Roundtable 'Fiduciary Management in 2030': Importance of fiduciary management is growing rapidly

March 5, 2026

_{This report was originally written in Dutch. This is an English translation.}

In recent decades, many relatively small pension funds have merged with larger parties or insurers, where fiduciary management was often already firmly established. In order for pension funds to continue to make the necessary investments, sufficient scale is essential. And that is precisely where a major challenge lies for fiduciary managers.

By Hans Amesz

What is the definition of fiduciary management?

Marcel Roberts: ‘It is difficult to formulate a clear-cut definition of fiduciary management. There are narrow and broad definitions. The narrow definition focuses mainly on manager selection and some advice on strategic policy. The broad definition actually encompasses the role of implementation manager, plus all those other aspects. LDI is often part of fiduciary management, even though it is essentially a mandate. ESG advice may be included, but it doesn't have to be. I think everyone has their own, different definition. ’

Marit Kosmeijer: ‘Ultimately, it comes down to asset management and, to a greater or lesser extent, advice, execution and strategic advice. This varies from simply executing the asset owner's instructions to a far-reaching discretionary mandate, including comprehensive advice and regulatory compliance, etc. So there are many different flavours.’

Jasper Haak: ‘The core is investment advice and, nowadays, ESG advice. Then comes the part about manager selection, operational asset management – in fact, coordinating the entire portfolio, also known as balance sheet management – and finally the LDI part, which may or may not be considered an integral part of this.’

Alfred Slager: ‘We should really stop using the term fiduciary management. When I hear ‘fiduciary’, I think of someone who takes over complete management and makes decisions for the fund in good faith. The term has not covered the scope since 2010. We are talking about the implementation and coordination of asset management: selecting investments, monitoring the entire balance sheet, and reporting to see whether everything is on track and whether adjustments need to be made by the client, the fund.’

Carl Kool: ‘Fiduciary usually includes strategic asset allocation, policy-related matters such as liquidity policy, sustainability, matters such as selection, monitoring and deselection of managers, and reporting and evaluation. It depends very much on the client, though. Some clients say: we want all those aspects, but we will select the managers ourselves, or we will hire another party to do so. There are sub-components that can indeed be carried out by an external party. We have deliberately chosen to have the ALM component carried out by an external party, for example. The governance aspect is an important element in this. As a fiduciary manager, you can work with an ALM advisor. We also like to contribute ideas and are involved in certain aspects, such as formulating expected returns, risks and economic scenarios.’

Daniël Rijs: 'You can ask yourself how many of the different modules you want to purchase. If you have all these blocks in one hand as a fiduciary, internal coordination is optimal and the lines of communication are short and efficient. But this does create tension with regard to responsibilities and how independent you can be with your advice. You can safeguard this by carefully designing processes and separating functions.’

Kosmeijer: ‘Fundamentally, there are the investment principles. A fiduciary manager can help with this, but ultimately they are the responsibility of the board. Then you move on to investment propositions, etc., and finally reporting. I think ALM is roughly in the middle of this whole process.’

There are various fiduciary models, ranging from doing everything to performing specific tasks. How do you see this in the Netherlands?

Roberts: ‘If you have an implementing organisation, it is very easy to work in a modular way, because you can coordinate with your administrative office. If you don't have an implementing organisation, working in a modular way is really complicated.’

Over the past twenty years, many relatively small pension funds have been incorporated into a larger party or an insurer, where fiduciary management was already strongly present.

Janwillem Engel: ‘That is also where the difference between smaller and larger pension funds lies. Large funds have the budget to arrange things in a modular way. With commercial parties that enter the market to serve multiple pension funds, you do see that there is a dependence on the size of the client. They want to do everything for small clients, while for large clients they are more willing to offer fiduciary activities on a modular basis.’

Kosmeijer: ‘We act as a countervailing power. We do not manage assets or select managers, but we do provide strategic advice to pension fund boards and investment committees. This allows us to see the different fiduciary managers and compare them.’

Haak: ‘Which modules are created depends in part on what the pension fund wants, but also in part on what the fiduciary manager offers.’

Kool: ‘I agree. The key message is that there is no one-size-fits-all solution. It really depends on the client's wishes and the specific requirements they have for a fiduciary manager.’

Engel: ‘It starts with a governance discussion. As a board, how do you think the asset management process should be organised? Which parts do you want to do yourself, through your administrative office or investment committee, and for which do you want to have an independent advisor? What should the fiduciary manager do? Choices have to be made, and for that it is important that the administrative principles are properly established.’

Kool: ‘You see that pension funds are becoming more open again, for example in the area of private markets, to allowing the fiduciary manager to play a role in this if they have the necessary expertise. That is not a given, but it is a trend that is emerging.’

Kosmeijer: ‘A fiduciary manager often also has an almost educational role in providing pension fund directors with knowledge about, for example, more exotic investment categories. It is therefore logical that more attention is paid to the fiduciary and less to internal or even external advisers.’

Roberts: ‘My biggest concern is the remuneration for the fiduciary, because we don't want to pay for fiduciary services. That may also be the reason why we are allowing asset management again, because it allows the fiduciary manager to earn some money. That is a bad development. We simply have to pay for fiduciary advice.’

Slager: 'I would approach it differently. It's not about which fiduciary models there are, but about the management models of funds, into which a fiduciary must fit as well as possible. And there is a lot of variation possible there. One example is a medium-sized fund that argues that, if you want to do it right, you should not outsource the important choices in alternative investments, but take them on with an advisory fiduciary. Whereas the same fund has engaged a different fiduciary for the selection and implementation of LDI, where costs and efficiency are key.’

What are the drivers for choosing a particular model?

Haak: ‘Partly, it’s the scheme. I think there will also be differences between flexible contribution schemes (FPR) and solidarity contribution schemes (SPR), or closed funds. For many pension funds, the past also determines to some extent how they have structured the future. You see this in both large and small funds. In addition, there are certain preferences within boards.’

I think different models will coexist. At its core, there will still be a fiduciary model, but for far fewer pension funds.

Kosmeijer: ‘I agree. The past and individual directors play an important role. I think costs also play a role. Of course, for funds without fiduciary management, the question arises as to whether this should be introduced at some point, because otherwise it becomes too complex. But then there is the fear of additional costs.’

Is the trend towards using more and more fiduciaries?

Engel: ‘Yes, that has to do with the operating model under the Wtp, where you have to organise your processes much more tightly in order to remain on time and in control. This can cause problems, particularly for smaller funds if they do not have a fiduciary manager and carry out part of the asset management process themselves. For example, they suddenly have to be able to receive, read, process and return specific data files within tight deadlines. This is challenging for a small administrative office and leads to risks in controlled business operations.’

Kool: ‘The global trend is undeniably one of enormous growth in outsourcing and fiduciary management. This is mainly due to increasing complexity. We are facing all kinds of new regulations, highly volatile financial markets, considerable geopolitical uncertainty, and so on. A fiduciary or outsourcing partner can play a useful role in providing support and helping to interpret these developments.’

Kosmeijer: ‘Over the past twenty years, many relatively small pension funds have been absorbed into larger entities or insurers, where fiduciary management was already strongly present. Seen in this light, there is a kind of natural flow of these funds towards fiduciary management.’

What does the future hold for fiduciary management?

Haak: ‘I think that different models will coexist. At its core, there will still be a fiduciary model, but for far fewer pension funds.’

Roberts: ‘We are, of course, seeing PPIs discontinuing their activities. The occupational pension funds, which currently have different fiduciaries, are considering whether they should merge. There will be fewer clients for the same number of fiduciaries.’

Kool: ‘Consolidation has taken place on both the client side and the fiduciary provider side. These have been uniform developments. But to remain successful as a fiduciary manager, you have to keep innovating and investing. There are all kinds of new developments relating to the new pension contract, the increasing demand for ESG integration, and so on. In order to make the necessary investments, you need sufficient scale. That is a major challenge for fiduciary managers.’

Kosmeijer: 'Two years ago, I had a less rosy outlook for smaller fiduciary managers in the Netherlands than I do now. I think certain trends will continue. For example, ESG will become an integral part of your fiduciary advice.’

Roberts: ‘The most important thing is the relationship between the client and the fiduciary manager: whether they click or not. I think the proverbial human side is hugely underestimated. Fiduciary management means trust, and that is something you find in people, not in organisations.’

Kool: 'An important distinguishing feature of fiduciary managers is that they offer access to the capital markets. That can make a big difference, for example in the fees you can negotiate and the specific terms you can agree with parties.’

In order to make the necessary investments, you need sufficient scale. That is an important challenge for fiduciary managers.

Engel: ‘That is indeed a factor that we try to gain some insight into during selection processes. We ask the various fiduciary managers what their estimate is of the cost savings they think they can achieve if they were to take over the management of the existing portfolio. Then you often see real differences in the purchasing power of the various fiduciary managers.’

Slager: ‘I think fiduciary management is becoming an increasingly difficult market because pension funds are taking over the tasks. The number of funds is decreasing, they are increasing in scale, and as a result, the administrative offices are growing. These are taking on more and more policy-preparing tasks and are also becoming more active in the selection and management of the portfolio. At some point, there is one layer too many in the governance.’

What can be said about future communication?

Haak: ‘I notice that a number of pension funds are starting to think about how far they should go in serving their members, also in view of the new system. There will not suddenly be an explosion of people who are suddenly interested in pensions, however unfortunate that may be. A lot still needs to change in the area of member communication, and that is also possible.’

Slager: ‘I see room for innovation here. Most funds focus on communication and participants, which is difficult to fit into the investment process or the role of the fiduciary manager. Funds that focus on participants and communication are bound to come up with a different structure for investment choices and processes, making them recognisable and appealing. But there is a lot of adherence to the familiar investment process. Surely an innovative fiduciary should be able to do something with this?’

Will alternative investments such as private equity, infrastructure and real estate play a greater role in pension investments?

Engel: ‘In the new system, where supervisory rules regarding the required capital are being relaxed, there will be more room for more complex and illiquid products, which in the current system often have high solvency requirements. At the same time, there are also funds that are moving away from complex products because they cannot explain them to their participants. This is a dilemma. When things go wrong, you have to explain why you are involved in investments that are difficult to understand and often have a fairly high cost structure.’

Roberts: ‘We once had an advisor who said: you should make investments as simple as possible and as complex as necessary. That was aimed at board members who might not be aware of all the ins and outs.’

Kool: ‘The quality and professionalism of pension fund boards has increased enormously over the past ten years. As for the complexity of investment products, you also have to balance that against the potential advantages. The reason why increasingly complex products are being added to the portfolio is that they offer major advantages in terms of returns and the diversification they allow, as well as in achieving your ESG objectives. Impact investments are an important trend, and impact is particularly evident on the private side. It is also about being able to respond more actively and dynamically to volatile market developments. But everything must, of course, be in line with the investment principles.’

Kosmeijer: ‘I think you should never hold a portfolio that you cannot explain yourself. But that does not mean that you cannot put together a complex portfolio that fits the investment principles and the participants. After all, the purpose of many complex products is not that difficult to explain at its core.’

Haak: ‘All investment categories are complex and difficult to explain in a certain sense. That is why a good fiduciary manager and good pension fund directors are important in order to be able to explain things.’

In the new system, where supervisory rules relating to the required capital are being relaxed, there is more scope for more complex and illiquid products.

Rijs: ‘I do think there is a difference under the Wtp. Participants have little scope for action under the new scheme. They cannot act on it, other than with private assets. Of course, it is true that results will be reflected much more directly in their pensions. I can imagine that there will be more questions than before about where their pension money is actually invested. Transparency and understanding of what is being invested in is and remains of great importance. Ultimately, the pension fund board must know the main risks and return drivers of the products in which investments are made and be able to explain this to the participants.’

Slager: ‘In my opinion, alternative investments are where fiduciary managers can offer value by setting up specialised platforms to combine both expertise and choice. If it is worthwhile for participants to achieve their goals and it appeals to them, then a board should challenge itself to look beyond the label ‘complex’. A fiduciary can help with that.’

Do costs play an important role?

Haak: ‘You have to think carefully about what costs you are talking about. If costs are not a separate dimension – such as bonuses, which sometimes cause controversy – but part of the return, then they are not really a problem.’

Kool: ‘I agree, because ultimately it's about net returns. You can invest in private equity or hedge funds for diversification or other reasons. These are relatively expensive investment categories, but they are expected to generate higher returns. Many pension funds that have been investing in private equity or hedge funds for years are satisfied with this. Of course, everything must be in line with the investment principles.’

Kosmeijer: ‘Investment professionals understand this, but people who know little about the investment world will feel uncomfortable when confronted with the high costs of certain investment categories. That needs to be said.’

What will the ideal strategic asset allocation for pension funds look like in 2030?

Roberts: ‘That is difficult to say under the current geopolitical circumstances, because they force us to act more quickly. That may mean you need to be less illiquid.’

Kool: ‘I am thinking of a combination of public and private asset classes. You need both for a broadly diversified portfolio, and they also offer access to different risk premiums. Because the world is volatile and uncertain, you need to be able to anticipate and respond more quickly. Conducting a risk preference survey once every five years and defining the lifecycle is no longer appropriate. Furthermore, the focus is still very much on nominal asset allocation, while pensions are a real product that should actually play a broader role in the portfolio.“

Haak: 'I think we are going to invest more riskily. There will be a more aggressive investment policy, because you can take more risk in the future. You can see that this is not yet being applied adequately.”

Kosmeijer: ‘It always comes down to what suits the population, the participants, best. The biggest challenge is to determine that. This requires scientific research.’

Roberts: ‘The population is not homogeneous, even if they are all doctors, for example. Some earn a lot, others do not.’

Kool: ‘Ultimately, you have to achieve a sufficient return. More complex products with higher costs also play a role in this. We are a major provider in the DC market in the United States, Great Britain and other countries, and you can see that these DC propositions are now making room for private assets, so why shouldn't that be possible in the FPR contract?’

I see the revolutionary development through AI mainly in the management of mandates, the selection of titles, and the gathering of information from analyst reports and annual reports.

Rijs: ‘To which participants would you offer the FPR? If you ask participants whether they would like to have the option to switch risk profiles, everyone says they would, but in practice you see that hardly anyone makes use of it. I'm not so convinced that an FPR would be a better fit for everyone.’

Roberts: ‘If no choice is made, you go to the SPR.’

Haak: ‘Participants are not a force in this whole situation. They are not going to lobby for a different pension scheme or anything else. It is the employers who have largely caused all this. In the Netherlands, there has been a shift to the right in politics for some time now, which has given employers more say.’

Kosmeijer: ‘I think the move towards the SPR has mainly been brought about by the trade unions and not by the employers.’

Participants can compare, but they are not allowed to choose their pension fund. Or not yet, anyway.

Roberts: ‘Given the developments in society, I would not be surprised if, in the longer term, i.e. not as early as 2030, we move towards an Australian model, where participants can choose their pension fund. That has not necessarily been positive for participants, as it has led to advertising and costs. I hope we don't go down that commercial route.’

Kosmeijer: ‘If you can buy a pension abroad, for example, and take it with you, the feeling of connection with your pension provider disappears. If the trend continues towards costs and hard returns being so important, we will miss that.’

Engel: ‘For smaller employers with relatively small pension funds, it all becomes too expensive: governance costs, asset management. Ultimately, the employer's connection with the employees in the pension scheme will be lost due to costs and manageability.’

How can pension funds effectively manage the risk of illiquidity in alternative investments?

Roberts: ‘I see the risk of illiquidity mainly with the FPR, because pension funds do not know who will opt for a fixed or variable benefit. If a lot of people opt for fixed, I will lose a lot of capital. That will come out of the liquid part of the portfolio and not the illiquid part. Then the portfolio will be skewed and I will no longer be able to meet my risk profiles. You just have to hope that you can manage that again in the long term.’

Kool: ‘There are indeed all kinds of mitigating measures available, which allow you to manage this risk effectively.’

How will ESG and sustainable investing develop in the coming years?

Haak: ‘You are seeing a shift towards greater attention to ESG risk. Policy must be designed in such a way that these risks can be kept under control. Then sustainable policy can be sold effectively to participants.’

Rijs: ‘It is difficult to quantitatively attribute the effects of sustainable investment policy to policy choices or title selection. How much of your return is actually due to ESG choices, such as the impact of carbon reduction targets? In fact, sustainability policy is an integral part of your considerations: return, risk and costs.’

Roberts: ‘In theory, ESG investing costs money because you limit your investment universe. In practice, this can turn out differently, in the sense that you simply start impact investing, doing things that contribute positively to global development. I am concerned about the geopolitical situation, because we need to become energy independent and invest more in defence. This is actually at odds with what you would want as an ESG investor. The focus is shifting from very green to less green.’

I think fiduciary management is becoming an increasingly difficult market because pension funds are taking over the tasks.

Kool: ‘The ESG process, which must permeate the entire chain, is much more driven by data and research. This makes the risks more transparent. You can monitor more and better and ultimately also make the added value transparent. This is a very important trend.’

Kosmeijer: ‘I firmly believe in sustainable investing for the longer term in order to make the world a better place and generate financial returns. In the short term, it may be different. ESG is not just E, but also S and G. Investments now need to be made in security, defence and weapons in order to defend certain democratic values. That may not be very E, but it may well be S or G.’

Engel: ‘What was socially irresponsible until recently is slowly but surely becoming socially responsible. Europe needs to take more care of itself in areas such as energy and defence. That also offers opportunities.’

Is sustainable investing maturing, in the sense that it is becoming more realistic?

Haak: ‘It will take some time before ESG investing is truly mature. Exclusions alone are not enough. We have seen that there are longer periods in which sustainable investment choices have led to lower returns. Incidentally, much of the ESG data is still very immature.’

Roberts: ‘I have always wondered why we have identified ESG risk as a separate risk and do not consider it as a normal risk. As long as that remains the case, I don't think we are mature yet. There is a trend towards greater integration, though.’

What does all this mean for the role of a fiduciary manager in 2030?

Roberts: ‘I don't use my fiduciary manager as an ESG advisor, but I do use them for implementation. The fiduciary manager needs to know what's available on the market and how we could implement it.’

Kosmeijer: ‘Sustainable investing remains a separate way of investing. You want to achieve something different or more than just financial returns.’

Kool: ‘Expanding the importance of impact investments strengthens the involvement of participants and contributes to a close relationship between the pension fund and its participants. The fiduciary plays a role throughout the entire chain.’

Kosmeijer: ‘It's great if you can engage in impact investing within your own sphere of influence. You do indeed create a bond with your participants, and that doesn't have to stand in the way of returns. That way, you kill two birds with one stone.’

How can pension funds prepare for increasing geopolitical uncertainty?

Roberts: ‘I think that sustainable investing, at least in Europe, will be put on the back burner or postponed for the time being. After all, we have other problems to deal with at the moment.’

Kosmeijer: ‘My feeling is that you need to be a lot more vigilant about concentrations of investments. The concentration around the US and tech didn't happen overnight; it's been there for a long time.’

Kool: ‘Geopolitical fragmentation has a major impact. For example, we have been looking closely at US exposure over the past year, including with clients. It's not as if everyone is suddenly pulling out of US investments, because no matter how you look at it, the US is an enormous capital market, accounting for 70% of the MSCI World and a large part of the private markets. It's not that easy to suddenly take drastic action there.’

This system will only really be tested in the event of a major recession, when something completely unexpected and severe happens.

Roberts: ‘Sentiment will play a greater role in American investments. Feelings are generally a poor guide, but our board members and contacts with many American parties are expressing concerns, more so than six months ago. If, for example, the midterms were not to go ahead in November, it would be a very strange situation. As long as the rule of law is upheld, nothing will happen. If laws are flouted, we will have a real problem. Political uncertainty in America is quite high, and that is a huge risk.’

Slager: ‘I don't know if there is increasing geopolitical uncertainty. We tend to exaggerate things that are just happening. As long as it didn't bother us too much, most funds actually pushed it into the background a bit, because it raises difficult questions. Geopolitical uncertainty is much more about making decisions under uncertainty. We work out scenarios, but many funds and fiduciaries don't really know what to do with that uncertainty and those scenarios in their decision-making and portfolio construction. Thinking that through and organising it is much more important than looking at US equities with concern and not doing much about it.’

How will emerging technologies such as AI and big data change the way we organise and execute pension investments?

Kool: ‘We believe that a revolution is truly underway, one that will structurally increase productivity. And enormous opportunities are also being created on the investment side. Huge investments are needed for the digital infrastructure and the energy associated with it. You have much more and faster access to real-time data, which you can use to significantly improve the quality of ESG monitoring and services. That translates into a higher quality of service for pension funds.’

Rijs: ‘I see the revolutionary development mainly in the management of mandates, the selection of titles, and the gathering of information from analyst reports and annual reports. That will happen much faster and more efficiently.’

What are the biggest challenges for pension funds' investment policy in the transition?

Kosmeijer: ‘The biggest challenge arises when something dramatic happens in the market. That can be dramatically negative or dramatically positive. Funds that have taken far too little risk will not benefit from this, or vice versa.’

Roberts: ‘There are many more rules, legal frameworks, risk preference surveys and lifecycles. The scope for action has become smaller if, for example, you find that a fund that has transitioned took too little risk in the first few months. Those kinds of teething problems need to be ironed out. The first phase of the transition was unexpectedly favourably influenced by market developments. This system will only really be tested in the event of a major recession, when something completely unexpected and severe happens. Then the solidarity reserve will run into problems.’

Rijs: ‘The fact that participants may be exposed to too much or too little risk during and around the transition to the new pension system is partly inherent to the transition itself. In the new system, a conscious decision has been made to place those risks – plus and minus – more with the participants, whereas in the FTK they were, as it were, tucked away under the blanket of the coverage ratio and spread out through the creation of buffers.’

Read the original report in Financial Investigator magazine