Pension Funds Business Guide
Get Solutions, Not Just Problems
We documented 26 challenges in Pension Funds. Now get the actionable solutions — vendor recommendations, process fixes, and cost-saving strategies that actually work.
Skip the wait — get instant access
- All 26 documented pains
- Business solutions for each pain
- Where to find first clients
- Pricing & launch costs
All 26 Documented Cases
Fehlentscheidungen bei Rentenplanung durch falsche Inflations- und COLA-Annahmen
Quantified (logic-based): A 1 percentage point understatement of effective COLA over 20 years on a AUD 30,000 p.a. income target creates ≈AUD 6,000–7,000 per member real purchasing power gap; at 50,000 members this is ≈AUD 300–350 million equivalent mis‑estimation of retirement income needs over the liability horizon.Regulated retirement and superannuation calculators (e.g. Moneysmart’s superannuation and account‑based pension calculators, as well as major fund tools) explicitly adjust results for future cost of living by assuming specific CPI and wage inflation rates, such as 2.5% CPI and 3.7% wage inflation.[2][3][5][8] These assumptions drive projections of retirement income, age pension indexation (linked to the higher of CPI or wages), and the real value of withdrawals.[3][5][7] If a fund’s internal models, product pricing and member‑facing tools use inconsistent or outdated inflation/COLA parameters—especially during periods when ABS‑reported CPI deviates significantly from the 2.5% long‑term assumption (e.g. 4.1% annual CPI to December 2024)—the fund can materially mis‑estimate how long member balances will last, required contribution rates, and the long‑term cost of any guaranteed or minimum benefit features.[2][3][4][5][7][10] For example, under‑estimating effective COLA by 1 percentage point over a 20‑year payout horizon on a AUD 30,000 p.a. target income implies a shortfall of roughly AUD 6,000–7,000 per member in real purchasing power, pushing dissatisfied members to draw down faster or complain, and forcing the fund to absorb mismatches in products with income guarantees. Scaled to 50,000–100,000 retirees, this becomes a strategic mis‑pricing error in the hundreds of millions of AUD over the life of the liabilities.
Strafzuschläge und Zinsen wegen verspäteter PBGC-Prämienzahlung
Quantified (logic-based): For a plan with an annual PBGC premium of AUD 1,000,000, a 5% late payment penalty equates to AUD 50,000 per late year, rising up to AUD 250,000 at a 25% maximum penalty band, plus interest (typically ~3–6% p.a.) on the overdue amount until paid.PBGC’s Comprehensive Premium Filing Instructions state that a premium filing is only complete when required data and payment are received by the due date, and that late filings trigger both interest and penalty charges on the unpaid premium.[2] PBGC reiterates that plans must "File and Pay Timely and Properly" and that missing the due date results in late payment charges.[3] For 2025 plan years, a one‑time acceleration rule moves the due date one month earlier (15th day of the ninth month instead of the tenth), increasing the risk that sponsors relying on historic calendars will miss the new deadline and incur penalties.[4][6][8] PBGC regulations typically allow penalty rates of up to 5%–25% of the unpaid premium depending on lateness, plus interest at the federal underpayment rate (logic based on ERISA practice though specific numerical examples are not in the cited pages). For Australian groups sponsoring US‑qualified defined benefit plans via US subsidiaries, these amounts represent a direct, avoidable cost of non‑compliance when internal calendars or manual workflows fail to adjust to the changed due dates.
Kapazitätsverlust durch manuelle IPS-Überprüfungsprozesse
Quantified (logic-based): Approx. 500–1,500 internal hours per major IPS review cycle (every 2–3 years), costing roughly AUD 75,000–225,000 per cycle at ~AUD 150/hour blended cost; 50–70% of this (AUD 37,500–157,500) is avoidable coordination and rework effort.Australian super funds’ IPS documents, such as those of State Super and ElectricSuper, cover a wide range of topics: investment philosophy, objectives, asset allocation, risk management, liquidity, valuations, responsible investment, tax risk, exposure limits and more.[3][6] APRA’s SPG 530 further expects that Boards approve documented investment objectives and strategies for each investment option and that policies be reviewed and updated over time.[5] In practice, these IPS reviews are often large, cross‑functional projects involving investment, risk, legal, tax, operations and external consultants. Although public documents do not specify hours, logic-based estimation using typical governance project patterns suggests that a triennial IPS and investment governance update for a medium-to-large fund may consume 500–1,500 hours of internal staff time plus external advisory input. Assuming blended internal cost of AUD 150 per hour, this equates to AUD 75,000–225,000 per full review cycle, much of which is spent on manual drafting, version control, chasing approvals and rework rather than on substantive investment analysis.[3][5][6]
Hoher manueller Bearbeitungsaufwand bei Todesfallmeldungen
Logic-based estimate: Manual processing effort of roughly 6–10 hours per death claim at an all‑in labour cost of AUD 50/hour equates to AUD 300–500 per claim. For 2,000–5,000 claims per year this is AUD 0.6–2.5 million in annual staffing cost tied up in largely repetitive processing that could be reduced by 30–50% through automation, saving approximately AUD 0.3–1.25 million per year.Superannuation death benefit claims require beneficiaries to lodge death claim forms and attach certified documentation such as the deceased’s death certificate, birth certificate and proofs of relationship or dependency.[3][4] Trustees and their administrators must then manually review this information, identify all potential dependants and legal personal representatives, and determine an appropriate distribution in line with SIS Regulations and the fund’s trust deed.[2][3] Guidance from funds such as Resolution Life and Catholic Super reveals that case managers often request further information and must write to all potential claimants, who in turn have **28 days** to object to proposed decisions, adding repeated correspondence cycles.[2][4][8] ASFA’s Service Standard emphasises that trustees should communicate regularly (for example by email or phone) with claimants and potential beneficiaries about documentation requirements and claim status, implying ongoing contact centre and back‑office involvement over months.[2] For a medium‑sized fund with **2,000–5,000** death claims per year, and an estimated manual effort of **6–10 staff hours per claim** across case management, administration and call centre interactions, this translates to **12,000–50,000 staff hours annually**. At a conservative fully‑loaded employment cost of **AUD 50/hour**, that is **AUD 0.6–2.5 million per year** spent on labour for death benefit handling alone. With modern digital intake, OCR/IDV tools for document capture, rules engines to pre‑assess eligibility and standardised communication templates, a 30–50% reduction in manual hours per claim (saving **2–5 hours** per case) is realistic, equating to **AUD 0.3–1.25 million** in recoverable capacity for a fund of this size. The loss manifests not only as direct labour cost but also in opportunity cost: claims specialists who are absorbed by low‑value chasing of documents and status queries cannot focus on complex dispute resolution, vulnerable members or broader process improvement.