same premium is paid as at present, the pension is expected to be quite similar on average.

  • If a decision is made to enter (for the meaning of entry, see the answer to question 10), then non-contributory policyholders will also receive their own pension pot to which the new rules apply. The pension (capital) will therefore move more along with the economy for non-contributory policyholders.

  • It's still too early to say anything about that. In general, pension funds are required by law to communicate correctly, clearly, timely and balanced. The latter means, among other things, that a complete picture is sketched and, in addition to the advantages of a particular choice, the disadvantages are also highlighted.

    Specifically for the transition, pension fund boards must draw up a so-called implementation plan. Part of this is the communication plan, which must be submitted to the AFM for review. The communication plan must include, among other things, how the pension fund makes it clear to the participants what consequences the transition has for the amount of the pension. Furthermore, pension accruers and holders of non-contributory policies must gain insight into the amount of the pension they could expect before the switch and the expected pension after the transition. They are informed about this using the so-called navigation metaphor. This navigation metaphor shows the amount of the old-age pension in an expected, pessimistic and optimistic scenario. Retired members are also given insight into the level of pensions before and after the transition. The pension fund also informs all participants about the agreements that have been made about compensation for active members who are disadvantaged by the transition to the new system and the financing thereof.