Home/Our products
Our productsFrom a board summary to a digital report free of jargon for members — always compared with peer group and universe.
The primary user of the report is the board, which bears ultimate responsibility for policy, implementation and costs. Our report gives the board information not merely to observe costs, but to steer on them at board level. The board is responsible for the coherence between the pension scheme, its implementation, investment policy, service delivery and costs. Ultimately the board must be able to explain to members and other stakeholders why it has made certain policy choices.
Assesses whether the board has costs and implementation properly under control. An important question here is whether the board has sufficient insight into the costs and acts on that insight where necessary.
Under the Wtp it is explicitly laid down in legislation (Amendment 136, Van Beukering and Ceder) that the accountability body gives an opinion on the implementation costs, among other places in the board report. A typical question is: are the costs reasonable given the policy choices made, and are they easy to explain? Why are our costs higher?
View the amendmentAsset allocation and investment policy are important cost drivers and determine approximately 75% of the fund's cost level. A significant part of the level of costs is determined by asset allocation.
Costs, financial control, reporting and the assessment of deviations. Assessing the allocation of general costs is particularly relevant here.
Social partners and stakeholders gain insight into the financial consequences of policy choices. Board offices prepare analyses and board decisions.
The board summary contains the key overviews and an analysis of the modules.
The modules contain overviews of the fund compared with peer group and universe, divided across five modules A to E.
View the modulesA digital report free of jargon, developed especially for members — but also for the supervisory board and the accountability body.
Statutory key figures for implementation costs, general costs including governance costs, allocation of general costs to asset management, and the costs of supervision.
Required own funds (VEV), interest rate hedging and currency hedging.
Explanation of the definitions applied and a glossary of terms.
At the request of the AFM (see below), IBI developed a digital report together with Lisa Brüggen, especially for members but also for the supervisory board and the accountability body.
The report is free of jargon and reports the fund's scores — taking account of the pension fund's policy choices — compared with peer group and universe. In view of the Wtp and the resulting cohorts, we have additionally included the costs of equities and fixed income.
The report is explained in person. We are happy to make further arrangements for this, either on site or via Teams. Multiple sessions for different target groups are also possible.
Make an appointment“The AFM invites the pension sector to (continue to) consider ways of providing members with proper information about costs. Discussions with the market show that the annual report is not always considered the most suitable medium for explaining this subject. On the one hand because it is already an extensive document that members read only to a limited extent. On the other hand because the outcomes of a benchmark comparison in the annual report are by definition a year behind. In addition, parties indicate that members quickly experience information as complex. Wanting to inform members properly while at the same time weighing up what members need is a difficult balance. In the period ahead the AFM will seek dialogue with the pension sector on this subject.”
With the new pension system in mind, clear cost communication matters, because the pension benefit is then directly related to the net return. Moreover, costs will have to be allocated per cohort and made transparent for members. As a result, differences in costs will also arise within the pension fund itself.
By being informed correctly and transparently now, members will be better able to assess costs under the new pension system. The Uniform Pension Cost Overview explains why costs differ between pension funds — and, under the new pension contract, per cohort as well. Participants in IBI Benchmarking receive UPKO free of charge.
Eric Veldpaus, director of IBI Benchmarking
“At the beginning of the year, the Institutional Benchmarking Institute (IBI) asked us to help develop a communication model for implementation costs. In April the AFM report followed, which asked funds to explain implementation costs to members somewhere other than in the annual report. That underlined the importance of a clear overview once more.”
“I soon discovered that the subject matter is not at all simple. How can we convey this to members without a lot of jargon and long texts? In short: a fine challenge. Over the past months we set to work and designed new charts together with the Brightlands Institute for Smart Society. I took care of the texts myself.”
“I think it is important that members already understand why the costs of pension funds differ from one another. Under the new pension contract, costs will also differ within a pension fund. Communicating this properly to members now matters. Together with IBI we have succeeded in doing so.”
Pricing is based on ability to pay; this means that large pension funds are willing to pay more than smaller pension funds.
The cost of three reports including one explanatory session starts at EUR 7,500. For large pension funds the cost is EUR 15,000. All amounts are exclusive of VAT.
Please contact us for further details.
Our report contains information that can be used in the board report as part of the annual report. We advise against including the explanation of costs in a separate section headed “implementation costs”.
It is better to include the explanation of asset management costs under “investments” and the pension administration costs under “pension”. In this way it can be made clear that a large part of the cost level is related to the board's policy choices.
The link alongside leads to an example of such an explanation.
A worked example of how the benchmark outcomes can be included in the board report, in relation to return, service and complexity. Available in Dutch.
View the exampleThese 79 funds represent the pensions of 14.1 million members in the Netherlands.
IBI has produced an extensive position paper explaining the added value of IBI Benchmarking: “From cost level to cost understanding: the role of benchmarking”.
Using this document, together with the summary, you can put participation in IBI Benchmarking on the agenda within your fund. Both documents are available in Dutch.
The product note will follow.
The full substantiation of the added value of thorough benchmarking.
Download PDFA concise summary to put participation in IBI Benchmarking on the agenda.
Download PDFAn overview of the products and the associated terms of delivery.
To followWe are happy to explain our benchmarking in more detail — on site (our preference) or via Teams. We are also glad to discuss any special wishes or requests, such as additional presentations.
