“SPMS has the right to exist regardless”

Stichting Pensioenfonds Medisch Specialisten (the Medical Specialists Pension Fund Foundation) (SPMS) will be switching to the new pension rules as of January 1, 2027. Together with APG, the professional fund for medical specialists started preparations in a timely manner, in part because of the complexity of their scheme. “We feel comfortable.” 

Zeist. In an office building on Sparrenheuvel, we meet Huisman. SPMS rents almost seven hundred square meters there. “We desperately need that space,” the fund’s chairman assures us. After all, SPMS works with a considerable team on the pensions of their participants every day, and in many cases provides customized services. “For example, we have a team of financial planners who provide participants with personal advice. This is essential because medical specialists can organize their work in various ways, ranging from a partnership/cooperative to a ZBC (private clinics and independent treatment centers, ed.) or as self-employed individuals. What does this mean for their financial position? For their retirement? But planners also look at the long term. What are you building up for the future in the first and second pillars? Many medical specialists also have a third and fourth pillar. How much capital do they need to be able to retire when they want to?”  

Why is this advice so important? 
“The financial side of our profession is complex, which is why that conversation also includes things that are not part of the pension plan, such as annuities, endowment insurance, and goodwill.” 
 
Is this even a function of a fund? 
“We think it is. Under the motto ‘Your retirement. Our specialty’, we want to provide added value and high-quality service to participants.” 
 
At any price? 
“Members pay contributions each month for a solid and fiscal maximum basic pension. But in addition to that basic pension, more is needed to maintain the level of prosperity. That is why SPMS offers independent financial insights so that participants can make their own choices about when they want to retire, or capital growth in the third pillar, for example. There may be some cost associated with this service, but we are also very cost-conscious.” 

While providing this advice, is the transition to the renewed system on January 1, 2027 discussed too? 
“Certainly. The transition is top of mind. We set up a project group four years ago to prepare for the renewed pension system and have largely divided the meetings into ‘run’ for day-to-day business and ‘change’ for the changes coming our way. An external project manager is part of the ‘change’ aspect. Advisory documents are prepared, there is a steering committee for planning and budgeting, and there is a lot of consultation with the Medical Specialists Professional Pension Association - which determines the content of the scheme - and with us as the Board of SPMS. During individual discussions with our participants, we address this. The planners know everything about our scheme and the financial side of the profession. They advise participants about the most important changes and the consequences for their personal pension situation.”   

You mentioned that the financial side of your field is complex. But so is your scheme. What makes it so complicated? 
“There are several reasons for this. In addition to the conditional supplement, our members’ pensions are also increased annually by an unconditional indexation of 3 percent. That is unique. In addition, many participants have placed part of their pension with an optional insurer. Because at SPMS, we pay the indexation (the increase in pension rights and benefits in line with inflation, ed.) out of the premium and the investment return, members with claims with insurers of their choice only receive the part of the indexation for which a premium was also paid. This results in a great deal of diversity within our membership, leading to complicated constructions. We also use a premium scale instead of a percentage, and there are differences in the disability portion of our pension plan.” 

How will this complexity be incorporated into the new scheme? 
“That’s challenging. At first, we thought it was a setback that we were not allowed to switch to the new rules for pensions sooner, but now we are happy about it. APG determined that the smaller and less complex funds would transition first, followed by the larger and more complex funds. This gives us time to get to the bottom of everything, reduce the complexity of the current scheme as much as possible, and learn from other funds.” 

What is the current status of your transition? 
“The transition plan has now been approved. We have also already submitted two partial assessments (of the scheme and of the risk attitude, ed.) and have not received many questions about them during the substantive assessment. There will not be a partial assessment of the data quality after that, but we are on schedule with that too. The draft implementation plan and entry decision are currently being tested for feasibility and will soon be submitted to the Accountability Body and the Supervisory Board. In short, we feel comfortable.” 
 
What is your experience of collaborating with APG? 
“There is a great deal of commitment. They deliver what they need to deliver, with good consultation on what is feasible and when. We see that the pressure is increasing now that several funds are preparing to make the switch, but APG scales up wherever that is needed. Moreover, they keep an eye on quality and day-to-day operations. And the ‘run’ must also continue, of course.”