I was as interested in “the problem” as the policy change. Is the problem in the Netherlands that they have a mandatory workplace retirement system? The replacement ration (the amount you retire on compared with what you were on before you stopped work) is I think the highest in the world (Iceland may beat it- but you get my point).

The Netherlands system works , but it has a lack of competition to improve VFM in workplace pensions. The proposed  solution is not to throw the doors open to competition but leave it a little ajar so fund managers of other European countries can compete for business.

This is not in itself of huge importance yet

1. This is not official yet, it is based on correspondence that the FT has seen
2. If we see the European funds industry , as an extension of the Dutch fund industry this is not of interest in the UK, unless you have European interests already.
3. This is potentially  a minor improvement in the outcomes for Dutch pensioners whose pensions are linked to the performance of the funds they are invested in.

Here is the “news”, from Alan Livsey of the FT.

The nation’s law states that mandatory industry-wide pensions must be run by a Dutch foundation, an independent non-profit organisation, which keeps commercial overseas providers out of the industry…..

Vijlbrief told the Dutch parliament in May, in a letter seen by the FT, that a bill would be prepared so that the foundation requirement would not apply to pension institutions from other EU member states that want to operate in the market.

What seems so extraordinary is that the most successful large country for pensions should have these restrictions when in the UK , the recent movement by our Government to ensure that assets in our workplace pensions are being invested where Britain needs them to be invested, is met with howls of anguish from the pension funds and all that attend them.

It is the other way round in the Netherlands. Here is a Dutch consultant commenting

Although the Dutch government is yet to set out a timetable for the changes, pensions consultants believe greater competition will also benefit retirement savers. “What’s wrong with more competition? It’s about serving the employees when they retire,” said Sander Deelstra, partner at pension consultants Howden in Amsterdam.

While there is no formal “value for money” test on the outcomes for employees, there is clear evidence that restricting competition is not working. ABP and PFZW are the largest Dutch investment managers;

ABP and PFZW have performed poorly versus a peer group of other public pension plans across the world. Over the past 15 years, both were in the three worst performers for post-inflation returns in a comparison of 24 public plans globally, including the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board, GPIF of Japan and Calpers in the US, according to data from the Finnish Centre for Pensions. ABP’s returns rose 2.9 per cent in real terms over 15 years to the end of 2025 while PFZW gained only 2.2 per cent, about half of the median return of 4.6 per cent.

The managers complain that the system requires them to invest less effectively than in other countries (such as the US, Canada and Japan).

It seems to me that where reform is needed (if it is needed at all) is in the balance between growth and stability. Whether the Netherlands is too “safe” in the strategy imposed on its managers looks to me a bigger problem than competition, but competition is rarely bad in fund management so let it be.

To conclude, there is change in the Netherlands, it is a movement away from employers taking the risk to the risk being shared by the employees. This is not moving from DB to DC but a heavy form of CDC to a form much closer we are looking to compete in the UK.

This will surely result in changes of all kinds but what is not going to change is the reliance on employers to collect from employees and pay themselves a large amount for their employees wage in retirement.