Cor Zeeman: Doing what is right for participants

May 1, 2025

He sees too many overly stringent pension regulations that, in his opinion, unnecessarily restrict the freedom of action of boards and, in some cases, offer nothing more than false security. Financial Investigator spoke with Cor Zeeman, independent chairman of the board at Pensioenfonds DHL Nederland and advisor/project manager for the Wtp transition at Pensioenfonds HaskoningDHV. He is speaking in a personal capacity.

By Lies van Rijssen

After secondary school, I studied architecture, but for various reasons I didn't complete my degree. After working at Philips for a while, I ended up at Lucent Technologies in Hilversum. Lucent was an American telecommunications company that had split off from AT&T, which was the largest company in the world at the time. Due to its unwieldy size, it was split into three parts. I first started working in Lucent's financial administration department, in logistics, then as an IT specialist for software programming and later as an Automation Programme Manager in the Lucent factories, where they made printed circuit boards. Lucent bought up factories everywhere, including in Germany, where I worked for them for four years. My job was to ensure that the production structure and software in the German factories were exactly the same as in the Dutch ones. I had an amazing time there.

At that time, the sky was still the limit. Lucent even sent me to New Jersey in the US for a day to teach. The business continued to boom until the dot-com bubble burst in 2000. Production had to be cut back and many people were laid off. One of the employee representatives on the pension fund board also lost his job. The works council asked me if I would join the pension fund board on behalf of the employees, given my financial expertise. That was in 2001. I said yes, without knowing exactly what I was agreeing to. But pension matters turned out to suit me wonderfully well. Three years later, in 2004, I became director of the pension fund. I immediately started studying pension law at Lutjens. That proved very useful when I later had to conduct various legal proceedings on behalf of the pension fund. Stressful? No, not at all. Those court cases gave me more pleasure than stress. I enjoy doing my best to achieve good results for the participants. A good pension is very important to them.

I have seen the pension sector change significantly over the years, mainly under the influence of increased supervision and political interference. The regulations for pension funds have increased enormously. I certainly think some of the tightening up is justified. But I also see too many overly stringent rules, with layers upon layers of controls. This has unnecessarily restricted the freedom of action of boards. The certainty that the expansion of regulations is intended to provide is, in part, nothing more than false security.

Another major change in the financial sector is that, whereas previously a large group of companies determined share price movements, these movements are now dominated by just a few very large American companies. The influence of the Magnificent Seven on economic developments is disproportionately large, resulting in unhealthy situations. If a pension fund now wants to exclude a particular party from its investment portfolio, for example because that party's governance is inadequate, this can have a very strong effect on the pension fund's performance. If a pension fund does decide to exclude a party, it must therefore have a very good reason for doing so.

I find it worrying that pension funds have limited scope to rectify any distribution errors encountered after the transition.

Another major change is the enormous growth in risk management at pension funds. I think this upscaling is justified, especially when you consider the sharp increase in cybercrime, which also targets financial institutions.

Another change with a major impact on the financial sector is the way in which the current US president is governing the country and wants to steer society. His many ad hoc interventions and decrees are all over the place. That, combined with the attitude taken by the new administration towards other economic powers in the world, is causing a lot of unrest. This always has an impact on the financial markets. First and foremost, it leads to considerable market volatility. I am also very concerned about the effect on the markets of the trade wars that we are likely to see.

The most important theme in my work at the moment is undoubtedly the implementation of the new pension contract. The regulations for this, combined with the incredibly large number of highly detailed and complex calculations that funds have to make in this context, also create a false sense of security. In this case, the false sense of security that the transition will be completely balanced thanks to all kinds of complicated compromises. However, this balance only applies at the moment of the transition itself, i.e. the conversion of pension rights into capital. Immediately afterwards, everything can shift again, depending on the financial situation after the transition. I also find it worrying that pension funds have limited scope to correct any distribution errors encountered after the transition. In my view, funds would do well to maintain a much larger operational reserve than the supervisory authority DNB considers necessary for the first two years after the transition. This would allow them to make any necessary adjustments.

Sustainability plays a major role in the investment choices of pension funds. Until recently, it was considered ‘not done’ to invest in weapons from a sustainability perspective. However, public opinion is changing on this point. Due to the sudden emergence of new geopolitical relations, investments in weapons are increasingly seen as sustainable investments. In our freedom, that is. Pension funds are faced with the dilemma of whether or not to adjust their investment portfolios accordingly and, if they choose to do so, what form this should take.

The tone at the top can be used to powerfully promote the desired culture within the organisation and encourage cultural change.

You ask me for my opinion on diversity and inclusion. That's actually quite a strange question, because it is now well known and widely accepted that diversity in collaborative teams leads to better decision-making. A team whose members have different backgrounds is better able to develop and maintain a fresh perspective on all kinds of issues. As far as inclusion is concerned, the culture and the way people interact with each other determine whether people feel accepted, can work comfortably and can fulfil their potential at work. Cultures are difficult to change. The tone at the top can play a role in this. The tone at the top can be used to strongly promote the desired culture of the organisation and encourage cultural change, for example when it comes to inclusion. And when you hire new people, you have an opportunity to influence the diversity of a team.

An important insight I have gained in my work is that we must do everything we can to explain complex matters, such as pensions, in a simple and clear manner. We must continue to do so. Pension fund members must be able to understand why pension funds do what they do. All our work revolves around those members. I therefore find it worrying that the objective of the new pension contract – to make everything simpler, cheaper and more understandable for participants – does not seem to be being achieved.

The pension sector would benefit if things were a bit more boring for a while.

As a 45-year-old, taking the plunge to become director of a pension fund was the most important moment in my career. I was doing something completely different from what I had done before. I learned that such a change can work out incredibly well. My friends and family didn't understand it at all. After a number of challenging jobs, I went into pensions. How boring! In reality, the world of pensions is anything but boring. The complexity of this field of work provides me with tremendous challenges and constantly stimulates and inspires me to want to do the best possible for the participants. Here, the saying ‘never a dull moment’ literally applies. Incidentally, the sector itself would benefit if things were a little less exciting for a while.

My biggest challenges so far? I don't have to think long about that. Number one is the liquidation process of the Alcatel-Lucent Pension Fund, in which we transferred the pension rights to another pension fund in such a way that it would be beneficial for the participants. We succeeded in this endeavour, and in just three months. I also found conducting legal proceedings on behalf of the pension fund very challenging. I appeared before the Supreme Court several times, fortunately always with a favourable outcome.

Another major challenge was the merger of the two former compartments of the HaskoningDHV Pension Fund, which was a multi-OPF prior to the merger. In my opinion, this exercise is comparable to the transition we are currently facing. The implementation of the new pension contract is also a real challenge.

As a person, I am driven by my sense of responsibility and my interest in understanding complex issues in detail and then being able to explain them to others in a way that gives them sufficient guidance to make good decisions. Complex issues simply fascinate me. Perhaps that is why I enjoy playing bridge so much. And yes, I also love model building, especially building with the materials from that well-known Danish brand.

I am now sixty-six and it is highly likely that I will experience the implementation of the new pension contract from the position of a pensioner. I will then have nothing more to say about it and will enjoy my free time. And no, I won't be bored.