the european pension challenge harry smorenberg ceo – scc – the netherlands 1
Post on 14-Dec-2015
220 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
The European Pension ChallengeHarry SmorenbergCEO – SCC – The Netherlands
1
THE BIG ISSUES
• Pensions on their own will in most cases fail to deliver the ideal income base
• Employers cannot afford more• Employees cannot afford more• Society cannot afford more• Only pensions people think pensions are great
A revolutionary, innovative approach is required2
From “Green Paper” to “White Paper”
• Sustainable balance between work and retirement
• Securing the safety of pensions
• More transparant pensions with better awareness and information
• Strengthening the internal market for workers and pensions
Focus: adequate and sustainable pensions in Europe
3
European Pensions Reality
• Almost every known system for delivering a pension is represented somewhere in Europe
• Historical backgrounds to the various national schemes ensure huge diversity
• Unique challenges:
– The most profound of these is to enable Europe’s pension systems to support Europe’s labor mobility
– Although the EU guarantees its citizens the right to work anywhere in the Union, one still cannot easily port a pension from one EU country to another
– Different systems, different contribution methods, different taxation treatments all combine to make Europe one workplace but still many pension jurisdictions
Display of great variety
Harry Smorenberg - October 2011 4
True Challenges
• Balancing the Pillars
• Shift in Risk
• Ageing Europe
• New Roles & Responsibilities
Harry Smorenberg - October 2011 5
PillarsPillars
6
PILLAR 1. STATE PENSIONS 2. OCCUPATIONAL PENSIONS 3. INDIVIDUAL PENSIONS
Objective • Minimum income
– Reduce or avoid absolute pensioner poverty
• Decent retirement income on top of state pension
• Personalise pension provision
– More flexible: handles periods of unemployment or employment in another country
– Suited to modern “portfolio careers”
Funding • Pay-As-You-Go
– Utilises state taxation powers
– Sensitive to demographics
• Often fully funded
– Sensitive to financial markets
– Risk shared between members of the scheme
• Fully funded
– Sensitive to market levels at encashment and annuity interest rates
– Risk individualised
Solidarity • Very high solidarity
– Compulsory national system
– Contribution according to income
• High solidarity
– Often compulsory (for members or companies)
• Low or no solidarity
– DC only: your pension relies on your own pot
Challenges • Affordability
• Rising pensioner numbers supported by falling workforces
• Complicated interaction with welfare / social security / income support
• Increasingly at odds with the move away from “40-year career”
• Considerable risk and cost burden for employers
• Not optimal for small start-ups or self-employed
• No cohort support: risk is left with those least able to bear it
• Inadequate financial education for the ordinary citizen
• Significant risk of inadequate financial resources at retirement
Balancing the Pillars
Harry Smorenberg - October 2011 7
Balancing the Pillars
STATE PENSIONS
Dominating First Pillar
• Danger to government budget
• Political decisions; badly adapted to real needs
• Bureaucracy
OCCUPATIONAL PENSIONS
Dominating Second Pillar
• Paternalism
• Problems if companies fail, leaving people unprepared and unprotected
INDIVIDUAL PENSIONS
Dominating Third Pillar
• High costs (management charges, etc.); may even lead to capital destruction
• Under-saving always a threat
SOLUTION
Balance Pillars
• Role for both Defined Benefit (DB) and Defined Contribution (DC)
• DC solution in Europe needs development
Harry Smorenberg - October 2011 8
Monoculture is dangerous
0,0
0,1
0,2
0,3
0,4
0,5
0,6
0,7
0,8
0,9
1,0
Spain Germany France Italy UK Netherlands Switzerland
State Occupational Private
Problem Solution
Shift in risk
Harry Smorenberg - October 2011 10Shift in risk
5%
33% 39%
95%
67% 61%
Dec 99 Apr 04 Dec 09
DC DB
Split DC* vs. DB Assets Drivers of DC Growth
40%
60%
Closure of DB plans
Organic growth new DC plans
UK pension funds UK pension funds
* Ex personal and stakeholder DC assets. Data source: Mercer (2009), Watson Wyatt (2010).
Continuous shift from DB to DCIn Many Markets, DC is Now the Dominant Retirement Plan Model
Implications of Shift to DC
• Globally, growth of DC assets is outpacing DB
• DC assets now represent 42% of the total pension assets in seven largest markets
• Financial crisis accelerated shift to DC by forcing more companies to close DB schemes
• Value of private pension assets worldwide has declined
• Some challenges facing DC models are due to their origins as supplemental rather than primary retirement savings plans
12
Implications of Shift to DC
Many DC participants need more support in selecting their investments
People are not saving enough, investment choices are sometimes inappropriate – poor asset allocations are a major challenge for DC
More information and education is needed to drive participation
Level of participation in DC plans is often too low – active engagement by employers is also necessary to make DC work for participants
Less dialogue with asset management community
Trustees’ fiduciary responsibilities within the DB space mean they lead innovation and are a source of good ideas
Strengthening the DC model also requires regulatory changes
Strengthening regulatory frameworks in many countries to meet exposed vulnerabilities – likely convergence of regulatory approaches to enhance employee participation, investor protection and plan governance
Fiduciary issues to review As the issues facing pensions become more challenging and diverse, there is a need to review fiduciary board membership qualifications to improve risk management
13
More innovation in DC
• Plan sponsors, plan providers and regulators must work together to design plans that:– Incentivise people to save– Provide the options necessary to achieve an optimal outcome– Auto enrollment is key feature of DC (with ‘opt out’ option)– Employer-matched contributions (powerful incentive to save !)
• Design of default investment option is key– Growing interest in target-date funds = heavily passive, very transparent,
and comparatively low cost– Research shows that increasing the number of funds reduces 401(k)
participation and leads to poorer choices (TIAA-CREF Institute)– Trend is toward fewer fund options and lower costs, also driven by fee
disclosure requirements and increased fee-related litigation
Harry Smorenberg - October 2011 14
Towards hybrid DC
Harry Smorenberg - October 2011 15
New risk sharing arrangements in Europe
- Economizing DB
- Dressing up DC
Conclusion: trend towards (more) hybrid schemes
AgeingAgeing
16
20000 15000 10000 5000 0 0 5000 10000 15000 20000
0-45-9
10-1415-1920-24
25-2930-3435-3940-44
45-4950-5455-5960-6465-69
70-7475-7980-8485-89
90+
Males Females
European population (age groups and sex)
2008
2060
Harry Smorenberg - October 2011 17
Longevity is the greatest pension industry challenge
• DC versus DB means: work longer / save more
• DC contributions have remained significantly and constantly lower than DB contributions
• Big shift in employee / employer behavior and expectations– Performance management– Career paths / training - education– Redundancy terms– Remuneration models
18
You don’t get older …you get better !
New Roles
Harry Smorenberg - October 2011 19
New roles and responsibilities
• Financial literacy– Education (early start with ‘economics’)– Simplicity
• Commitment Financial Service Industry– From budgetting to financial planning’(aggregation)– Consumer protection– Restore and maintain ‘trust’– Increase transparency– Treat clients as partners
• Essentials of solidarity– Commitment to society– Fundamental values
Harry Smorenberg - October 2011 20
WorkingPopulation
AverageAge
Fertility Rates
PensionCosts
Labour Force
Harry Smorenberg - October 2011 21
Personal Incentives
• Social and cultural innovation to reinvent retirement• Private retirement provision is essential • Governance issues due to financial illiteracy• Individualization: less loyalty – need for structured
planning • Axes: Income – Health – Pensions (interdependencies) • New class of communications needed• Repositioning of Pensions:
“Managing personal financial continuity continuously;
in balance with a desired life-style”
Harry Smorenberg - October 2011 22
CONFIDENCE CRISIS?MOST COMMON REASONS GIVEN BY EMPLOYEES FOR NOT JOINING A PENSION SCHEME
• No spare income• My home is my pension• No access• Benefit too far off• Not worth doing• Too complicated• Don’t trust greedy pension/investment firms
Harry Smorenberg - October 2011 23
TrustTrust
Harry Smorenberg - October 2011 24
top related