What We Can Learn from the Brits’ Retirement ‘Scheme’

What can the British teach us about better 401(k) participant outcomes and alternative investments?

What can the British teach us about alternative investments and better 401(k) participant outcomes?

The United States 401(k)-style defined contribution (DC) system is large by global standards, but most in the industry know improvement is needed. The good news is that other DC systems make good case studies on a variety of issues.

For instance, in the United Kingdom’s system, plan sponsors and regulators have taken noteworthy steps to help drive better participant outcomes. While the U.K.’s system is still relatively small (DC plans represented 32 percent of the U.K.’s retirement market in 2015, versus 60 percent in the U.S.1) and the transition began later than in the U.S. and Australia, it’s growing quickly due to mandatory auto-enrollment requirements that began in 2012. Known as “DC schemes” in the U.K., the plans themselves are similar in many ways to their counterparts in the U.S.

The U.K. system has been the beneficiary of both forward-thinking and fortunate timing. For example, by the time DC plans in the U.K. were implemented on a mass scale, the importance of auto-enrollment and proper default funds was better understood.

Key takeaways

Multi-employer schemes

Mandatory auto enrollment and minimum contributions

Higher use of default funds

Greater acceptance of alternative investments

 Limits on default fund charges

Less leakage

Key challenges

Adjusting to flexible payout options

Auto enrollment administration

Benchmarking

Bottom line

Auto-enrollment and the resulting coverage success in the U.K. is off to a promising start, highlighting a model that could be more palatable in the U.S. compared to Australia’s compulsory system. Despite being hampered by rapid, complex, and significant regulatory changes like the expense cap which have curtailed innovation, there remains hope for rejuvenation. One area ripe for exploration in revitalizing the DC landscape is the integration of alternative investments, offering potential for diversification and risk management.

Each DC system worldwide faces its distinct challenges, yet the U.K.’s approach offers valuable lessons, particularly in treating DC plans with aspects traditionally associated with DB plans, including access, investment options, and the requisite contribution levels for satisfactory outcomes. As the U.S. navigates the transition from DB to DC as the main retirement scheme amidst issues of coverage, costs, and fund leakage, embracing alternative investments could be a step forward. Learning from global counterparts underscores that the journey towards improving retirement outcomes is a shared endeavor.

Greg Jenkins, CFA, is senior director and chair of Invesco’s Defined Contribution Institute.


  1. Towers Watson Global Pension Study 2016
  2. Spence Johnson, UK Defined Contribution Intelligence 2015
  3. Department for Work and Pensions 2014
  4. Barnett Waddingham/Standard Life DC Report, March 2016
  5. The Pensions Regulator, Automatic Enrollment Commentary and analysis, July 2015
  6. Aon UK Defined Contribution Survey, 2015
  7. Aon Hewitt 2014 Universe Benchmarks
  8. Plan Sponsor Council of America, 58th Annual Survey, 2016
  9. nestpensions.org.uk
Exit mobile version