Research and analysis

The Pension Provider Survey 2024/25

Published 21 July 2025

DWP ad hoc research report no. 117

A report of research carried out by Verian on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions.  

This report was written by Richard Brind, Alex Thornton and Lillian Robertson working on behalf of Verian, with additional input from the Department for Work and Pensions. 

Crown copyright 2025. 

You may re-use this information (not including logos) free of charge in any format or medium, under the terms of the Open Government Licence.

To view this licence, visit The National Archives

Or write to: 

Information Policy Team
The National Archives
Kew
London
TW9 4DU

Email: psi@nationalarchives.gov.uk. 

This document/publication is also available on GOV.UK at Research at DWP 

If you would like to know more about DWP research, email socialresearch@dwp.gov.uk 

First published July 2025. 

ISBN 978-1-78659-861-5 

Views expressed in this report are not necessarily those of the Department for Work and Pensions or any other government department. 

Executive summary 

Introduction 

This report details the findings from a quantitative survey of pension providers conducted on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). It was commissioned to inform a broad programme of analysis and policy work following the Pension Schemes Bill announced in July 2024 and the Pensions Investment Review which was already underway at the time of commissioning. 

The survey was designed to gather data on key metrics relating to Defined Contribution (DC) pension schemes, covering both trust-based and contract-based schemes. The survey covered topics including asset distribution and performance, charges and decumulation.  

In particular, the research aimed to address knowledge gaps relating to Single-Employer Trusts (SETs), a group for which there is comparatively little published research data. The report also highlights findings for Multi-Employer Providers (MEPs), a group which consists of providers which are typically larger than SETs and which is comprised of both Master Trusts and Group Personal Pensions.  

The survey also aimed to identify effective ways in which DWP could collect these complex types of information from pension providers. It was determined that many of the survey questions would require participants to look up information before answering. As such, sample members were asked to download and complete an Excel formatted data sheet from the survey website, allowing them the time to source the required information and discuss with colleagues as necessary.  

Working with the data 

It should be noted that the total responding sample consisted of 49 providers. Many of the largest pension providers responded to the survey, meaning that a cumulative total of £290 billion of Assets Under Management (AUM) was covered by the responding survey sample, encompassing more than 80% of the total AUM for Master Trusts. However, the statistical confidence intervals associated with a sample of this size (the ‘margins of error’) are, nevertheless, relatively wide. 

As such, the data cited throughout this report should be considered as indicative rather than concrete. Where possible, follow-up research to investigate any issues raised would be advisable. 

Findings overview 

Scale of provision 

• The typical AUM of MEPs was around 100 times the typical AUM of SETs (medians of £9.8 billion and £92.8 million respectively).  

• However, members of SETs tended to have larger pension pots than members of MEPs (medians of £35,000 and £4,200 respectively). Almost three quarters (73%) of the pension pots in Multi-Employer Providers had a value of less than £10,000. 

Asset allocation 

• A large majority of providers’ total AUM was typically invested in automatic enrolment default funds (86% on average for MEPs and 77% for SETs). 

• Investments at 30 years to retirement (30 YTR) were heavily concentrated in non-UK publicly listed equities - these accounted for an average of 71.4% of providers’ largest default fund investments. A relatively low proportion of default fund investments were in private equity (0.5%) or infrastructure (1.3%) at 30 YTR. 

• MEPs were less heavily invested in UK assets than SETs at all points on the retirement pathway. At 30 YTR, 11% of MEP’s largest default fund investments were in UK assets, compared with 20% of SET’s investments. 

• At 30 YTR, this difference was primarily driven by different concentrations of investment in UK listed equities, which accounted for 9.9% of SET investments compared with 2.6% of MEP investments. However, at retirement the difference between SETs and MEPs was instead driven by differing investment in listed UK cash/money market securities (17.1% for SETs compared with 11.9% for MEPs) and UK government bonds (17.6% for SETs compared with 10.3% for MEPs). 

Investment performance 

• Mean annualised gross investment performance for the providers’ largest default funds at 30 YTR was 8.6% over the past five years. However, some providers performed much more strongly than others, with returns ranging from 18.8% to 4.7%. 

• Potentially reflecting de-risking on the approach to retirement, over the past five years the mean gross investment performance for the largest default funds was 8.6% at 30 YTR, 3.6% at 5 YTR and 3.0% at retirement. 

Charges 

• Annual Management Charges tended to be higher for MEPs than for SETs (median averages of 0.32% and 0.24% respectively). 

Future research considerations 

• Smaller providers are sometimes dependent on third parties for detailed information relating to investment allocation, investment performance and other similarly complex measures. They were not always able to source such information within the necessary timelines for this research study. These dependencies need to be considered in future data collection exercises and in the framing of any future statutory reporting requirements. 

• A small number of questions generated high levels of non-response amongst providers of all sizes. In particular, questions relating to accumulation and decumulation charges went unanswered by most providers. If these topics are to be a focus of future research, qualitative questionnaire development work would be beneficial to understand the reasons behind this. 

• Where possible, any future research studies which require a significant time investment from participants should be timed to avoid the busiest periods for pension providers. There are particular workload challenges during statutory reporting periods.

Acknowledgements 

This research study was commissioned by DWP in October 2024. 

The authors would like to extend their thanks to the Pensions and Later Life Analysis (PALLA) team at DWP for their oversight of the project and for their valuable input and support at all stages of the study. In particular, we are grateful to the core DWP project team consisting of Sophie Talbot, Christopher Lord and Fraser Caves, all of whom made valuable contributions to the project throughout.  

Thanks are also extended to Lynne Robertson Rose who consulted on this study. Lynne’s knowledge of some of the highly complex aspects of the pensions sector was essential to the design of the survey questionnaire and our understanding of the results. 

Finally, sincere thanks are extended to the survey participants who participated in the research and gave considered responses to a survey that required significant thought and effort on their part. 

Authors 

Richard Brind, Independent Researcher, on behalf of Verian 

Alex Thornton, Senior Director, Verian 

Lillian Robertson, Senior Research Executive, Verian 

Glossary 

Term	Meaning
Active/ contributing members	A member who is currently still contributing into the scheme.
Annual management charge (AMC)	An annual administration charge payable to the provider of an occupational pension scheme, or the percentage amount being deducted from a fund value for investment and administration services.
Annualised standard deviation of returns	A measure of the volatility of investments. It is calculated from the standard deviation applied to the annual rate of return of an investment using the following formula: Standard Deviation * SQRT(N) where N = number of periods in 1 year.
Annuities	A common way of realising pension funds at retirement. An annuity consists of a fixed sum of money paid to someone each year, typically for the rest of their life.
Assets under management (AUM)	The total market value of the investments managed by a person or entity on behalf of investors.
Bespoke default funds	A specific investment fund designed for an individual employer or a small number of employers.
Bonds	Loans made to an issuer (such as a government or a company) which undertakes to repay the loan at an agreed later date. The term refers generically to corporate bonds or government bonds (such as gilts).
Cash/Money market securities	Cash and assets that behave similarly to cash e.g. treasury bills. These only include invested cash and not cash held in a bank account or accounting values such as net current assets.
Closed-ended fund	A type of mutual fund that issues a fixed number of shares through a single initial public offering (IPO) to raise capital for its initial investments. Shares can then be bought and sold on a stock exchange, but no new shares will be created, and no new money will flow into the fund.
Contribution charge	A charge used by an operator of a qualifying scheme which is calculated as a percentage of contributions made by, or on behalf of, a member of that qualifying scheme over a defined period of time.
Decumulation	The process of gradually drawing down, or spending, the assets that a pension member has accumulated during their working years.
Default fund	Funds which members of a pension scheme are invested in if they do not actively specify another fund where they would like their investments to be made.
Deferred	A deferred member is somebody who no longer contributes to a specific pension scheme, but whose assets remain within that scheme.
Defined contribution scheme (DC)	A defined contribution (DC) pension scheme is a type of retirement savings plan where the amount of money members receive in retirement depends on how much members and employers contribute, as well as the performance of the investments within the pension pot. Unlike a defined benefit (DB) pension, it doesn’t guarantee a specific income in retirement until the point at which an annuity may be taken out.
Differential pricing	A pricing strategy where businesses set different prices for the same product or service based on multiple factors.
Direct investment	Provides capital funding in exchange for an equity interest without the purchase of regular shares of a company’s stock.
Drawdown	A retirement option that lets members take some money out of their pension pot at a certain age, while the rest remains invested.
Flat fee	A charge levied without reference to the funds under management or the funds contributed e.g. a flat £ amount charged to the members each month/year.
Full withdrawal	When a pensioner member withdraws their entire pension pot assets as cash.
Funds of one/ Separately managed accounts	An investment structure where a hedge fund manager creates the investment vehicle for only one investor.
Glidepath	A feature that aims to reduce the risk/volatility of pension savings in the lead up to retirement. Money gradually and automatically moves into more secure investments the closer to retirement members get.
Group Personal Pensions (GPPs)	A type of contract-based pension scheme that is intended to be used by 2 or more employers and is subject to specific governance rules. These schemes are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA).
Infrastructure	Physical structures, facilities, systems, or networks that provide or support public services including water, gas and electricity networks, roads, telecommunications facilities, schools, hospitals, and prisons.
Investment charges	Fees and charges in relation to investments, including any performance-based fees but excluding transaction costs.
Master Trust	A type of trust-based pension scheme that is intended to be used by 2 or more employers and is subject to specific governance rules. These schemes are regulated by The Pensions Regulator (TPR).
Maximum drawdown	A measure of the risk associated with an investment strategy. It measures the largest observed loss from a peak to a trough of the price of an arrangement, which is an indicator of downside risk over a specified time-period.
Multi-Employer Provider (MEP)	Pension providers which offer their services to multiple employers. This group is made up of both Master Trust providers and Group Personal Pension providers.
Open-ended fund (LTAF)	LTAFs are a new type of FCA-authourised open-ended fund specifically designed to facilitate investment in long-term, less liquid assets, but for a wider investor base that can include retail investors.
Open-ended fund (other)	An open-end fund is a diversified portfolio of pooled investor money that can issue an unlimited number of shares.
Private Equity	Private equity (that could include venture capital and growth equity) are shares which are not listed or publicly traded on a recognised stock exchange. Private equity funds can encompass a broad range of investment styles.
Property (unlisted)	Property which does not fall within the description in ‘infrastructure.’
Publicly Listed Equities (excluding REITS)	Shares in a company which is listed on a stock exchange and can be bought and sold on that stock exchange. Owning shares makes shareholders part owners of the company in question and usually entitles them to a share of the profits (if any), which are paid as dividends.
Real Estate Property Trusts (REITS)	Real Estate Investment Trusts (REITS) are a type of company that invest in property.
Retirement pathway	For any given pension fund member, it is common for investing strategies to change over time, with the aim of reducing risk as retirement approaches. ‘Retirement pathway’ is used to describe changes in investment allocation and performance that may occur as retirement approaches. For the purposes of this study, we have focused on 3 specific points on the retirement pathway: 30 years to retirement; 5 years to retirement; and at retirement.
Service costs	Total costs and charges less investment charges.
Single Employer Trust (SET)	A pension scheme that is intended to be used by a single employer and is subject to specific governance rules.
Transfer costs	Fee charged to move pensions.
Uncrystallised lump sum	A way of withdrawing funds from a pension pot without going into drawdown or buying an annuity.

Abbreviations summary 

Abbreviation	Meaning
AMC	Annual Management Charge
ASDR	Annualised Standard Deviation of Returns
AUM	Assets Under Management
DC	Defined Contribution
GPP	Group Personal Pension
IFA	Independent Financial Advisor
MEP	Multi-Employer Provider (a provider that is either a GPP or an MT)
MT	Master Trust
REITS	Real Estate Investment Trusts
SET	Single Employer Trust
YTR	Years To Retirement

Main report 

1 – Background and methodology 

1.1 Survey background and aims 

This report details the findings from a quantitative survey of pension providers conducted on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). It was commissioned to inform a broad programme of analysis and policy work, following the Pension Schemes Bill announced in July 2024 and the Pensions Investment Review which was already underway at the time of commissioning. 

The survey was designed to gather data on key metrics relating to Defined Contribution (DC) pension schemes, covering both trust-based and contract-based schemes. In particular, the research aimed to address knowledge gaps relating to Single-Employer Trusts, a group for which there is less published data available. 

More specifically, the survey was designed to feed into a wide range of pension reforms^{[footnote 1]} and priorities including: 

• The Value for Money framework, which is a large market reform exercise, examining the investment performance, costs and services provided by pension schemes. 

• Guided Retirement, for example by informing how to best support the millions of people who are approaching retirement with a defined contribution pension pot. 

• Consolidation of pension providers, for example by gathering evidence on the relationship between scheme size, costs and investment performance. 

• Asset allocation, for example by gathering evidence on pension schemes’ investments in UK-listed assets and in productive finance asset classes. 

• Refining data collection frameworks, through the development of a consistent data template to be used in future data collection exercises relating to the DC market.  

The Pension Provider Survey 2024/25 builds on learnings from the Pension Charges Survey 2020 and its predecessor surveys^{[footnote 2]}. However, the survey content and sample design for this new study is significantly broadened from the earlier work and comparisons between the two are not generally possible.  

1.2 Methodology 

1.2.1 Survey sample  

The sample for this research was provided by The Pensions Regulator and consisted of pension providers in 3 broad categories: 

• Master Trusts (MTs) 

• Group Personal Pensions (GPPs) 

• Single-Employer Trusts (SETs) 

The raw sample file was cleaned to ensure that only cases with usable contact details were included in the issued sample. 

Where there were multiple contact names for a single provider, a single contact was selected for the initial survey invitations, prioritised on job role using the following hierarchy: 

• Top priority - Scheme Contact (including Scheme Return Contact, Scheme Registration Contact, Form PR10 Contact, Notified Contact) 

• Second priority – Administrator (including in House Administrator, Third Party Administrator, Insurer Administrator) 

• Third priority – Trustee (including Principal or Participating Employer Trustee, Employer Appointed Trustee, Member Nominated Trustee, Appointed by Regulator Trustee) 

Invitations to take part in the survey were sent to a total of 766 organisations. 

The initial recipients of invitations were permitted to forward them to other people within their organisation – or to third-party organisations with oversight of their pension scheme – if it was felt that they were better placed to complete the survey. 

1.2.2 Contact methods 

Sample members were initially emailed an invitation which provided details about the aims of the survey. The invitation also gave each pension provider unique login details which allowed them to securely submit their data (see Appendix A). 

Following the initial email invitation, follow-up emails were sent to any providers who had not already completed the survey. Some of these included additional information about the survey, while others were more straightforward reminder emails. Depending on when they completed the survey, sample members were sent up to a maximum of six emails.  

Sample members for whom mobile phone numbers were available (148 in total) were also sent SMS reminders to complete the survey. Two rounds of SMS reminders were sent. 

Telephone calls were made to providers who had not already completed the survey and for whom telephone numbers were available. These brief calls were designed to encourage participation, to check contact details, and to allow invitation emails to be re-sent where appropriate. 

During fieldwork, it became apparent that some email invitations were being blocked by spam filters. Although address details were not included in the original sample file, this additional contact information was therefore secured during the fieldwork period. Letter invitations were mailed to the 635 respondents who had not yet completed the survey and for whom address details were available.  

The Department for Work and Pensions also engaged with providers via their Pension Provider Forum, with a view to encouraging participation in the survey. 

1.2.3 Survey method 

Many of the survey questions were relatively complex and would require participants to look up information before answering (see Appendix B).  

As such, sample members were asked to download and complete an Excel formatted data sheet from the survey website. Along with the survey questions, the data sheet included formatting to ensure that responses were in the relevant units (e.g. percentages, sterling values or absolute numbers). The data sheet also included some formula driven checks to highlight when answers were not internally consistent (e.g. where answers should add to 100% but did not). 

When the datasheet was completed, participants were asked to upload these to a password protected survey website. As part of the submission process, participants were also asked to complete a very short online questionnaire, largely designed to confirm a few key details and determine whether they were happy for the name of their organisation to be passed to DWP along with their survey responses (see Appendix C). 

1.2.4 Fieldwork dates 

The initial survey invitations were sent to sample members on 12th December 2024.  

The originally planned end date for the survey was 14th February 2025. However, it became apparent that some sample members were very busy due to statutory reporting requirements during the first quarter. The survey closing date was therefore extended until Friday 28th February. 

1.2.5 Response rate and sample profile 

A total of 49 responses to the survey were received from the 766 providers invited to participate. This equates to an overall response rate of 6.4%. 

The response breakdown for each of the 3 key provider groups is outlined below and was notably higher for Master Trusts (32.1%) and Group Personal Pensions (33.3%). 

Table 1.1: Response rates (by provider type) 

Type of provider	Issued sample	Achieved sample	Response rate
Master Trust	28	9	32.1%
Group Personal Pension	9	3	33.3%
Single-Employer Trust	729	37	5.1%
Total	766	49	6.4%

It should be noted that 2 of the sampled organisations provided 2 separate submissions - 1 for their Master Trust provision and 1 for their GPP provision. As such, within the total sample of 49 providers, there are 47 unique entities. 

1.2.6 Data cleaning 

The data received from the participating providers was highly internally consistent.  

The most frequent data edit involved the replacement of missing values with zero values in cases where this was clearly the correct approach. This edit was possible where values would be expected to add to 100% and any non-blank values already came to this total. 

There were a small number of cases where there had clearly been an error when inputting the value (for example where a participant had given the number of fund members instead of the number of investment funds offered). In cases where there were such clear errors, the incorrect data were suppressed from the reported data. 

In some cases, the correct number formats had been overwritten (for example where text answers such as ‘1.3 billion’ were given in the place of the intended numeric values). In these cases, the text data was converted to the relevant numeric format. 

For the Maximum drawdown metric, which should always have a negative value, some providers omitted the minus sign when answering. In such cases, the positive values were converted to negative values. 

Other edits were similarly light touch in nature. 

2 – Interpreting the data 

2.1 A note of caution relating to small sample sizes 

It should be noted that the total responding sample consisted of 49 providers. Many of the largest pension providers responded to the survey, with a combined membership of 30.6 million. The responding providers accounted for a cumulative total of £290 billion of AUM and more than 80% of the total AUM for Master Trusts. Nevertheless, the statistical confidence intervals associated with a sample of this size (the ‘margins of error’) are relatively large. 

As shown in Table 1.1, it should also be noted that the response rate for SETs (5.1%) was much lower than the response rate for Master Trusts (32.1%) and GPPs (33.3%). It may be the case that non-responding SETs felt less able to source the necessary data than those that did respond – if so, there may also have been differences in the profile of responding and non-responding SETs.   

Given the small sample sizes, findings have not been subject to statistical significance testing. As such, the data cited throughout this report should be considered as indicative rather than concrete. Where possible, follow-up research to investigate any issues raised would be advisable. This is particularly the case for any figures relating to sub-groups within the sample, or for any specific questions where there was an elevated level of non-response. 

Throughout the report, base sizes for each sub-group and metric are shown in brackets beneath the related tabulation headings or sub-group labels. 

2.2 Unweighted data 

The data in this report are not weighted to reflect the profile of the total population of pension providers or the total membership of each provider – therefore small providers are considered equally with large providers in the quoted data.  

2.3  Non-response to specific questions 

Throughout this report, the base sizes for each question will tend to vary slightly – some providers omitted answers to some questions while answering others. 

Some questions in the survey were subject to relatively high levels of non-response. In such cases this is highlighted in the report text, and commentary on any sub-group differences will be limited or caveated accordingly. 

Non-response may, in some cases, relate to the commercial sensitivity of specific questions. However, feedback from survey participants during the fieldwork period suggests that smaller providers, in particular, were simply unable to source some of the requested data (or were dependent on third parties to obtain certain data and were not able to do so within the fieldwork period). 

2.4  Means and medians 

Throughout the report, there are references to mean scores and median scores. 

In many cases both the mean and median values are referenced. However, where it is clear that outlier scores have substantially affected the means, commentary will tend to focus on the median scores instead. 

2.5  Rounding 

To make the report easier to read, data have been rounded throughout. Values lower than 100 were not rounded. Values greater than 100 were rounded as per Table 2.1. 

Where percentages show the proportion of the responding sample that fell into a given category, they are rounded to the nearest whole percentage point. However, where percentage values relate to specific financial metrics, such as investment performance, fees and asset distribution, the data is rounded to one decimal place.  

Wherever a zero percentage figure appears throughout the report, this is a genuine zero value. There are no cases where a figure of less than 0.5% has been rounded down. 

Table 2.1: Rounding conventions 

Magnitude of values:	Values are rounded to the nearest:
100 to 999	10
1,000 to 99,999	100
100,000 to 999,999	1,000
1 million to 99.9 million	0.1 million
100 million to 999 million	1 million
1 billion to 99.9 billion	0.1 billion
100 billion or more	1 billion

3 – Profile of the participating providers 

This chapter outlines the profile of the providers that participated in the research study, with a focus on their scale and the nature of their membership. Where possible, comparisons are made between the profile of the research participants and the profile of the wider population of pension providers. 

• Section 3.1 examines the substantial differences in the number of members in the participating providers. This section also examines whether those members are actively contributing to their pension pots and provides an overview of the average age of members.  

• Section 3.2 focuses on the total Assets Under Management (AUM) in Defined Contribution (DC) schemes. 

• Section 3.3 summarises the average pension pot size for members of different types of provider. 

• Section 3.4 outlines the proportion of members with relatively modest pot sizes of £10,000 or less. 

3.1 Membership 

Participating providers were asked how many members they had across the pension scheme(s) that they offer. Overall, the median number of members was 7,900. However, as shown in Table 3.1, the median number of members was substantially higher for MEPs (1.1 million) compared with SETs (1,900). 

Despite the comparatively low median number of members in SETs, there was significant variation in the scale of SETs. Although a quarter (25%) of SETs had fewer than 100 members, around a quarter (28%) had between 10,000 and 100,000 members, and a small minority (6%) had between 100,000 and 1 million members. 

None of the MEPs had fewer than 10,000 members and half (50%) had a million or more members. Although base sizes are small, within the MEP group it was clear that the participating Master Trusts (n=9) and GPPs (n=3) each had large memberships. The median membership for participating Master Trusts was c.600,000 while the median membership for participating GPPs was c.2.4 million.  

The mean number of members was much higher than the median number of members for both MEPs and SETs. This effect was caused by a small number of very large providers which increased the mean score substantially. As such, the median values offer a better sense of the typical scale of providers. 

Adding together the number of members in each of the 49 participating providers, a cumulative total of 30.6 million members was covered by the survey sample. It should, however, be noted that individuals may be members of multiple schemes. 

Table 3.1: Number of members across all schemes offered by providers^{[footnote 3]} 

Number of members	Total (48)	Multi-Employer Providers (12)	Single Employer Trusts (36)
Less than 100	19%	0%	25%
100 up to 1,000	8%	0%	11%
1,000 up to 10,000	23%	0%	31%
10,000 up to 100,000	23%	8%	28%
100,000 up to 1 million	15%	42%	6%
1 million or more	13%	50%	0%
Mean number of members	638,000	2.5 million	14,700
Median number of members	7,900	1.1 million	1,900

Source question: Q2. How many members do you have across schemes? 

Base: All responding providers 

Providers were also asked how many of their members were: 

• Active/contributing members (i.e. members who are currently still contributing into the scheme) 

• Deferred (i.e. not currently intending to make future payments into the Scheme) 

• Pensioner members (i.e. entitled to payment of pension benefits but with funds still invested) 

Overall, in each provider an average of 40% of members were active, 60% were deferred and fewer than 0.5% were pensioner members. Again, there was some variation according to the type of provider, with MEPs having a higher proportion of active members (46%) compared with SETs (38%). 

Chart 3.1: Mean number of members that are active, deferred or pensioners

A stacked column chart showing the mean number of members that are active, deferred or pensioners. The data is shown at a total level and is also split out by 2 provider type groups. Total deferred members 60%, total active members 40%, total pensioner members <0.5%. Multi-Employer Providers deferred members 54%, Multi-Employer Providers active members 46%, Multi-Employer Providers pensioner members <0.5%. Single Employer Trusts deferred members 62%, Single Employer Trusts active members 38%, Single Employer Trusts pensioner members <0.5%.

Source question: Q2. How many members do you have across schemes? 

Base: All providers giving internally consistent responses for the number of Active, Deferred, Pensioner and Total members 

Providers were also asked the median age of all their members. The overall median age was 43 years. This was slightly higher for SETs (45 years) than for MEPs (41 years).  

The median age of members was also higher for providers with an AUM of less than £100 million (48 years) compared with those with an AUM of £100 million up to £1 billion (42 years) and those with an AUM of £1 billion or more (41 years). 

3.2 Total Assets Under Management in Defined Contribution pensions  

As would be expected given the large differences in the number of members in each of the participating providers, there was also a wide variance in the total value of AUM in their DC pensions. 

Amongst the participating providers, the overall median AUM was £241 million, rising to £9.8 billion for MEPs. The median AUM for SETs was much lower (£93 million) and around a quarter of SETs (27%) had AUM of less than £10 million. 

Again, there was a substantial difference between the total mean AUM (£5.9 billion) and the total median AUM (£241 million), driven by a small number of very large providers. 

Table 3.2: Total Assets Under Management in Defined Contribution pensions 

AUM	Total (49)	Multi-Employer Providers (12)	Single Employer Trusts (37)
Less than £10 million	20%	0%	27%
£10 million up to £100 million	22%	0%	30%
£100 million up to £1 billion	18%	0%	24%
£1 billion up to £5 billion	20%	33%	16%
£5 billion or more	18%	67%	3%
Mean AUM	£5.9 billion	£22.2 billion	£638 million
Median AUM	£241 million	£9.8 billion	£92.8 million

Source question: Q5a. What are your overall Assets Under management in DC pensions?  

Base: All responding providers  

Adding together the value of AUM in DC pensions in each of the participating providers, a cumulative total of £290 billion of AUM was covered by the survey sample.  

The responding survey sample included 9 of the 33 authorised Master Trusts^{[footnote 4]}. With a combined AUM of £138 billion, these 9 responding Master Trusts accounted for more than 80% of the £166 billion AUM of all 33 authorised Master Trusts^{[footnote 5]}. 

3.3 Average pot size 

Providers were asked to give the median pot size for all members. As shown in Chart 3.2, the median overall value of pots was £21,500. The median value of pots was, on average, substantially higher for SETs (£35,000) than for MEPs (£4,200). 

There was little difference between the median pot size of providers with less than £100 million AUM (£33,400) and providers with £100 million up to £1 billion AUM (£35,600). However, the pot size of providers with more than £1 billion AUM was markedly lower (£14,500). 

Chart 3.2: Median pot size of members (median value) 

A column chart showing the median monetary pot size of all members. The data is shown at a total level and is also split out by 3 AUM bands and 2 provider type groups. The data in this chart is described in the body text of the report.

Source question: Q3. What is the median pot size for all members?  

Base: All responding providers 

3.4 Prevalence of pots with a balance of less than £10,000 

On average across the responding providers, around 4 in 10 (41%) of their pots had a balance of less than £10,000. The median proportion of pots with a balance of less than £10,000 was higher for MEPs (73%) compared with SETs (30%).  

Providers with AUM of £1 billion or more tended to have a higher proportion of pots with a balance of less than £10,000 (69%) compared with providers with AUM of £100 million up to £1 billion (27%) or providers with AUM of less than £100 million (30%). 

Chart 3.3:  Median proportion of pots with a value of less than £10,000

A column chart showing the median proportion of pots with a value of less than £10,000. The data is shown at a total level and is also split out by 3 AUM bands and 2 provider type groups. The data in this chart is described in the body text of the report. 

Source question: Q4. How many pots have a balance smaller than £10,000 for all members? 

Base: All responding providers 

4 – Overview of the providers’ default funds 

This chapter provides an overview of the default funds of the providers that participated in the research study. Default funds are the funds which members of a pension scheme are invested in if they do not actively specify another fund where they would like their investments to be made. Data from The Pensions Regulator show that 94% of members of Defined Contribution trust schemes were invested in a default fund in 2024^{[footnote 6]}. Providers may offer a single default fund for all members, or they may offer a range of default funds. Where a provider offers multiple default funds, an employer may select which of those default funds they would prefer to offer to their employees as the default option. 

• Section 4.1 examines the number of default funds participating providers have.  

• Section 4.2 focuses on the proportion of total Assets Under Management (AUM) that are in Automatic Enrolment Default funds.  

• Section 4.3 outlines the prevalence of different types of Automatic Enrolment Default fund. 

4.1 Number of default funds 

Participating providers were asked how many default funds they had. A large majority of providers did offer default funds, but it should be noted that 3 of the 47 responding providers reported that they did not offer any default funds and were accordingly allocated a zero value. All of those without default funds were SETs. Overall, the median number of default funds was 2.  

Smaller providers, with AUM of less than £100 million, tended only to offer a single default fund. Those with £100 million up to £1 billion AUM had the highest median of 4 default funds. The median for those with £1 billion or more AUM was 2.  

Focusing on provider type, MEPs offered a median of 2 default funds and a mean of 13 default funds. The high mean for MEPs was driven by a small number of providers offering a high number of default funds. SETs offered a median of 1 default fund and a mean of 2 default funds.  

The number of default funds offered by each provider ranged from a minimum of 0 up to a maximum of 80. Given that a small number of providers offered an atypically large number of default funds, the median values are more representative of ‘typical’ providers.  

4.2 Proportion of assets under management in automatic enrolment default fund(s) 

Participating providers were asked to specify their total AUM in DC pensions as well as the AUM in their automatic enrolment default funds. From these two metrics, it was possible to calculate the proportion of total AUM which was in automatic enrolment default funds. 

Overall, the mean proportion of total AUM that was in default funds was 71% (see Chart 4.1). The mean proportion (71%) was lower than the median proportion (80%), largely driven by a small number of providers that did not offer default funds and therefore had zero assets in such funds.  

The proportion of total AUM that was in default funds tended to be lower amongst providers with AUM of less than £100m (57% mean and 71% median). 

Looking at provider type, the mean (83%) and median (86%) proportion of AUM that was in automatic enrolment default funds was comparatively high for MEPs.  

Chart 4.1: Proportion of total AUM in automatic enrolment default fund(s) - by AUM and Provider Type

A column chart showing the mean and median proportion of total AUM in automatic enrolment default fund(s). The data is shown at a total level and is also split out by 3 AUM bands and 2 provider type groups. Total median proportion 80%, total mean proportion 71%. Less than £100 million AUM median proportion 71%, less than £100 million AUM mean proportion 57%. £100 million up to £1 billion AUM median proportion 89%, £100 million up to £1 billion AUM mean proportion 79%. £1 billion or more AUM median proportion 79%, £1 billion or more AUM mean proportion 81%. Multi-Employer Providers median proportion 86%, Multi-Employer Providers mean proportion 83%. Single Employer Trusts median proportion 77%, single Employer Trusts mean proportion 66%. 

Source questions: Q5a. What are your overall Assets Under management in DC pensions? Q5b. What are your assets under management in your automatic enrolment default fund(s)?  

Base: All responding providers 

4.3 Default fund type 

Participating providers were asked if their largest default fund was a ‘lifestyle’ fund, a ‘target date’ fund, or some other type of fund. Both lifestyle and target date funds manage their members’ investments with the aim of reducing investment risk as retirement approaches, albeit with some differences in approach. Individuals who invest in Self-Invested Personal Pensions (SIPPs) are not able to access lifestyle funds but can invest in target date funds. Overall, around two thirds (67%) reported that their largest default fund was a lifestyle fund (see Chart 4.2). Around a quarter (27%) reported that their largest default fund was a target date fund and relatively few (6%) had some other type of largest default fund. 

Lifestyle funds were clearly the most common default fund type for each of the 3 AUM groups.  

The proportion of MEPs whose largest default fund was a target date fund was relatively high (42% compared with 22% for SETs).  

Chart 4.2: Largest default fund type - by AUM and provider type 

A stacked column chart showing the proportion of largest default funds that falls into each of 3 types: lifestyle, target date and other. The data is shown at a total level and is also split out by 3 AUM bands and 2 provider type groups. Total lifestyle 67%, total target date 27%, total other 6%. Less than £100 million AUM lifestyle 70%, Less than £100 million AUM target date 15%, Less than £100 million AUM other 15%. £100 million up to £1 billion AUM lifestyle 67%, £100 million up to £1 billion AUM target date 33%, £100 million up to £1 billion AUM other 0%. £1 billion or more AUM lifestyle 63%, £1 billion or more AUM target date 37%, £1 billion or more AUM other 0%. Multi-Employer Providers lifestyle 58%, Multi-Employer Providers target date 42%, Multi-Employer Providers other 0%. Single Employer Trusts lifestyle 69%, Single Employer Trusts target date 22%, Single Employer Trusts other 8%.

Source question: Q8. Is your largest default fund… 

Base: All responding providers 

5 – Investment performance 

This chapter examines the investment performance of the largest default fund of the responding providers. The 3 providers without a default fund did not provide investment performance data. Four different measures were used to give a fuller understanding of investment performance, as outlined below.  

It should be noted that not all providers were able to provide this detailed information. 

• Section 5.1 focuses on gross investment performance. 

  • This measure provides the percentage change in the total value of investments in the largest default fund before the deduction of any costs and charges. 

• Section 5.2 focuses on net investment performance (minus all costs and charges). 

  • This measure provides the percentage change in the total value of investments in the largest default fund after the deduction of all costs and charges. 

• Section 5.3 focuses on annualised standard deviation of returns. 

  • This measure gives an indication of how much annual volatility there has been in the performance of an investment over a specified period. Higher values mean that there has been more volatility (and, potentially, risk) in the performance of an investment. 

• Section 5.4 focuses on maximum drawdown. 

  • This measure provides another indication of the risk associated with an investment. It measures the largest loss from a peak to a trough over a specified period. For the purposes of this research, providers were asked to frame this as ‘the largest negative peak-to-trough return in the monthly gross returns across a reporting period’. 

Providers were asked to specify the investment performance for each of these 4 metrics at different points on their members’ retirement pathways: 

• At 30 years to retirement (30 YTR), when pots will often be invested in asset classes that may offer high growth but may also be less stable than other assets. 

• At 5 years to retirement (5 YTR), when investment strategies have often begun to shift towards assets that typically provide more stability but may also offer lower growth. 

• At retirement, when investment strategies tend to have minimised their exposure to  assets that may experience large shifts in value over short periods of time.  

Additionally, for each of these points on the retirement pathway, providers were also asked to specify the annualised investment performance across a range of timeframes: 

• Annualised performance over the past year 

• Annualised performance over the past 3 years 

• Annualised performance over the past 5 years 

In this chapter, we focus only on the annualised performance of the providers’ largest default funds over the past 5 years. This longer timeframe gives a more stable understanding of mid-term investment performance. For reference, the data relating to performance over the past year and performance over the past 3 years are included in Appendix E. 

It should be noted that providers were asked to report based on the most recent period for which data was available. Based on feedback from providers, it appears that there was some variation in the reporting dates upon which the data in this chapter were based. Broadly speaking, it may have been the case that larger providers were more able to provide responses relating to a very recent reporting period, while smaller providers were more likely to have to rely on existing published data (for example from the most recent financial year end). Given the ebbs and flows of total global investment values, it is possible that these differences in reporting period may have impacted on the quoted performance of the different types of provider, although any difference in reporting period would typically be limited to less than a year. To minimise any such effects, the focus throughout this chapter is on investment performance over the past 5 years. 

5.1 Annualised gross investment performance (past 5 years) 

Overall, 32 of the 49 responding providers were able to specify annualised gross 30 YTR investment returns for their largest default fund over the past 5 years. All 12 of the responding MEPs provided gross performance data, while 20 of the 37 SETs provided this information. Based on feedback from survey participants, it appears that SETs are often reliant on third party investment fund providers for the sourcing of detailed performance information. In some cases this information was not available to SETs during the fieldwork period. 

Overall, amongst all responding providers, the annualised gross investment performance tended to reduce as the retirement date of members approached, reflecting the de-risking that is typical in pension investments (see Table 5.1).  

At 30 YTR the mean annualised gross performance was an 8.6% return. This fell to 3.6% at 5 YTR and 3.0% at retirement. There was a similar pattern for median investment performance. 

Comparing the highest gross investment performance of any responding provider with the lowest gross investment performance highlights the large variation in returns between providers. At 30 YTR, there was a 14 percentage point difference between the highest performing provider (with an 18.8% gross return) and the lowest performing provider (with a 4.7% gross return). Even at retirement, when investments would typically have been de-risked to some extent, there were still large differences in gross performance, ranging from a maximum return of 6.5% to a minimum return of -5.7%. 

In terms of differences according to the type of provider over the past 5 years, key points are that: 

• Median gross performance was relatively similar for SETs and MEPs. SETs had slightly higher median gross returns at 30 YTR while MEPs had slightly higher median gross return at 5 YTR and at retirement. 

• The worst performing SET had a lower gross performance at 5 YTR than the lowest performing MEP (-41.3% and 2.8% respectively). This poorly performing SET was, however, an outlier and was the only responding provider of any type with a negative return at 5TYR. 

• The highest performing MEP had a higher gross performance at 5 YTR than the highest performing SET (9.0% and 6.3% respectively).  

Detailed data on sub-group performance, including analysis by AUM, are included for reference in Appendix E1.  

Table 5.1: Annualised gross investment returns for largest default fund over the past 5 years 

	30 YTR (32)	5 YTR (32)	At retirement (31)
Mean Gross investment performance	8.6%	3.6%	3.0%
Median Gross investment performance	8.4%	5.0%	3.1%
Highest Gross investment performance for any responding provider	18.8%	9.0%	6.5%
Lowest Gross investment performance for any responding provider	4.7%	-41.3%	-5.7%

Source question: Q19. Please provide all metrics on this sheet for your largest default fund. Please assume a static allocation at 30 years, 5 years and at retirement and provide historical performance. 

Base: All responding providers  

5.2 Annualised net investment performance (past 5 years) 

Overall, 33 of the 49 responding providers were able to give annualised net 30 YTR investment returns for their largest default fund over the past 5 years. All 12 of the responding MEPs provided net performance data, while 21 of the 37 SETs provided this information.  

As would be expected, the net investment performance over the past 5 years followed a similar pattern to the gross investment performance. The annualised net investment performance again tended to reduce as the retirement date of members approached.  

At 30 YTR the mean annualised net performance was a 7.8% return. This fell to 4.7% at 5 YTR and 2.5% at retirement (see Table 5.2). There was a similar pattern for median investment performance. It should be noted that the sub-set of providers that provided Net performance data was not identical to the group of providers that provided Gross performance data. As such, comparisons between Net and Gross performance are not absolutely like-for-like. Focusing only on the 29 providers that submitted both Gross and Net data for past 5 year performance at 5 YTR, the mean Gross returns were 0.4 percentage points higher than the mean Net returns. There was also a 0.4 percentage point difference in the equivalent median gross and median net returns.  

As was the case for gross returns, there was substantial variation in net returns for different providers. At 30 YTR there was an 8 percentage point difference between the highest performing provider (with a 12.1% net return) and the lowest performing provider (with a 4.3% net return).  

In terms of differences according to the type of provider over the past 5 years, key points are that: 

• Median net performance was relatively similar for SETs and MEPs. SETs had a slightly higher median net return at 30 YTR while performance at 5 YTR and at retirement was generally more evenly balanced. 

• The highest performing MEP had a higher net performance at 5 YTR than the highest performing SET (8.7% and 6.5% respectively). 

Detailed data on sub-group performance, including analysis by AUM, are included for reference in Appendix E2.  

Table 5.2: Annualised net investment returns for largest default fund over the past 5 years 

	30 YTR (33)	5 YTR (32)	At retirement (32)
Mean Net investment performance	7.8%	4.7%	2.5%
Median Net investment performance	7.5%	4.9%	2.6%
Highest Net investment performance for any responding organisation	12.1%	8.7%	6.3%
Lowest Net investment performance for any responding organisation	4.3%	0.6%	-5.9%

Source question: Q19. Please provide all metrics on this sheet for your largest default fund. Please assume a static allocation at 30 years, 5 years and at retirement and provide historical performance. 

Base: All responding providers  

5.3 Annualised standard deviation of returns (past 5 years)  

Annualised standard deviation of returns (ASDR) provides an indication of how much annual volatility there has been in the performance of an investment over a specified period of time. Higher values mean that there has been more volatility (and, accordingly, risk) in the performance of an investment. 

There was more non-response for the ASDR metric than for the net and gross performance metrics. For example, only 22 of the 49 responding providers gave responses ASDR at 30 YTR over the past 5 years. Two thirds of MEPs (8 out of 12) were able to provide ASDR figures at 30 YTR, whereas less than half of SETs (14 out of 37) provided this data.  

Again, reflecting the tendency to de-risk as retirement approaches, there was a reduction in both mean and median ASDR throughout the retirement pathway. At 30 YTR the mean ASDR for all responding providers was 12.8%. This fell to 9.8% at 5 YTR and 7.4% at retirement (see Table 5.3). 

The highest ASDR for any responding provider (33.7% at 5 YTR) was markedly higher than the lowest equivalent reported ASDR (6.1% at 5 YTR). 

In terms of differences according to the type of provider over the past 5 years, key points are that: 

• At 30 YTR the mean ASDR for responding SETs (13.9%) was slightly higher than for MEPs (10.9%). There was a similar pattern for median ASDR at 30 YTR. 

• The highest ASDR for any responding SET (33.7% at 5 YTR) was higher than the equivalent highest ASDR for any responding MEP (10.3% at 5 YTR) 

• However, the lowest ASDR for responding SETs tended to be in line with – or lower than – the lowest ASDR for MEPs at each point on the retirement pathway, from 30 YTR through to retirement. 

Given the high level of non-response, detailed data on sub-group performance are not included for this metric.  

Table 5.3: Annualised standard deviation of returns for largest default fund over the past 5 years 

	30 YTR (22)	5 YTR (21)	At retirement (20)
Mean Annualised Standard Deviation of returns	12.8%	9.8%	7.4%
Median Annualised Standard Deviation of returns	12.3%	8.9%	6.5%
Highest Annualised Standard Deviation of returns for any responding organisation	33.4%	33.7%	27.7%
Lowest Annualised Standard Deviation of returns for any responding organisation	9.3%	6.1%	0.6%

Source question: Q19. Please provide all metrics on this sheet for your largest default fund. Please assume a static allocation at 30 years, 5 years and at retirement and provide historical performance. 

Base: All responding providers  

5.4 Maximum drawdown (past 5 years) 

Maximum drawdown provides another indication of the risk associated with an investment. It measures the largest loss from a peak to a trough over a specified period of time.  

Similarly to the ASDR measure, there was more non-response for the maximum drawdown metric than for the net and gross performance metrics. Again, focusing on performance over the past 5 years, there were 30 YTR responses for only 22 of the 49 responding providers. Most MEPs (10 out of 12) were able to provide maximum drawdown figures, whereas only around a third of SETs (12 out of 37) could source this data at 30 YTR.  

Maximum drawdown followed a similar pattern to the other performance metrics, with a reduction in the variability of investment values between 30TYR and retirement. 

The mean maximum drawdown for all responding providers was-17.7% at 30 YTR. This reduced to -14.4% at 5 YTR and -12.9% at retirement. Again, there was a similar pattern for median maximum drawdown. 

Even at retirement, when investments have typically been de-risked to some extent,  there was substantial variation between the smallest maximum drawdown reported by any responding provider (-7.1%) and the largest maximum drawdown (-20.7%). 

Given the high level of non-response, detailed data on sub-group performance are not included for this metric. 

Table 5.4: Annualised maximum drawdown for largest default fund over the past 5 years 

	30 YTR (22)	5 YTR (22)	At retirement (20)
Mean Maximum Drawdown	-17.7%	-14.4%	-12.9%
Median Maximum Drawdown	-16.4%	-14.1%	-12.0%
Smallest Maximum Drawdown for any responding organisation	-13.2%	-9.7%	-7.1%
Largest Maximum Drawdown for any responding organisation	-26.6%	-21.2%	-20.7%

Source question: Q19. Please provide all metrics on this sheet for your largest default fund. Please assume a static allocation at 30 years, 5 years and at retirement and provide historical performance. 

Base: All responding providers  

6 - Investment distribution 

This chapter examines the extent to which investments are concentrated in specific funds. It also provides an overview of how investments are spread across different specific asset types and whether or not those assets are UK-based. 

• Section 6.1 describes the number of funds which account for the bulk (80%) of each provider’s total AUM. 

• Section 6.2 shows how holdings in the providers’ largest default funds are allocated across different asset types. It also looks at differences in asset allocations at different points on the retirement pathway. 

• Section 6.3 outlines providers’ investment in illiquid assets. 

• Section 6.4 highlights the point at which providers typically start to de-risk their investment strategies. 

6.1 Concentration of AUM across funds 

Providers were asked how many of their funds accounted for 80% of their total AUM. Assets were typically concentrated in a relatively small number of funds – amongst all responding providers a median of 2 funds accounted for 80% of the total AUM for each provider. This median value was the same for both SETs and MEPs. 

The mean number of funds that accounted for 80% of total AUM in each provider was higher than the median (4.5 and 2 respectively). The higher mean value was driven by a small number of MEPs whose AUM was divided across a relatively large number of funds, up to a maximum of 60 funds for one of the providers. 

6.2 Default fund asset allocation 

Providers were asked to complete a detailed grid which summarised the proportion of AUM in their largest default fund that was invested in different asset classes at different points on the retirement pathway. 

Specifically, the grid asked providers to specify the proportion of investments allocated to each of 11 different asset classes. For each of these asset classes, the providers also specified whether the investments were in listed or unlisted assets, and whether they were UK or non-UK assets. 

This asset profile was provided at 3 different points on their members’ retirement pathway: 

• At 30 years to retirement (30 YTR), when pots will often be invested in higher risk assets. 

• At 5 years to retirement (5 YTR), when investment strategies have often begun to shift towards lower risk assets. 

• At retirement, when investment strategies tend to have minimised their exposure to high-risk assets.  

This chapter shows a simplified version of the data, which merges listed and unlisted investments into a single category. The fully detailed data can be found in Appendix D. 

It should be noted that some providers flagged the fact that it can be hard to disaggregate UK versus non-UK assets, for example where the investment is in a global fund which includes both UK and international assets. As such, an element of estimation was involved in some responses. 

Changes in investment patterns as retirement approaches 

As shown in Table 6.1, there were signs of de-risking in the specific asset types held as retirement approached. Cash and money market securities accounted for an average of only 0.5% of investments at 30 YTR (0.4% UK and 0.1% non-UK) but this proportion rose to 22.4% at retirement (16.5% UK and 6% non-UK). Similarly, the average proportion invested in government bonds rose from 3.8% at 30 YTR to 20.7% at retirement, and the proportion in listed corporate bonds rose from 5.7% at 30 YTR to 20.2% at retirement. 

Conversely, investment in publicly listed equities (excluding REITS) decreased substantially as retirement approached. At 30 YTR this investment category accounted for an average of 79.7% of largest default fund assets (8.3% UK listed and 71.4% non-UK). This proportion fell to 47.8% at 5 YTR (3.9% UK listed and 43.9% non-UK) and 24.1% at retirement (2.1% UK listed and 22% non-UK). 

A significant proportion of members’ funds were moved into UK assets as retirement approached. At 30 YTR an average of 17.8% of funds were invested in UK assets of any description, rising to 29.9% at 5 YTR and 49.8% at retirement. Moving funds into UK assets can be seen as a form of de-risking, given that it means that currency fluctuations do not directly impact on investment values (albeit there can still be indirect effects, for example where UK listed firms generate profits from international markets). 

Table 6.1: Proportion of largest default fund AUM invested in different asset classes at different points on the retirement pathway 

	30 YTR percentage allocation	30 YTR percentage allocation
Type of asset	UK	Non-UK
Cash/Money market securities	0.4%	0.1%
Government bonds	1.3%	2.5%
Corporate bonds (listed)	2.1%	3.6%
Corporate bonds (unlisted)	0.2%	0.6%
Publicly Listed Equities (excluding REITS)	8.3%	71.4%
Private Equity	0.0%	0.5%
Real Estate Property Trusts (REITS)	0.5%	0.5%
Property (unlisted)	1.0%	0.0%
Infrastructure (listed)	0.1%	0.5%
Infrastructure (unlisted)	0.3%	0.3%
Other (e.g. commodities)	3.4%	2.3%
Total	17.8%	82.2%

	5 YTR percentage allocation	5 YTR percentage allocation
Type of asset	UK	Non-UK
Cash/Money market securities	3.2%	1.1%
Government bonds	7.6%	4.2%
Corporate bonds (listed)	7.0%	13.2%
Corporate bonds (unlisted)	0.4%	1.2%
Publicly Listed Equities (excluding REITS)	3.9%	43.9%
Private Equity	0.0%	0.3%
Real Estate Property Trusts (REITS)	0.3%	1.0%
Property (unlisted)	1.3%	0.3%
Infrastructure (listed)	0.1%	0.4%
Infrastructure (unlisted)	0.3%	0.5%
Other (e.g. commodities)	5.8%	4.0%
Total	29.9%	70.1%

	At retirement percentage allocation	At retirement percentage allocation
Type of asset	UK	Non-UK
Cash/Money market securities	16.5%	6.0%
Government bonds	15.9%	4.7%
Corporate bonds (listed)	8.2%	12.0%
Corporate bonds (unlisted)	0.3%	0.6%
Publicly Listed Equities (excluding REITS)	2.1%	22.0%
Private Equity	0.0%	0.2%
Real Estate Property Trusts (REITS)	0.2%	0.5%
Property (unlisted)	0.8%	0.2%
Infrastructure (listed)	0.1%	0.4%
Infrastructure (unlisted)	0.2%	0.4%
Other (e.g. commodities)	5.5%	3.2%
Total	49.8%	50.2%

Source question: Q17a. Please provide all metrics on this sheet for your largest default fund. If your largest default fund is not a lifestyle fund, instead of reporting ‘30 YTR allocation’ please report your most growth-focused position over the duration of the fund; for ‘5 YTR’ please report your mid-growth position; and for ‘At retirement’ please report your least growth-focused position 

Base: All responding providers 

Key differences in investment allocations according to AUM and provider type 

The largest default funds of the smaller providers were more heavily invested in UK assets throughout the retirement pathway (see Chart 6.1). Amongst those with total AUM of less than £100m, an average of slightly less than a third (30%) of their investments were in UK assets at 30 YTR, compared with around a tenth (10%) for large providers with total AUM of £1 billion or more.  

At retirement, 61% of the investments of providers with AUM of less than £100m were in UK assets, compared with 39% for providers with AUM of £1 billion or more. 

Throughout the retirement pathway, SETs were also more likely to be invested in UK assets than MEPs (20% and 11% respectively at 30 YTR). At 30 YTR, this difference was primarily driven by different concentrations of investment in UK listed equities, which accounted for 9.9% of SET investments compared with 2.6% of MEP investments. However, at retirement the difference between SETs and MEPs was instead driven by differing investment in listed UK cash/money market securities (17.1% for SETs compared with 11.9% for MEPs) and UK government bonds (17.6% for SETs compared with 10.3% for MEPs). 

Chart 6.1: Proportion of largest default fund AUM invested in UK assets at different points on the retirement pathway 

A column chart showing the proportion of the largest default fund AUM invested in UK assets at different points on the retirement pathway, including data points at retirement, at 5 years to retirement and at 30 years to retirement. The data is shown at a total level and is also split out by 3 AUM bands and 2 provider type groups. Total AUM invested in UK assets at retirement 50%, total 5 years to retirement 30%, total 30 years to retirement 18%. Less than £100 million AUM at retirement 61%, Less than £100 million AUM 5 years to retirement 40%, Less than £100 million AUM 30 years to retirement 30%. £100 million up to £1 billion AUM at retirement 51%, £100 million up to £1 billion AUM 5 years to retirement 25%, £100 million up to £1 billion AUM 30 years to retirement 12%. £1 billion or more AUM at retirement 39%, £1 billion or more AUM 5 years to retirement 24%, £1 billion or more AUM 30 years to retirement 10%. Multi-Employer Providers at retirement 40%, Multi-Employer Providers 5 years to retirement 22%, Multi-Employer Providers 30 years to retirement 11%. Single Employer Trusts at retirement 53%, Single Employer Trusts 5 years to retirement 32%, Single Employer Trusts 30 years to retirement 20%.

Source question: Q17a. Please provide all metrics on this sheet for your largest default fund. If your largest default fund is not a lifestyle fund, instead of reporting ‘30 YTR allocation’ please report your most growth-focused position over the duration of the fund; for ‘5 YTR’ please report your mid-growth position; and for ‘At retirement’ please report your least growth-focused position 

Base: All responding providers 

Other identified investment categories 

Providers who reported that some of their investments fell into the ‘other’ category were asked to specify what those investments consisted of.  

The most commonly cited ‘other’ types of investment were: 

• Commodities 

• Derivatives 

• Forestry/natural capital/farmland 

• Liquid alternatives 

• Debt 

• Diversified funds/mixed funds 

• With profits funds 

6.3 Illiquid asset investment 

Providers were also asked if they invested in 5 different types of illiquid asset: 

• Open-ended fund (LTAF) – these are a new type of FCA-authorised open-ended fund specifically designed to facilitate investment in long-term, less liquid assets, but for a wider investor base that can include retail investors. 

• Open-ended fund (other) - a diversified portfolio of pooled investor money that can issue an unlimited number of shares. 

• Closed-ended fund - a type of mutual fund that issues a fixed number of shares through a single initial public offering (IPO) to raise capital for its initial investments. Shares can then be bought and sold on a stock exchange, but no new shares will be created, and no new money will flow into the fund. 

• Direct investment - provides capital funding in exchange for an equity interest without the purchase of regular shares of a company’s stock. 

• Funds of one / Separately managed accounts - an investment structure where a hedge fund manager creates the investment vehicle for only one investor. 

Reflecting their typically larger size, MEPs were more likely to invest in each of the 5 types of illiquid asset than SETs. In particular, around four in ten MEPs (38%) reported that they invested in non-LTAF open-ended funds, compared with around one in ten SETs (13%). MEPs were also notably more likely to invest in closed-ended funds (25% compared with 7% of SETs). 

Chart 6.2: Whether invest in different types of illiquid assets 

A column chart showing whether providers invest in 5 types of illiquid asset: Open-ended fund (LTAF), Open-ended fund (other), Closed-ended fund, Direct investment, and Funds of one / Separately managed accounts. The data is shown at a total level and is also split out by 2 provider type groups. Total open-ended fund (other) 18%, total closed-ended fund 11%, total open-ended fund (LTAF) 8%, total funds of one / separately managed accounts 5%, total direct investment 3%. Multi-employer providers open-ended fund (other) 38%, multi-employer providers closed-ended fund 25%, multi-employer providers open-ended fund (LTAF) 13%, multi-employer providers funds of one / separately managed accounts 13%, multi-employer providers direct investment 13%. Single employer trusts open-ended fund (other) 13%, single employer trusts closed-ended fund 7%, single employer trusts open-ended fund (LTAF) 7%, single employer trusts funds of one / separately managed accounts 3%, single employer trusts direct investment 0%.

Source question: Q18a-e. Do you invest in the following illiquid asset? 

Base: All responding providers 

6.4 De-risking timeframe 

Providers were asked how many years before retirement age they currently begin to de-risk their investment strategy for their largest default fund. This is also sometimes referred to as ‘the glidepath’ for investments. 

The median age at which both SETs and MEPs started de-risking was 15 years before retirement. Smaller providers, with less than £100 million AUM, tended to start de-risking closer to retirement (9 years compared with 15 years for those with higher AUM). As described in section 6.2, SETs tended to have a more UK-weighted investment profile – as such the fact that they start de-risking closer to retirement may be at least partly reflective of a generally lower-risk investment strategy throughout the retirement pathway.  

Chart 6.3: Median number of years before retirement at which providers begin to de-risk their investment strategy 

A horizonal bar chart showing the median age at which providers begin to de-risk the investment strategy for their largest default fund. The data is shown at a total level and is also split out by 3 AUM bands and 2 provider type groups. The data in this chart is described in the body text of the report.

Source question: Q20. How many years before retirement age do you currently begin to de-risk your investment strategy (‘the glidepath’) for your largest default fund? 

Base: All responding providers 

7 – Charges 

This chapter focuses on the Annual Management Charges (AMC) and other charges that providers may pass on to fund members and/or their employers. 

These charging structures are complex. A wide range of interrelating elements determine the charges and these tend to vary from provider to provider. Even within a single provider, it is sometimes the case that their charges vary from employer to employer. 

• Section 7.1 examines whether or not MEPs charge different AMCs to different employers.  

• Section 7.2 discusses the factors that determine any variable charges. 

• Section 7.3 describes the average AMC for providers’ largest default funds. 

• Section 7.4 describes the average AMC for providers’ other funds and compare those to the default fund AMC. 

• Section 7.5 looks at whether providers use flat fees or contribution charges in addition to the AMCs. 

• Section 7.6 outlines the accumulation charges that are applied by some providers. 

7.1 Prevalence of differential Annual Management Charges among multi-employer providers 

For obvious reasons, only MEPs were asked whether they charged different AMCs to different employers. 

Two thirds of MEPs (67%) reported that they did charge different AMCs for different employers. This equates to 8 of the 12 responding MEPs. 

7.2 Factors that determine differential Annual Management Charges 

The 8 MEPs which reported that they charged different AMCs for different employers were asked whether a range of specific factors influenced their differential AMCs. The size of the employer appeared to be the main factor in determining the AMC that was charged to them. 

Of the 8 providers with differential charges: 

• All said their AMC was fully or partially based on AUM 

• All said their AMC was fully or partially based on employer size 

• All said their AMC was fully or partially based on membership numbers 

• Only 1 said their AMC was fully or partially based on Independent Financial Adviser (IFA) involvement 

• Only 2 said their AMC was fully or partially based on Employee Benefits Consultant involvement 

These providers were also asked if any other factors influenced their AMC. Open-ended responses highlighted the following additional factors: 

• Contribution amounts (which was the most frequently mentioned ‘other’ factor). 

• Future company growth prospects. 

• Number of staff locations. 

• Employee turnover/persistency rates. 

7.3 Annual Management Charges for the providers’ largest default fund 

Providers were asked to provide the average AMC, the highest decile AMC and the lowest decile AMC for their largest default fund. 

Out of the 49 participating providers, 40 were able to provide an average AMC, 35 were able to provide a highest decile AMC and 34 were able to provide a lowest decile AMC. Non-response was partly driven by the fact that not all providers offer a default fund. However, it also appears that it was harder for providers to source highest and lowest decile charges than to source the average. 

As shown in Table 7.1, the median AMC of MEPs tended to be higher than that of SETs. The median average AMC was 0.32% for MEPs compared with 0.24% for SETs. The highest and lowest decile charges of MEPs were also higher than those of SETs. Changes to methodology mean that these data are not directly comparable with the data collected in earlier studies such as the DWP’s Pension charges survey 2020^{[footnote 7]}. 

Table 7.1: Median charges for providers’ largest default fund (by provider type) 

Number of members	Total	Multi-Employer Providers	Single Employer Trusts
Lowest decile charge	0.21% (34)	0.24% (10)	0.20% (24)
Average	0.28% (40)	0.32% (10)	0.24% (30)
Highest decile charge	0.35% (35)	0.49% (10)	0.30% (25)

Source question: Q10. For your largest default fund, what is your annual management charge (in percentage terms)? 

Base: All responding providers 

In the responding sample, mid-sized providers with £100 million up to £1 billion AUM tended to have the lowest AMC (see Table 7.2). Their median average AMC was 0.24%, compared with 0.32% for providers with less than £100 million AUM and 0.30% for providers with £1 billion or more AUM. 

Table 7.2: Median charges for providers’ largest default fund (by AUM) 

Number of members	Total	<£100 million AUM	£100 million up to £1 billion AUM	£1 billion or more AUM
Lowest decile charge	0.21% (34)	0.23% (12)	0.15% (7)	0.24% (15)
Average charge	0.28% (40)	0.32% (16)	0.24% (8)	0.30% (16)
Highest decile charge	0.35% (35)	0.36% (12)	0.24% (8)	0.38% (15)

Source question: Q10. For your largest default fund, what is your annual management charge (in percentage terms)? 

Base: All responding providers 

7.4 Annual Management Charges for the providers’ other funds 

Providers were also asked to specify the range of AMC that applied to their full range of funds excluding their largest default fund (see table 7.3). 

The median average AMC for providers’ other funds (0.29%) was closely aligned with the AMC for their largest default funds, as described in the previous section (0.28%).  

However, there was more variation in the AMC for providers’ other funds. The lowest decile AMC for ‘other’ funds was 0.13% compared with 0.21% for the largest default funds. And the highest decile AMC for ‘other’ funds was 0.52% compared with 0.35% for the largest default funds. 

The responding MEPs had higher median average AMCs (0.33%) than SETs (0.27%). However, SETs had a comparatively broad spread between their lowest median AMCs (0.10%) and their highest median AMCs (0.60%).  

Table 7.3: Median charges for providers’ other funds (by provider type) 

Number of members	Total	Multi-Employer Providers	Single Employer Trusts
Lowest decile charge	0.13% (40)	0.24% (10)	0.10% (30)
Average	0.29% (40)	0.33% (10)	0.27% (30)
Highest decile charge	0.52% (40)	0.49% (10)	0.60% (30)

Source question: Q11c. Please provide the following metrics for your full range of funds (excluding those funds in your largest default fund). What is the range of annual management charges that applies to these funds?    

Base: All responding providers 

As shown in table 7.4, the smaller providers with less than £100 million AUM had a larger highest decile AMC (0.58%) than those with £1 billion or more AUM (0.50%). The difference between these groups of providers was not so pronounced for the average and lowest decile AMC. 

Table 7.4: Median charges for providers’ other funds (by AUM) 

Number of members	Total	<£100 million AUM	£100 million up to £1 billion AUM	£1 billion or more AUM
Lowest decile charge	0.13% (40)	0.13% (15)	0.10% (8)	0.15% (17)
Average charge	0.29% (40)	0.29% (16)	0.22% (7)	0.32% (17)
Highest decile charge	0.52% (40)	0.58% (15)	0.56% (8)	0.50% (17)

Source question: Q11c. Please provide the following metrics for your full range of funds (excluding those funds in your largest default fund). What is the range of annual management charges that applies to these funds?   Base: All responding providers 

Providers were also asked whether their annual management charge was different for bespoke default funds (i.e. specific investment funds designed for an individual employer or a small number of employers) compared to their main default fund. 

Of the 37 providers which answered this question, around a third (35%) reported that they did charge different AMCs for bespoke default funds. Responding MEPs were more likely to charge different AMCs for their bespoke default funds (55%) than SETs (27%). This is likely to reflect the wider range of funds offered by larger providers.  

7.6 Flat fees and contribution charges 

In addition to the questions about AMC, providers were asked if they also charged a flat fee or contribution charge. 

Only around 1 in 10 of the responding providers (11%) applied charges in addition to the AMC, either in the form of a contribution charge or in the form of a flat fee. MEPs were more likely than SETs to charge these fees. 

7.7 Accumulation charges 

Providers were also asked to specify annual accumulation charges for their largest default fund, splitting out service costs and investment charges for the past year and for the past 3 years. There was significant non-response at this question, particularly for service costs over the past 3 years which were only given by 18 of the 49 participating providers. 

Unusually, the largest providers, with more £5 billion or more AUM, were the least likely to respond to this question. We do not detail the responses here as these questions appear likely to have been subject to measurement error. 

8 – Decumulation and transfers 

This chapter focuses on metrics relating to decumulation, which is the process of gradually drawing down, or spending, the assets that have been accumulated during fund members’ working years. It also touches upon the process of transferring assets from one pension fund to another. 

The focus is on in-house decumulation services. These are services which are carried out directly by the responding provider as opposed to any third party. However, the survey responses suggest that there is a degree of confusion about what constitutes ‘in-house’ decumulation services. Some smaller providers, who would not realistically have the capacity or capability to offer in-house decumulation, indicated that they did in fact offer such services. As such, it is likely that some providers view third party decumulation services offered by their regular pension partners (e.g. external fund providers) as being ‘in-house’ even though this is not strictly the case.  

• Section 8.1 examines the claimed prevalence of in-house decumulation services. 

• Section 8.2 outlines the types of decumulation services offered. 

• Section 8.3 specifies the typical age at which members take their first withdrawal. 

• Section 8.4 discusses the fees that may be charged for decumulation services. 

• Section 8.5 focuses on the cost of transferring funds out of a scheme. 

• Section 8.6 examines deferred member transfers. 

8.1 Claimed prevalence of in-house decumulation services 

Providers were asked whether they provide in-house decumulation services other than full withdrawal in-house.  

Overall, around half of providers (49%) claimed to offer these services and all of the responding MEPs reported that they offered in-house decumulation services. 

However, it appears that there may be some degree of overclaim amongst smaller providers. Around a third (35%) of providers with less than £100 million AUM claimed to offer in-house decumulation, compared with a quarter (25%) of those with £100 million up to £1 billion AUM, and three quarters (74%) of those with £1 billion or more AUM. It is unlikely that many of the smaller providers had the capacity and/or capability to offer services such as annuities. As such, at least some of these providers may have considered third-party decumulation services offered by partner organisations to count as ‘in-house’ provision. 

Chart 8.1: Proportion of providers that claim to offer in-house decumulation services 

A horizonal bar chart showing the proportion of providers that claim to offer in-house decumulation services. The data is shown at a total level and is also split out by 3 AUM bands and 2 provider type groups. Total 49%. Less than £100 million AUM 35%, £100 million up to £1 billion AUM 25%, £1 billion or more AUM 74%. Multi-Employer Providers 100%. Single Employer Trusts 31%.

Source question: Q13a. Do you offer decumulation services other than full withdrawal in-house? 

Base: All responding providers 

8.2 Types of in-house decumulation services offered 

Providers who reported that they offered in-house decumulation services were asked whether they offered the following types of decumulation service: 

• Drawdown – pension drawdown is a retirement option that lets members take some money out of their pension pot at a certain age, while the rest remains invested. 

• Annuities – are a fixed sum of money paid to someone each year, typically for the rest of their life. 

• Uncrystallised lump sum – is a way of withdrawing funds without going into drawdown or buying an annuity. 

As mentioned above, some providers may have conflated in-house and external provision of decumulation services. Nevertheless, taking the survey responses at face value, around half of those providers who claimed to offer in-house decumulation services reported that they offered drawdown (52%), a similar proportion reported that they offered annuities (56%), around nearly all (93%) claimed to offer uncrystallised lump sum.  

Focusing on MEPs, a large majority offered in-house drawdown services (83%) and uncrystallised lump sum (83%). Half of MEPs (50%) offered annuities in-house.  

Again with the caveat that there appears to be overclaim, amongst those SETs who claimed to offer in-house decumulation services, around a quarter (27%) claimed to offer drawdown, 6 in 10 claimed to offer annuities (60%), and all (100%) claimed to offer uncrystallised lump sum. 

A third (35%) of those who did not offer in-house decumulation services reported that they partnered with another scheme to provide these services for their members. As flagged throughout this section, it is likely that some of the providers that claimed to offer decumulation services in-house actually offered them in collaboration with a partner. As such, the true proportion of providers working with decumulation partners is likely to be higher than the 35% recorded here. 

8.3 Age at which members take their first withdrawal 

Providers were asked the average age of members taking their first withdrawal in the last 12 months. There was a high level of non-response to this question – only 17 of the 49 participating providers gave an answer to it. Given that this does not seem to be a particularly commercially sensitive metric, it appears that this must be challenging information for providers to source. 

Amongst those who did respond, 62 was the median age at which the first withdrawal had been taken in the past 12 months. The mean age for this metric was the same as the median (62). 

8.4 Decumulation charges 

Providers were also asked to specify annual decumulation charges for their largest default fund, splitting out service costs and investment charges for the past year and for the past 3 years. As was the case for the equivalent question relating to accumulation (see Section 7.7), there was very significant non-response at this question, particularly for past 3 year decumulation service costs which were only provided by 13 of the 49 responding providers. 

As such, we do not detail the responses here. 

8.5 Transfer costs 

Only 1 in 20 providers (5%) reported that there were transfer costs for members to move money out of their scheme. None (0%) of the MEPs reported that there were such transfer costs, compared with 7% of the responding SETs. 

8.6 Approach to deferred member transfers 

Providers were also asked how frequently deferred members are moved to the new scheme (alongside active members) when an employer moves to a different scheme. 

Around one in ten providers (13%) reported that deferred members were always moved to the new scheme in such cases, while one in five (22%) said that they were sometimes moved to the new scheme. A quarter (24%) said that they never moved deferred members to the new scheme in such cases.  

A relatively large proportion of providers (41%) reported some other approach to moving deferred members, often relating to the fact that the situation had never arisen for them. 

Amongst MEPs, two thirds (67%) indicated that they sometimes moved deferred members in such cases and none (0%) said that they always moved deferred members.

Appendices 

Appendix A – Respondent correspondence 

A1 – Survey invitation email 

Email subject: FAO [Forename][Surname]: Provide input to the DWP Pension Provider Survey 

Our ref 111003512 / [Serial]

FAO: [Forename][Surname], 

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) would like your help with research related to the government’s Pensions Investment Review 

I am emailing to ask for your help with a research study that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has commissioned. This study is designed to gather data on key metrics relating to both trust-based and contract-based pension schemes, including investment performance, asset allocations, and costs/charges. 

The findings will inform a broad programme of analysis and policy work connected to the 2024 Pension Schemes Bill. The study will also directly feed into the government’s Pensions Investment Review. 

Taking part in the research is voluntary and your participation can help to shape the development of future pensions policy. The survey will remain open until 14th February 2025. 

We have appointed an independent research company, Verian, to conduct this research on DWP’s behalf. Any data collected by Verian will be passed to DWP in an anonymised format unless you specifically indicate that you are happy for the name of your organisation to be shared. Results from the study will only be published in aggregated format. 

If one of your colleagues would be better placed to complete the survey, please forward this email to the relevant person. To avoid us unnecessarily continuing to contact you, please also let Verian know the details of any colleague to whom you have passed this request (see ‘Referrals’ note below). 

To make it easier to record the necessary data, we ask you to input the requested information into a clearly formatted Excel datasheet that we have prepared. This file specifies the information which we would like you to provide. On completion, the datasheet can be uploaded via a secure Verian-managed site. 

Please download the Excel datasheet from the following page on the main Verian website: 

https://www.veriangroup.com/uk/dwp-pension-provider-survey-document?hs_preview=xNsdEQRw-191142563015 

This page also includes a downloadable PDF file which provides further information about how we keep your data private and confidential and who to contact if you have any questions. 

When a datasheet has been completed, the process for returning it securely is straightforward:  

1. Go to www.DWPpensionsurvey.co.uk 

2. Enter your unique username: [userid] 

3. Enter your unique passcode: [password] 

4. Answer a small number of basic questions to confirm your details and then complete the upload 

Thank you for your time. Your feedback is highly valuable. 

Yours sincerely, 

Sophie Talbot, Pensions and Later Life Analysis (PALLA), Department for Work and Pensions 

Referrals – how should I pass the survey over to a colleague? 

If you think that somebody else in your organisation is better placed to complete the survey, please pass this email across to them. Please also email the Verian team to let them know who the survey has been referred to: 

Email: pension.providersurvey@veriangroup.com Tel: 0800 046 9038 

When notifying Verian of a referral please pass on the following information: your name; your organisation; the reference number towards the top of this email; and the contact details of the person who will take responsibility for the survey (including name; email address; postal address; telephone number).

A2 – Additional information email 

A follow-up email clarifying the survey requirements was sent to sample members shortly after fieldwork started. Formatting was largely as per the original invitation email. The key content as follows: 

We recently emailed to ask for your help with a research study that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has commissioned and have realised that a clarification would be helpful, particularly in cases where you organisation may run more than one scheme. 

For the purposes of this survey, please could you respond in respect to the following scheme: 

[Scheme_Name]

We received your details from the Pensions Regulator and our understanding is that you are the main reporting contact for this scheme. However, as before, if one of your colleagues would be better placed to complete the survey, please forward this email to the relevant person. To avoid us unnecessarily continuing to contact you, please also let Verian know the details of any colleague to whom you have passed this request (see ‘Referrals’ note below). 

To make it easier to record the necessary data, we ask you to input the requested information into a clearly formatted Excel datasheet that we have prepared. This file specifies the information which we would like you to provide. On completion, the datasheet can be uploaded via a secure Verian-managed site. 

A3 – Final reminder email 

Email subject: FAO [Forename][Surname]: DWP Pension Provider Survey consultation closes on Friday 28th February 

Our ref  111003512 / [Serial]

FAO: [Forename][Surname], 

This is the final reminder about the DWP 2024 Pension Provider Survey – it will close on Friday 28th February.  Even if you are not able to provide answers to all of the questions, it will still be very helpful if you submit a partial data set. 

I am writing again to ask for your help with a research study that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has commissioned. This study is designed to gather data on key metrics relating to both trust-based and contract-based pension schemes, including investment performance, asset allocations, and costs/charges.  

If you would like to confirm the authenticity of the survey, or you are uncertain about how to answer any of the questions, you can email the DWP project team directly at: pension.providersurvey@dwp.gov.uk 

We recognise that some questions may not be applicable to some providers and that some data may be challenging to source. Even if it is not possible to source all of the requested data, partial data submissions will still provide us with highly valuable information. 

For the purposes of this survey, please could you respond in respect to the following scheme: 

[Scheme_Name]

The findings will inform a broad programme of analysis and policy work connected to the 2024 Pension Schemes Bill. The study will also directly feed into the government’s Pensions Investment Review. 

Taking part in the research is voluntary but your participation can help to shape the development of future pensions policy.  

We have appointed an independent research company, Verian, to conduct this research on DWP’s behalf. Any data collected by Verian will be passed to DWP in an anonymised format unless you specifically indicate that you are happy for the name of your organisation to be shared. Results from the study will only be published in aggregated format. 

If you have recently completed the survey or provided us with referral details, then please accept our thanks and disregard this message. 

To make it easier to record the necessary data, we ask you to input the requested information into a clearly formatted Excel datasheet that we have prepared. This file specifies the information which we would like you to provide. On completion, the datasheet can be uploaded via a secure Verian-managed site. 

Please download the Excel datasheet from the following page on the main Verian website: 

https://www.veriangroup.com/uk/dwp-pension-provider-survey-document-download 

This page also includes a downloadable PDF file which provides further information about how we keep your data private and confidential and who to contact if you have any questions. 

When a datasheet has been completed, the process for returning it securely is straightforward:  

1. Go to www.DWPpensionsurvey.co.uk 

2. Enter your unique username: [userid] 

3. Enter your unique passcode: [password] 

4. Answer a small number of basic questions to confirm your details and then complete the upload 

Thank you again for your time. Your feedback is highly valuable. 

Yours sincerely, 

 Sophie Talbot, Pensions and Later Life Analysis (PALLA), Department for Work and Pensions 

Referrals – how should I pass the survey over to a colleague? 

If you think that somebody else in your organisation is better placed to complete the survey, please pass this email across to them. Please also email the Verian team to let them know who the survey has been referred to: 

Email: pension.providersurvey@veriangroup.com Tel: 0800 046 9038 

When notifying Verian of a referral please pass on the following information: your name; your organisation; the reference number towards the top of this email; and the contact details of the person who will take responsibility for the survey (including name; email address; postal address; telephone number). 

Appendix B – Respondent data sheet 

The data sheet was originally administered in an Excel format. This included drop down lists for any questions where respondents were asked to select from a list of pre-coded options. 

For accessibility purposes, the data sheets are presented in a more typical questionnaire format below. 

The data sheet also included a glossary. This isn’t shown here, given that it largely mirrored the glossary earlier in this report. 

B1 – Respondent data sheet content 

Guidance  

1. Guidance for completion of this document: 

• 1. When referring to Assets Under Management (AUM), this is workplace AUM in Defined Contribution (DC) pensions. 

• 2. When asking about your largest default fund, we are referring to your main default strategy. This is your active default strategy for new members. 

• 3. To calculate your annual management charge in percentage terms only, we request if you charge a £ amount plus %, you convert into the equivalent % only. 

• 4. If you offer both Master Trust pensions (MTs) and Group Personal Pensions (GPPs), please complete a separate return for each. 

• 5. For those whose largest default fund is not a lifestyle fund, please complete returns based on the equivalent period.  

• 6. If you can’t answer a question for any reason, please leave it blank  

• 7. If you have any queries about specific questions, please email: pension.providersurvey@dwp.gov.uk 

• 8. Statutory guidance: Disclose and Explain asset allocation reporting and performance-based fees and the charge cap - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) 

• 9. Green shaded cells indicate that you should select your response from the drop-down menu on that specific cell. 

• 10. Blue shaded cells indicate that you should type in a numeric response. Each cell is formatted to show the expected input value (whether £, % or absolute values). The ideal number of decimal places is also automatically applied to each cell - if you need to apply a different number of decimals that is fine. 

• 11. Yellow shaded cells indicate that it would be helpful if you could provide a little extra written detail (e.g. about ‘other’ asset types you may hold).  

Background  

If you offer both Master Trust pensions (MTs) and Group Personal Pensions (GPPs), please complete a separate return for each. 

Even if some figures are duplicated across your MTs and GPPs, please do report those figures in both returns (copying and pasting as appropriate). 

1. Does this return relate to your Single Employer Trust (other trust-based), Master Trust Pensions (other trust-based) or Group Personal Pensions (contract-based)? 

• 1. Master Trust  

• 2. Group Personal Pensions 

• 3. Single Employer Trust  

2. How many members do you have across schemes? 

• 1. Active/Contributing members 

• 2. Deferred members 

• 3. Pensioner members 

• 4. Total 

3. What is the median pot size for all members? 

4. How many pots have a balance smaller than £10,000 for all members? 

5. What is the median member age for all members to the nearest year? 

5a. What are your overall Assets Under management in DC pensions? 

5b. What are your assets under management in your automatic enrolment default fund(s)? 

6. How many default funds do you have? 

7a. How many of your funds account for 80% of your AUM?  

Here we are interested in how widely spread your workplace DC assets are across different funds, and so are asking about how many funds sum to the vast majority (in this case 80%) of total workplace DC assets. 

7b. When an employer moves to a different scheme, are deferred members moved to the new scheme along with active members? 

• 1. Yes – Always  

• 2. Yes – Sometimes 

• 3. No – Never 

• 4. Other 

7c. If other, please specify 

If applicable, briefly describe ‘other’ structure at 7b: 

Accumulation 

Annual management charges general questions 

Please provide the following for your largest default fund 

8. Is your largest default fund… 

• 1. Lifestyle  

• 2. Target date  

• 3. Other  

9a. For multi-employer schemes: Do you charge a different AMC for different employers (differential pricing)? 

• 1. Yes  

• 2. No 

9b. If ‘Yes’ at 9a: Is this AMC fully or partially based on the assets under management? 

• 1. Yes  

• 2. No 

9c. If ‘Yes’ at 9a: Is this AMC fully or partially based on membership numbers? 

• 1. Yes  

• 2. No 

9d. If ‘Yes’ at 9a: Is this AMC fully or partially based on employer size? 

• 1. Yes  

• 2. No 

9e. If ‘Yes’ at 9a: Is this AMC fully or partially based on Independent Financial Advisers (IFA) involvement? 

• 1. Yes  

• 2. No 

9f. If ‘Yes’ at 9a: Is this AMC fully or partially based on Employee Benefits Consultant (EBC) involvement? 

• 1. Yes  

• 2. No 

9g. If ‘Yes’ at 9a: Is this AMC fully or partially based on any other factors? 

• 1. Yes  

• 2. No 

9h. If ‘Yes’ at 9g: Please specify 

If applicable, briefly describe ‘other’ structure at 9g: 

10. For your largest default fund, what is your annual management charge (in percentage terms)? 

• 1. Lowest decile  

• 2. Average 

• 3. Highest decile  

11. Do you also charge a flat fee or contribution charge? 

• 1. No  

• 2. Flat fee 

• 3. Contribution charge 

11b. Is the annual management charge different for bespoked default funds compared to the main default fund? 

• 1. Yes  

• 2. No  

11c. Would you like to include any additional information? 

Type in any additional information (where applicable): 

Please provide the following metrics for your full range of funds (excluding those funds in your largest default fund)  

11c2. What is the range of annual management charges that applies to these funds? 

• 1. Lowest decile 

• 2. Average 

• 3. Highest decile  

Please provide the following metrics for your largest default fund 

12a. Accumulation charges for largest default fund  

	Reporting periods (annual percentage charge), mean of the last…	Reporting periods (annual percentage charge), mean of the last…
Cost metric	1 year	3 years
Service costs	%	%
Investments charges	%	%
Total costs and charges (or estimated)	%	%

12b. Does this include employer subsidies? 

• 1. Yes  

• 2. No  

And please provide the following metric for your full range of funds other than your default funds  

12c. What percentage of members’ assets are invested in funds other than your default funds? 

Decumulation 

13a. Do you offer decumulation services other than full withdrawal in-house? 

• 1. Yes  

• 2. No  

13b. IF ‘Yes’ at 13a: Do you offer drawdown? 

• 1. Yes  

• 2. No  

13c. IF ‘Yes’ at 13a: Do you offer annuities? 

• 1. Yes  

• 2. No  

13d. IF ‘Yes’ at 13a: Do you offer uncrystallised lump sum? 

• 1. Yes  

• 2. No  

13e. IF ‘Yes’ at 13a: If you offer another type of decumulation service, please specify: 

Type in any other type of decumulation service (where applicable): 

13f. IF ‘No’ at 13a: Do you partner with another scheme to offer your members decumulation services? 

• 1. Yes  
• 2. No  

14a. Are there transfer costs for members to move money out of your scheme? 

• 1. Yes  

• 2. No  

14b. IF YES: What percentage of AMC or fixed fee do you charge? 

	If percentage:	If fixed fee:
Percentage of AMC	%	£
Fixed fee	%	£

14c. If you’d like to provide any additional information, please enter here: 

Type in any additional information (where applicable): 

15. What is the average age of members taking their first withdrawal in the last 12 months?  

Please provide the following metrics for your largest default fund  

16a. Decumulation charges for largest default fund  

	Reporting periods (annual percentage charge), mean of the last…	Reporting periods (annual percentage charge), mean of the last…
Cost metric	1 year	3 years
Service costs	%	%
Investments charges	%	%
Total costs and charges (or estimated)	%	%

16b. Does this include employer subsidies?  

• 1. Yes  

• 2. No  

Asset Allocation 

Please provide all metrics on this sheet for your largest default fund 

If your largest default fund is not a lifestyle fund, instead of reporting ‘30 YTR allocation’ please report your most growth-focused position over the duration of the fund; for ‘5 YTR’ please report your mid-growth position; and for ‘At retirement’ please report your least growth-focused position.

	30 YTR percentage allocation	30 YTR percentage allocation	30 YTR percentage allocation	30 YTR percentage allocation
	Listed	Listed	Unlisted	Unlisted
17a. Type of asset	UK	Non-UK	UK	Non-UK
Cash/Money market securities	%	%	%	%
Government bonds	%	%	%	%
Corporate bonds (listed)	%	%	%	%
Corporate bonds (unlisted)	%	%	%	%
Publicly Listed Equities (excluding REITS)	%	%	%	%
Private Equity	%	%	%	%
Real Estate Property Trusts (REITS)	%	%	%	%
Property (unlisted)	%	%	%	%
Infrastructure (listed)	%	%	%	%
Infrastructure (unlisted)	%	%	%	%
Other (e.g. commodities)	%	%	%	%
Total	Total 30YTR percentage allocation across these 4 columns should equal 100%	Total 30YTR percentage allocation across these 4 columns should equal 100%	Total 30YTR percentage allocation across these 4 columns should equal 100%	Total 30YTR percentage allocation across these 4 columns should equal 100%

	5 YTR percentage allocation	5 YTR percentage allocation	5 YTR percentage allocation	5 YTR percentage allocation
	Listed	Listed	Unlisted	Unlisted
17a. Type of asset	UK	Non-UK	UK	Non-UK
Cash/Money market securities	%	%	%	%
Government bonds	%	%	%	%
Corporate bonds (listed)	%	%	%	%
Corporate bonds (unlisted)	%	%	%	%
Publicly Listed Equities (excluding REITS)	%	%	%	%
Private Equity	%	%	%	%
Real Estate Property Trusts (REITS)	%	%	%	%
Property (unlisted)	%	%	%	%
Infrastructure (listed)	%	%	%	%
Infrastructure (unlisted)	%	%	%	%
Other (e.g. commodities)	%	%	%	%
Total	Total 5 YTR percentage allocation across these 4 columns should equal 100%	Total 5 YTR percentage allocation across these 4 columns should equal 100%	Total 5 YTR percentage allocation across these 4 columns should equal 100%	Total 5 YTR percentage allocation across these 4 columns should equal 100%

	At retirement percentage allocation	At retirement percentage allocation	At retirement percentage allocation	At retirement percentage allocation
	Listed	Listed	Unlisted	Unlisted
17a. Type of asset	UK	Non-UK	UK	Non-UK
Cash/Money market securities	%	%	%	%
Government bonds	%	%	%	%
Corporate bonds (listed)	%	%	%	%
Corporate bonds (unlisted)	%	%	%	%
Publicly Listed Equities (excluding REITS)	%	%	%	%
Private Equity	%	%	%	%
Real Estate Property Trusts (REITS)	%	%	%	%
Property (unlisted)	%	%	%	%
Infrastructure (listed)	%	%	%	%
Infrastructure (unlisted)	%	%	%	%
Other (e.g. commodities)	%	%	%	%
Total	Total ‘at retirement’ percentage allocation across these 4 columns should equal 100%	Total ‘at retirement’ percentage allocation across these 4 columns should equal 100%	Total ‘at retirement’ percentage allocation across these 4 columns should equal 100%	Total ‘at retirement’ percentage allocation across these 4 columns should equal 100%

17b. If ‘Other’ at Q17a, please specify 

Briefly describe other asset type if applicable: 

18a. Do you invest in the following illiquid asset: Open-ended fund (LTAF)? 

• 1. Yes  

• 2. No  

18b. Do you invest in the following illiquid asset: Open-ended fund (other)? 

• 1. Yes  

• 2. No  

18c. Do you invest in the following illiquid asset: Closed-ended fund? 

• 1. Yes  

• 2. No  

18d. Do you invest in the following illiquid asset: Direct? 

• 1. Yes  

• 2. No  

18e. Do you invest in the following illiquid asset: Funds of one/Separately managed accounts?   

• 1. Yes  

• 2. No  

18f. If you invest in any other illiquid assets, please specify: 

Briefly describe other asset type if applicable: 

Investment Performance 

Please provide all metrics on this sheet for your largest default fund 

Please assume a static allocation at 30 years, 5 years and at retirement and provide historical performance

19. Performance metrics (for 30YTR, 5YTR, at retirement)	Average annualised returns for:	Average annualised returns for:	Average annualised returns for:
	30 YTR	30 YTR	30 YTR
	Past 1 year performance	Past 3 year performance	Past 5 year performance
Gross investment performance	%	%	%
Net investment performance (minus all costs and charges)	%	%	%
Annualised standard deviation of returns	%	%	%
Maximum drawdown	%	%	%

19. Performance metrics (for 30YTR, 5YTR, at retirement)	Average annualised returns for:	Average annualised returns for:	Average annualised returns for:
	5 YTR	5 YTR	5 YTR
	Past 1 year performance	Past 3 year performance	Past 5 year performance
Gross investment performance	%	%	%
Net investment performance (minus all costs and charges)	%	%	%
Annualised standard deviation of returns	%	%	%
Maximum drawdown	%	%	%

19. Performance metrics (for 30YTR, 5YTR, at retirement)	Average annualised returns for:	Average annualised returns for:	Average annualised returns for:
	At retirement	At retirement	At retirement
	Past 1 year performance	Past 3 year performance	Past 5 year performance
Gross investment performance	%	%	%
Net investment performance (minus all costs and charges)	%	%	%
Annualised standard deviation of returns	%	%	%
Maximum drawdown	%	%	%

20. How many years before retirement age do you currently begin to de-risk your investment strategy (‘the glidepath’) for your largest default fund? 

Appendix C – Online questionnaire 

Survey participants were asked to complete a short online questionnaire as part of the data sheet submission process. This included the following questions: 

ASK ALL 

Q1: SHEETNUM  

Thank you for taking the time to participate in this survey on behalf of DWP.  Before moving on to the data sheet upload screen, we will need you to answer a small number of straightforward questions. 

Firstly, will you be uploading 1 or 2 data sheets? 

If your firm does not offer both Master Trust and Group Personal Pension schemes, there is no need to complete 2 data sheets. 

SINGLE CODE ONLY 

1. 1 data sheet  

2. 2 data sheets 

ASK ALL 

Q2: PROVIDERNM  

Which pension provider does your data submission relate to? 

PLEASE TYPE IN: 

ASK ALL 

Q3: SCHEMETYP 

Which of the following best describes the types of scheme run by your firm? 

PLEASE SELECT ALL THAT APPLY 

1. Master Trust  

2. Group Personal Pension (contract-based) 

3. Single Employer Trust 

ASK ALL 

Q4: UPLOAD 

Please now upload your completed datasheet(s). 

You can simply drag and drop the file(s) into the upload boxes below.  Alternatively, you can click on the icon within each upload box and navigate to the file location on your computer to upload it. 

If you are uploading two files, please upload a single file in each of the upload boxes. 

After adding a file to an upload box, you will see that the file name appears within the box.  If the file name does not appear, please try again. 

When you have added the files to the upload boxes, please click on the forwards arrow (at the bottom of the screen) to finalise the process. 

If you have any problems, please contact the helpline: 

Email: pension.providersurvey@veriangroup.com 

Tel: 0800 046 9038 

Q5: PERMISSIONS 

Would you be willing for the name of your organisation to be appended to the data that is shared with the Department for Work and Pensions? 

This would be helpful as it would allow the Department to supplement the survey data that you provide with other data on your organisation. This could include data that the Department holds directly, or data which is available from other sources – for example data compiled by the FCA. Your survey responses will never be linked to the name of your organisation in any published output. 

1. Yes – willing to share the name of my organisation with DWP 

2. No – not willing to share the name of my organisation with DWP

Appendix D – Detailed asset allocations 

D1 – Asset allocations (Total sample) 

	30 YTR percentage allocation (n=37)	30 YTR percentage allocation (n=37)	30 YTR percentage allocation (n=37)	30 YTR percentage allocation (n=37)
	Listed	Listed	Unlisted	Unlisted
	UK	Non-UK	UK	Non-UK
	%	%	%	%
Cash/Money market securities	0.4	0.1	0.0	0.0
Government bonds	1.3	2.5	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (listed)	2.1	3.6	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.6
Publicly Listed Equities (excluding REITS)	8.3	71.4	0.0	0.0
Private Equity	0.0	0.2	0.0	0.3
Real Estate Property Trusts (REITS)	0.5	0.5	0.0	0.0
Property (unlisted)	0.1	0.0	0.9	0.0
Infrastructure (listed)	0.1	0.5	0.0	0.0
Infrastructure (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.3
Other (e.g. commodities)	3.3	2.2	0.1	0.1
TOTAL	16.2	80.9	1.6	1.3

	5 YTR percentage allocation (n=35)	5 YTR percentage allocation (n=35)	5 YTR percentage allocation (n=35)	5 YTR percentage allocation (n=35)
	Listed	Listed	Unlisted	Unlisted
	UK	Non-UK	UK	Non-UK
	%	%	%	%
Cash/Money market securities	2.8	1.1	0.4	0.0
Government bonds	7.6	4.2	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (listed)	7.0	13.2	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (unlisted)	0.0	0.5	0.4	0.7
Publicly Listed Equities (excluding REITS)	3.9	43.9	0.0	0.0
Private Equity	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.2
Real Estate Property Trusts (REITS)	0.3	0.9	0.0	0.1
Property (unlisted)	0.4	0.2	0.9	0.1
Infrastructure (listed)	0.1	0.4	0.0	0.0
Infrastructure (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.5
Other (e.g. commodities)	5.7	3.8	0.1	0.2
TOTAL	27.9	68.4	2.0	1.7

	At retirement percentage allocation (n=35)	At retirement percentage allocation (n=35)	At retirement percentage allocation (n=35)	At retirement percentage allocation (n=35)
	Listed	Listed	Unlisted	Unlisted
	UK	Non-UK	UK	Non-UK
	%	%	%	%
Cash/Money market securities	15.9	6.0	0.6	0.0
Government bonds	15.9	4.7	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (listed)	8.2	12.0	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.5
Publicly Listed Equities (excluding REITS)	2.1	22.0	0.0	0.0
Private Equity	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.1
Real Estate Property Trusts (REITS)	0.2	0.5	0.0	0.0
Property (unlisted)	0.1	0.1	0.7	0.1
Infrastructure (listed)	0.1	0.4	0.0	0.0
Infrastructure (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.4
Other (e.g. commodities)	5.4	3.1	0.1	0.1
TOTAL	48.0	48.9	1.8	1.3

D2 – Asset allocations (Single-Employer Trusts) 

	30 YTR percentage allocation (n=29)	30 YTR percentage allocation (n=29)	30 YTR percentage allocation (n=29)	30 YTR percentage allocation (n=29)
	Listed	Listed	Unlisted	Unlisted
	UK	Non-UK	UK	Non-UK
	%	%	%	%
Cash/Money market securities	0.4	0.1	0.0	0.0
Government bonds	1.2	1.8	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (listed)	2.0	2.8	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.4
Publicly Listed Equities (excluding REITS)	9.9	71.2	0.0	0.0
Private Equity	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.1
Real Estate Property Trusts (REITS)	0.6	0.5	0.0	0.0
Property (unlisted)	0.1	0.0	0.6	0.1
Infrastructure (listed)	0.2	0.5	0.0	0.0
Infrastructure (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.1
Other (e.g. commodities)	4.3	2.4	0.0	0.1
TOTAL	18.6	79.7	1.0	0.8

	5 YTR percentage allocation (n=27)	5 YTR percentage allocation (n=27)	5 YTR percentage allocation (n=27)	5 YTR percentage allocation (n=27)
	Listed	Listed	Unlisted	Unlisted
	UK	Non-UK	UK	Non-UK
	%	%	%	%
Cash/Money market securities	3.2	1.3	0.0	0.0
Government bonds	8.0	3.1	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (listed)	7.0	14.0	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.6
Publicly Listed Equities (excluding REITS)	4.4	41.8	0.0	0.0
Private Equity	0.0	0.2	0.0	0.0
Real Estate Property Trusts (REITS)	0.4	1.1	0.0	0.1
Property (unlisted)	0.5	0.2	0.6	0.1
Infrastructure (listed)	0.1	0.5	0.0	0.0
Infrastructure (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.3
Other (e.g. commodities)	7.4	4.2	0.0	0.2
TOTAL	31.2	66.4	1.0	1.4

	At retirement percentage allocation (n=27)	At retirement percentage allocation (n=27)	At retirement percentage allocation (n=27)	At retirement percentage allocation (n=27)
	Listed	Listed	Unlisted	Unlisted
	UK	Non-UK	UK	Non-UK
	%	%	%	%
Cash/Money market securities	17.1	7.5	0.0	0.0
Government bonds	17.6	3.4	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (listed)	7.4	10.3	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.4
Publicly Listed Equities (excluding REITS)	2.3	20.0	0.0	0.0
Private Equity	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0
Real Estate Property Trusts (REITS)	0.3	0.6	0.0	0.0
Property (unlisted)	0.1	0.2	0.5	0.2
Infrastructure (listed)	0.1	0.5	0.0	0.0
Infrastructure (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.4
Other (e.g. commodities)	7.0	3.5	0.0	0.1
TOTAL	52.0	46.1	0.8	1.1

D3 – Asset allocations (Multi-Employer Providers) 

	30 YTR percentage allocation (n=8)	30 YTR percentage allocation (n=8)	30 YTR percentage allocation (n=8)	30 YTR percentage allocation (n=8)
	Listed	Listed	Unlisted	Unlisted
	UK	Non-UK	UK	Non-UK
	%	%	%	%
Cash/Money market securities	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0
Government bonds	1.8	4.8	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (listed)	2.4	6.6	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.4	1.3
Publicly Listed Equities (excluding REITS)	2.6	71.9	0.0	0.0
Private Equity	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.0
Real Estate Property Trusts (REITS)	0.0	0.4	0.0	0.0
Property (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	1.8	0.0
Infrastructure (listed)	0.0	0.4	0.0	0.0
Infrastructure (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	1.5	1.2
Other (e.g. commodities)	0.0	1.2	0.3	0.0
TOTAL	7.2	85.4	3.9	3.4

	5 YTR percentage allocation (n=8)	5 YTR percentage allocation (n=8)	5 YTR percentage allocation (n=8)	5 YTR percentage allocation (n=8)
	Listed	Listed	Unlisted	Unlisted
	UK	Non-UK	UK	Non-UK
	%	%	%	%
Cash/Money market securities	1.5	0.2	1.7	0.0
Government bonds	6.4	8.0	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (listed)	6.8	10.6	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (unlisted)	0.0	2.2	0.5	1.0
Publicly Listed Equities (excluding REITS)	2.0	51.3	0.0	0.0
Private Equity	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.8
Real Estate Property Trusts (REITS)	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0
Property (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	1.6	0.0
Infrastructure (listed)	0.2	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infrastructure (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	1.3	1.0
Other (e.g. commodities)	0.0	2.4	0.3	0.0
TOTAL	16.8	75.0	5.4	2.8

	At retirement percentage allocation (n=8)	At retirement percentage allocation (n=8)	At retirement percentage allocation (n=8)	At retirement percentage allocation (n=8)
	Listed	Listed	Unlisted	Unlisted
	UK	Non-UK	UK	Non-UK
	%	%	%	%
Cash/Money market securities	11.9	0.6	2.5	0.0
Government bonds	10.3	9.2	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (listed)	11.0	17.9	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.5	0.8
Publicly Listed Equities (excluding REITS)	1.4	28.6	0.0	0.0
Private Equity	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.6
Real Estate Property Trusts (REITS)	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.0
Property (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	1.3	0.0
Infrastructure (listed)	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infrastructure (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.8	0.6
Other (e.g. commodities)	0.0	1.8	0.2	0.0
TOTAL	34.6	58.2	5.3	1.9

D4 – Asset allocations (Less than £100m AUM) 

	30 YTR percentage allocation (n=14)	30 YTR percentage allocation (n=14)	30 YTR percentage allocation (n=14)	30 YTR percentage allocation (n=14)
	Listed	Listed	Unlisted	Unlisted
	UK	Non-UK	UK	Non-UK
	%	%	%	%
Cash/Money market securities	0.5	0.2	0.0	0.0
Government bonds	1.4	3.7	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (listed)	3.1	3.3	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Publicly Listed Equities (excluding REITS)	16.1	56.4	0.0	0.0
Private Equity	0.0	0.2	0.0	0.0
Real Estate Property Trusts (REITS)	0.3	0.6	0.0	0.0
Property (unlisted)	0.1	0.0	0.3	0.0
Infrastructure (listed)	0.1	0.9	0.0	0.0
Infrastructure (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Other (e.g. commodities)	7.9	4.7	0.0	0.2
TOTAL	29.5	70.0	0.4	0.2

	5 YTR percentage allocation (n=12)	5 YTR percentage allocation (n=12)	5 YTR percentage allocation (n=12)	5 YTR percentage allocation (n=12)
	Listed	Listed	Unlisted	Unlisted
	UK	Non-UK	UK	Non-UK
	%	%	%	%
Cash/Money market securities	4.6	0.2	0.0	0.0
Government bonds	6.7	3.5	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (listed)	8.0	14.7	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.3	0.2
Publicly Listed Equities (excluding REITS)	6.5	32.9	0.0	0.0
Private Equity	0.0	0.2	0.1	0.0
Real Estate Property Trusts (REITS)	0.4	1.3	0.0	0.0
Property (unlisted)	0.3	0.0	0.4	0.0
Infrastructure (listed)	0.0	0.4	0.0	0.0
Infrastructure (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Other (e.g. commodities)	12.8	6.5	0.0	0.2
TOTAL	39.2	59.6	0.8	0.4

	At retirement percentage allocation (n=13)	At retirement percentage allocation (n=13)	At retirement percentage allocation (n=13)	At retirement percentage allocation (n=13)
	Listed	Listed	Unlisted	Unlisted
	UK	Non-UK	UK	Non-UK
	%	%	%	%
Cash/Money market securities	18.0	1.4	0.0	0.0
Government bonds	21.5	1.8	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (listed)	6.6	11.3	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.2	0.1
Publicly Listed Equities (excluding REITS)	3.5	18.3	0.0	0.0
Private Equity	0.0	0.1	0.1	0.0
Real Estate Property Trusts (REITS)	0.3	0.7	0.0	0.0
Property (unlisted)	0.2	0.0	0.2	0.0
Infrastructure (listed)	0.1	0.6	0.0	0.0
Infrastructure (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Other (e.g. commodities)	10.6	4.4	0.0	0.1
TOTAL	60.8	38.5	0.5	0.2

D5 – Asset allocations (£100 million up to £1 billion AUM) 

	30 YTR percentage allocation (n=8)	30 YTR percentage allocation (n=8)	30 YTR percentage allocation (n=8)	30 YTR percentage allocation (n=8)
	Listed	Listed	Unlisted	Unlisted
	UK	Non-UK	UK	Non-UK
	%	%	%	%
Cash/Money market securities	0.2	0.0	0.0	0.0
Government bonds	1.9	0.0	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (listed)	1.7	4.3	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Publicly Listed Equities (excluding REITS)	4.7	82.9	0.0	0.0
Private Equity	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Real Estate Property Trusts (REITS)	1.6	0.4	0.0	0.0
Property (unlisted)	0.3	0.0	0.3	0.0
Infrastructure (listed)	0.4	0.0	0.0	0.0
Infrastructure (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Other (e.g. commodities)	0.8	0.4	0.0	0.0
TOTAL	11.5	88.1	0.3	0.0

	5 YTR percentage allocation (n=8)	5 YTR percentage allocation (n=8)	5 YTR percentage allocation (n=8)	5 YTR percentage allocation (n=8)
	Listed	Listed	Unlisted	Unlisted
	UK	Non-UK	UK	Non-UK
	%	%	%	%
Cash/Money market securities	1.4	0.8	0.0	0.0
Government bonds	8.7	1.6	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (listed)	3.7	14.8	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Publicly Listed Equities (excluding REITS)	3.4	53.4	0.0	0.0
Private Equity	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Real Estate Property Trusts (REITS)	0.8	0.6	0.0	0.4
Property (unlisted)	1.3	0.0	0.0	0.5
Infrastructure (listed)	0.2	0.1	0.0	0.0
Infrastructure (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.0
Other (e.g. commodities)	5.9	1.4	0.0	0.0
TOTAL	25.4	72.8	0.0	1.9

	At retirement percentage allocation (n=7)	At retirement percentage allocation (n=7)	At retirement percentage allocation (n=7)	At retirement percentage allocation (n=7)
	Listed	Listed	Unlisted	Unlisted
	UK	Non-UK	UK	Non-UK
	%	%	%	%
Cash/Money market securities	24.7	11.2	0.0	0.0
Government bonds	13.5	2.6	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (listed)	4.5	8.1	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Publicly Listed Equities (excluding REITS)	1.6	20.9	0.0	0.0
Private Equity	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
Real Estate Property Trusts (REITS)	0.4	0.3	0.0	0.0
Property (unlisted)	0.1	0.0	0.0	0.6
Infrastructure (listed)	0.1	0.1	0.0	0.0
Infrastructure (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.3
Other (e.g. commodities)	6.7	3.4	0.0	0.0
TOTAL	51.5	46.6	0.0	1.9

D6 – Asset allocations (£1 billion or more AUM) 

	30 YTR percentage allocation (n=15)	30 YTR percentage allocation (n=15)	30 YTR percentage allocation (n=15)	30 YTR percentage allocation (n=15)
	Listed	Listed	Unlisted	Unlisted
	UK	Non-UK	UK	Non-UK
	%	%	%	%
Cash/Money market securities	0.4	0.0	0.0	0.0
Government bonds	1.0	2.6	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (listed)	1.3	3.5	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.6	1.5
Publicly Listed Equities (excluding REITS)	3.0	79.1	0.0	0.0
Private Equity	0.0	0.4	0.1	0.6
Real Estate Property Trusts (REITS)	0.1	0.5	0.0	0.0
Property (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	1.7	0.1
Infrastructure (listed)	0.0	0.4	0.0	0.0
Infrastructure (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.8	0.7
Other (e.g. commodities)	0.5	0.8	0.2	0.1
TOTAL	6.2	87.2	3.5	3.1

	5 YTR percentage allocation (n=15)	5 YTR percentage allocation (n=15)	5 YTR percentage allocation (n=15)	5 YTR percentage allocation (n=15)
	Listed	Listed	Unlisted	Unlisted
	UK	Non-UK	UK	Non-UK
	%	%	%	%
Cash/Money market securities	2.2	1.9	0.9	0.0
Government bonds	7.8	6.2	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (listed)	8.0	11.2	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (unlisted)	0.0	1.2	0.6	1.4
Publicly Listed Equities (excluding REITS)	2.0	47.7	0.0	0.0
Private Equity	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.4
Real Estate Property Trusts (REITS)	0.0	0.9	0.0	0.0
Property (unlisted)	0.0	0.4	1.7	0.0
Infrastructure (listed)	0.1	0.5	0.0	0.0
Infrastructure (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.7	0.6
Other (e.g. commodities)	0.0	2.9	0.2	0.3
TOTAL	20.2	73.0	4.1	2.7

	At retirement percentage allocation (n=15)	At retirement percentage allocation (n=15)	At retirement percentage allocation (n=15)	At retirement percentage allocation (n=15)
	Listed	Listed	Unlisted	Unlisted
	UK	Non-UK	UK	Non-UK
	%	%	%	%
Cash/Money market securities	10.0	7.5	1.3	0.0
Government bonds	12.3	8.3	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (listed)	11.3	14.4	0.0	0.0
Corporate bonds (unlisted)	0.0	0.1	0.6	1.1
Publicly Listed Equities (excluding REITS)	1.2	25.7	0.0	0.0
Private Equity	0.0	0.1	0.0	0.3
Real Estate Property Trusts (REITS)	0.0	0.3	0.0	0.0
Property (unlisted)	0.0	0.3	1.4	0.0
Infrastructure (listed)	0.1	0.3	0.0	0.0
Infrastructure (unlisted)	0.0	0.0	0.4	0.3
Other (e.g. commodities)	0.4	2.0	0.1	0.2
TOTAL	35.3	58.9	3.9	1.9

Appendix E – Investment performance 

E1a – Gross annualised investment performance (total sample) 

	30YTR	30YTR	30YTR
	Past 1 year performance (39)	Past 3 year performance (36)	Past 5 year performance (32)
	%	%	%
Mean Gross investment performance	16.8	6.9	8.6
Median Gross investment performance	16.3	6.0	8.4
Highest Gross investment performance for any responding organisation	29.2	22.8	18.8
Lowest Gross investment performance for any responding organisation	2.3	2.9	4.7

	5YTR	5YTR	5YTR
	Past 1 year performance (37)	Past 3 year performance (35)	Past 5 year performance (32)
	%	%	%
Mean Gross investment performance	11.5	1.6	3.6
Median Gross investment performance	11.8	3.0	5.0
Highest Gross investment performance for any responding organisation	18.0	6.3	9.0
Lowest Gross investment performance for any responding organisation	1.7	-44.0	-41.3

	At retirement	At retirement	At retirement
	Past 1 year performance (36)	Past 3 year performance (34)	Past 5 year performance (31)
	%	%	%
Mean Gross investment performance	8.1	1.4	3.0
Median Gross investment performance	8.0	2.1	3.1
Highest Gross investment performance for any responding organisation	13.5	4.7	6.5
Lowest Gross investment performance for any responding organisation	-2.2	-10.6	-5.7

E1b – Gross annualised investment performance (Single-Employer Trusts) 

	30YTR	30YTR	30YTR
	Past 1 year performance (27)	Past 3 year performance (24)	Past 5 year performance (20)
	%	%	%
Mean Gross investment performance	17.8	7.7	9.3
Median Gross investment performance	17.0	6.9	9.0
Highest Gross investment performance for any responding organisation	29.2	22.8	18.8
Lowest Gross investment performance for any responding organisation	2.3	3.1	4.7

	5YTR	5YTR	5YTR
	Past 1 year performance (25)	Past 3 year performance (23)	Past 5 year performance (20)
	%	%	%
Mean Gross investment performance	11.8	0.8	2.5
Median Gross investment performance	11.8	3.2	4.9
Highest Gross investment performance for any responding organisation	18.0	4.4	6.3
Lowest Gross investment performance for any responding organisation	1.7	-44.0	-41.3

	At retirement	At retirement	At retirement
	Past 1 year perform-ance (24)	Past 3 year perform-ance (22)	Past 5 year perform-ance (19)
	%	%	%
Mean Gross investment performance	8.1	1.1	2.5
Median Gross investment performance	8.0	2.1	3.1
Highest Gross investment performance for any responding organisation	13.5	3.8	4.6
Lowest Gross investment performance for any responding organisation	-2.2	-10.6	-5.7

E1c – Gross annualised investment performance (Multi-Employer Providers) 

	30YTR	30YTR	30YTR
	Past 1 year performance (12)	Past 3 year performance (12)	Past 5 year performance (12)
	%	%	%
Mean Gross investment performance	14.5	5.3	7.6
Median Gross investment performance	14.6	5.6	7.2
Highest Gross investment performance for any responding organisation	21.1	9.5	12.4
Lowest Gross investment performance for any responding organisation	11.2	2.9	4.7

	5YTR	5YTR	5YTR
	Past 1 year performance (12)	Past 3 year performance (12)	Past 5 year performance (12)
	%	%	%
Mean Gross investment performance	10.8	3.3	5.5
Median Gross investment performance	11.2	2.8	6.1
Highest Gross investment performance for any responding organisation	14.9	6.3	9.0
Lowest Gross investment performance for any responding organisation	5.3	0.6	2.8

	At retirement	At retirement	At retirement
	Past 1 year performance (12)	Past 3 year performance (12)	Past 5 year performance (12)
	%	%	%
Mean Gross investment performance	7.9	2.0	3.7
Median Gross investment performance	8.1	2.0	3.8
Highest Gross investment performance for any responding organisation	10.8	4.7	6.5
Lowest Gross investment performance for any responding organisation	4.6	0.2	2.3

E2a – Net annualised investment performance (total sample) 

	30 YTR	30 YTR	30 YTR
	Past 1 year performance (39)	Past 3 year performance (37)	Past 5 year performance (33)
	%	%	%
Mean Net investment performance	16.1	6.1	7.8
Median Net investment performance	15.6	5.6	7.5
Highest Net investment performance for any responding organisation	29.0	19.3	12.1
Lowest Net investment performance for any responding organisation	7.0	2.8	4.3

	5YTR	5YTR	5YTR
	Past 1 year performance (38)	Past 3 year performance (35)	Past 5 year performance (32)
	%	%	%
Mean Net investment performance	11.4	2.7	4.7
Median Net investment performance	12.2	2.8	4.9
Highest Net investment performance for any responding organisation	17.6	6.0	8.7
Lowest Net investment performance for any responding organisation	3.7	0.1	0.6

	At retirement	At retirement	At retirement
	Past 1 year performance (37)	Past 3 year performance (35)	Past 5 year performance (32)
	%	%	%
Mean Net investment performance	7.6	1.2	2.5
Median Net investment performance	7.2	1.8	2.6
Highest Net investment performance for any responding organisation	13.0	4.5	6.3
Lowest Net investment performance for any responding organisation	-2.3	-10.7	-5.9

E2b – Net annualised investment performance (Single-Employer Trusts) 

	30 YTR	30 YTR	30 YTR
	Past 1 year performance (27)	Past 3 year performance (25)	Past 5 year performance (21)
	%	%	%
Mean Net investment performance	17.0	6.6	8.2
Median Net investment performance	16.7	6.5	8.4
Highest Net investment performance for any responding organisation	29.0	19.3	12.1
Lowest Net investment performance for any responding organisation	7.0	2.8	4.3

	5YTR	5YTR	5YTR
	Past 1 year performance (26)	Past 3 year performance (23)	Past 5 year performance (20)
	%	%	%
Mean Net investment performance	11.9	2.6	4.5
Median Net investment performance	12.9	2.9	4.8
Highest Net investment performance for any responding organisation	17.6	5.1	6.5
Lowest Net investment performance for any responding organisation	3.7	0.1	0.6

	At retirement	At retirement	At retirement
	Past 1 year performance (25)	Past 3 year performance (23)	Past 5 year performance (20)
	%	%	%
Mean Net investment performance	7.7	0.9	2.1
Median Net investment performance	7.6	1.8	2.4
Highest Net investment performance for any responding organisation	13.0	3.7	4.4
Lowest Net investment performance for any responding organisation	-2.3	-10.7	-5.9

E2c – Net annualised investment performance (Multi-Employer Providers) 

	30 YTR	30 YTR	30 YTR
	Past 1 year performance (12)	Past 3 year performance (12)	Past 5 year performance (12)
	%	%	%
Mean Net investment performance	14.1	4.9	7.1
Median Net investment performance	14.1	4.5	6.9
Highest Net investment performance for any responding organisation	20.8	9.2	12.1
Lowest Net investment performance for any responding organisation	10.9	2.8	4.5

	5YTR	5YTR	5YTR
	Past 1 year performance (12)	Past 3 year performance (12)	Past 5 year performance (12)
	%	%	%
Mean Net investment performance	10.4	2.9	5.1
Median Net investment performance	10.9	2.4	5.0
Highest Net investment performance for any responding organisation	14.6	6.0	8.7
Lowest Net investment performance for any responding organisation	5.0	0.4	2.6

	At retirement	At retirement	At retirement
	Past 1 year performance (12)	Past 3 year performance (12)	Past 5 year performance (12)
	%	%	%
Mean Net investment performance	7.5	1.6	3.3
Median Net investment performance	7.2	1.4	3.2
Highest Net investment performance for any responding organisation	10.6	4.5	6.3
Lowest Net investment performance for any responding organisation	4.4	-0.2	1.8

E3 – Annualised standard deviation of returns (total sample) 

	30YTR	30YTR	30YTR
	Past 1 year performance (23)	Past 3 year performance (24)	Past 5 year performance (22)
	%	%	%
Mean Annualised Standard Deviation of returns	7.1	10.0	12.8
Median Annualised Standard Deviation of returns	7.7	10.5	12.3
Highest Annualised Standard Deviation of returns for any responding organisation	10.2	12.3	33.4
Lowest Annualised Standard Deviation of returns for any responding organisation	0.0	7.5	9.3

	5 YTR	5 YTR	5 YTR
	Past 1 year performance (22)	Past 3 year performance (22)	Past 5 year performance (21)
	%	%	%
Mean Annualised Standard Deviation of returns	5.3	7.9	9.8
Median Annualised Standard Deviation of returns	5.5	8.0	8.9
Highest Annualised Standard Deviation of returns for any responding organisation	7.4	11.0	33.7
Lowest Annualised Standard Deviation of returns for any responding organisation	0.0	6.4	6.1

	At retirement	At retirement	At retirement
	Past 1 year performance (21)	Past 3 year performance (21)	Past 5 year performance (20)
	%	%	%
Mean Annualised Standard Deviation of returns	3.5	6.6	7.4
Median Annualised Standard Deviation of returns	4.0	6.2	6.5
Highest Annualised Standard Deviation of returns for any responding organisation	6.5	15.5	27.7
Lowest Annualised Standard Deviation of returns for any responding organisation	0.0	0.6	0.6

E4 – Maximum Drawdown (total sample) 

	30 YTR	30 YTR	30 YTR
	Past 1 year performance (24)	Past 3 year performance (25)	Past 5 year performance (22)
	%	%	%
Mean Maximum Drawdown	-3.9	-11.9	-17.7
Median Maximum Drawdown	-2.9	-12.1	-16.4
Smallest Maximum Drawdown for any responding organisation	-1.3	-1.3	-13.2
Largest Maximum Drawdown for any responding organisation	-9.8	-20.5	-26.6

	5 YTR	5 YTR	5 YTR
	Past 1 year performance (23)	Past 3 year performance (23)	Past 5 year performance (22)
	%	%	%
Mean Maximum Drawdown	-2.8	-12.6	-14.4
Median Maximum Drawdown	-2.2	-13.2	-14.1
Smallest Maximum Drawdown for any responding organisation	-1.1	-7.7	-9.7
Largest Maximum Drawdown for any responding organisation	-8.5	-22.3	-21.2

	At retirement	At retirement	At retirement
	Past 1 year performance (21)	Past 3 year performance (21)	Past 5 year performance (20)
	%	%	%
Mean Maximum Drawdown	-2.6	-12.7	-12.9
Median Maximum Drawdown	-1.6	-12.6	-12.0
Smallest Maximum Drawdown for any responding organisation	-0.8	-5.5	-7.1
Largest Maximum Drawdown for any responding organisation	-11.0	-22.6	-20.7

Appendix F – Voluntary statement of compliance with the Code of Practice for Statistics 

The Code of Practice for Statistics (the Code) is built around 3 main concepts (or pillars) trustworthiness, quality and value: 

• Trustworthiness – is about having confidence in the people and organisations that publish statistics 

• Quality – is about using data and methods that produce assured statistics 

• Value – is about publishing statistics that support society’s needs for information 

The following explains how we have applied the pillars of the Code in a proportionate way. 

Trustworthiness 

This research was led by Verian, an independent market research agency, with input from other highly experienced independent researchers who specialise in social research and/or the pensions sector. Verian ensured that the findings are impartial and unbiased.  

Rigorous data security measures were implemented to protect the anonymity of those who participated in the study, in line with all relevant data protection legislation and with full informed consent from all survey participants. 

Quality 

The complex survey questionnaire was piloted with pension providers to ensure its suitability. Feedback on the questionnaire was sourced from a range of specialist stakeholders within DWP and there was also academic input from Lynne-Robertson Rose. 

All data quoted in this report have been subject to rigorous checks, in line with Verian’s data checking approach. Automated checks to ensure internal data consistency were also included in the data sheets that participants were asked to complete. Caveats relating to small base sizes and the indicative nature of the survey findings are clearly flagged in the chapter on ‘Interpreting the data’. 

Verian Group UK Ltd is certified to the International Standards ISO 9001, ISO 20252 and ISO 27001. Verian also adheres to the MRS/ESOMAR codes of conduct. 

Value 

The findings in this report have increased DWP’s understanding of the functioning of pension provision in the UK. In particular, this study has served to provide detailed information relating to Single Employer Trusts which constitute a group that had not previously been extensively researched by DWP. 

The survey data have already supported the recent Pension Investment Review and Pension Schemes Bill. 

The findings also hold value for other organisations, policymakers and researchers interested in pensions policy.

1. Press release: 20 million workers set to benefit from new Pension Schemes Bill ↩

2. Pension charges survey 2020: charges in defined contribution pension schemes - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk) ↩

3. As highlighted in Chapter 2, not all providers answered every question. In this case, a single provider omitted to answer the question about the number of members, reducing the base size for this metric from the total sample of 49 to the reported sample of 48 indicated in Table 3.1. ↩

4. The Pensions Regulator: List of authorised master trusts ↩

5. The Pensions Regulator: Occupational defined contribution landscape in the UK 2024 ↩

6. See Table 2.9 in The Pension Regulator’s Occupational defined contribution landscape 2024 annex ↩

7. Pension charges survey 2020: charges in defined contribution pension schemes ↩