The pension sector has numerous stakeholders, including social partners, administrators, politicians, and regulators. What is their specific role, how do they view the sector, and how are they seeing and responding to the new system? In the Krachtenveld (Force Field) column, the parties tell their stories.
BpfBOUW moved to the new pension rules on 1 January 2026. This marked the final step in years of preparation, a long series of board decisions and intensive collaboration with APG. Board member Eline Lundgren looks back on that process and ahead to ‘the new normal’. She also discusses APG’s new asset management strategy and what the choice for a single‑client approach means for bpfBOUW. “To be honest: APG’s decision came uncomfortably early.”
2025 was an intensive year for bpfBOUW. Not the transition itself, but the lead‑up required the most effort from the fund and the organisation, Lundgren acknowledges. “We had prepared so extensively that the actual transition on 1 January 2026 was mainly an important moment of confirmation. The real tension lay in the decision‑making beforehand.”
What was the turning point for you in that process in 2025?
“The final approval from De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB). That milestone felt like a final exam: you know there is still a lot of work ahead, but you have a clear ‘yes’ in hand. From that moment on, we could complete the process with confidence and prepare ourselves as a fund for the transition to the new rules.”
How did you experience the external assessments by DNB and the Authority for the Financial Markets?
“Strict, and rightly so. As a board, you want major decisions regarding balance and execution to be assessed critically and independently. It forces you to explicitly document your choices and considerations. That discipline helps, also in terms of your own record‑keeping and accountability.”
Which challenges stood out to you in 2025?
“There were several, but the approval from DNB, and the work leading up to it, stood out. There were also many matters that needed further elaboration, such as the regulations. Altogether, that was a great deal of work. In the final months we also faced sharply rising funding ratios. That prompted almost daily monitoring to ensure we remained within the agreed bandwidths. That was tense, because if you fall outside the bandwidths, you must reassess your balance framework. In that case, our transition date could have come under pressure.”
What did you learn from funds that had already moved to the new pension rules?
“Start early and take the lead. It helped enormously that APG had already gained experience with its own fund, PPF APG, and with PWRI. You can benefit from that experience: you learn from each other and ensure that you have sufficient checks and balances on your side. That prevents you from simply accepting whatever is offered.”
How did you involve participants and employers throughout the entire process?
“In stages. We had been communicating the transition at a high level for years, but as the moment approached, the communication became more intensive and more personal. The provisional transition statements in the personal message inbox were the final step. The first feedback shows that people perceived the information as clear and understandable. It also shows that retirees read the communication more actively than younger people. That’s logical, because it affects their finances directly, but it also underlines that there is still work to be done in increasing engagement with pensions, especially among younger groups.”
Transparency versus complexity is a well‑known dilemma. How did bpfBOUW approach this?
“The new reality is more complex than the old ‘one‑page calculation.’ You want to be transparent, but it must remain manageable. That is why we used a short cover letter with key figures and core messages, followed by more detailed annexes. That approach, which we developed ourselves, turned out to be a golden combination: suitable for readers who simply want to know ‘will I be better off?’ and for those who want to delve deeper.”
How was the collaboration with APG in the transition year?
“Intensive, at every level. We aligned our own project structure to that of APG, so teams could find each other one‑on‑one. Of course, you need time to get used to one another: roles, responsibilities, language. But in 2025, the year when studying became doing, we were fully aligned.”
What are the priorities in 2026?
“Adapting to the new normal; the new scheme requires different monitoring of the fund. We need to experience whether the new management information works in practice as we expect it to. The frameworks have been established; now we must see whether they truly support the board in its oversight. Our participants also need different information. That information is now gradually being rolled out, and it's exciting to see whether that has succeeded. All in all, this will take about a year and a half, so that after the first full cycle, including the annual report, we can say that we are up and running.”
"Our participants also need different information"
Amid all the turbulence, APG presented a new strategy in 2025, with a single‑client vision for asset management (for ABP) and a multi‑client approach for pension administration. What was your first reaction?
“To be honest: it came uncomfortably early in our planning. Ideally, you first complete your own mission, vision and strategy process, and then let your outsourcing decisions follow logically. We were fully focused on the transition and had temporarily set aside strategic reflection. Now we must do parts in reverse order: first think about outsourcing asset management, and meanwhile put the foundation, our mission, vision and strategy, underneath it.”
Concretely: bpfBOUW must look for a new asset manager. Where do you stand now?
“We have started a careful selection process. The lead lies with us as a fund. APG has a role in the orderly handover, but the search and final choice are the responsibility of bpfBOUW. 2030 is the target year for transfer; if it can be done earlier without compromising due diligence or costs for participants, we do not rule that out.”
What remains, what changes?
“Our real estate investments through Bouwinvest will remain untouched; that accounts for roughly a fifth of the portfolio, a substantial share. For the other asset management and financial functions currently performed by APG, we are looking for a new fiduciary manager. A key principle: participants should notice as little as possible.”
What requirements does bpfBOUW set for a new fiduciary?
“Twofold. First: executing our investment strategy with a strong ESG profile. Returns for our participants go hand in hand with sustainable and responsible investing. Second: careful migration. We have illiquid positions; you cannot just move those without impact.”
How are you ensuring that level of care towards 2030?
“With a dedicated project organisation set up internally, clear working agreements with APG for the transfer side, and a phased approach that reflects the portfolio composition. 2030 may seem far away, but for illiquid assets it is tighter than it appears. That is why we are not rushing anything: care takes precedence over speed.”
How does bpfBOUW view pension administration within APG’s multi‑client strategy?
“We have set up a fundamental strategic study: what exactly does the multi‑client approach mean, what functionalities will become available and, most importantly, what is our span of control? We want clarity: what can we adjust in pension administration at APG, what is fixed, and how do our needs relate to standardisation and economies of scale?”
Sector‑wide, consolidation is a major theme. How do you view that development?
“Scale can reduce costs, and that is in everyone’s interest. But for us, the sequence is clear: first let the transition to the new rules settle and complete our strategic study; then we will assess whether and how consolidation adds value to the quality and affordability of our pension promise.”
What message would you like to give participants and employers during this transition phase?
“That calm and continuity in the strategy are our guiding principles. We do not choose the quickest solution, but the most fitting one. We will continue to communicate at different levels: a brief core message for those who want quick clarity, with the underlying detail for those who want to dive deeper. And we remain committed to a long‑term mission: money participants contribute today must deliver a pension with purchasing power in thirty, forty or sixty years.”
Finally: what are you personally looking forward to most in the coming years?
“To the moment, say, ten years from now, when we can look back and see how the new system has worked in practice. I expect we will have achieved more calm, predictability and agility in both accrual and payment. And I hope participants will then say: ‘It was complex, but I was guided well, and I can see the benefits reflected in my pension overview.’”