Amendment to the Exemption Decree Wet Bpf 2000 – Missed Opportunity for Simplification

Publication date: 7 November 2025

In September, the amended Exemption and Penalty Decree under the Dutch Mandatory Industry Wide Pension Fund Act (“Vrijstellings- en boetebesluit Wet Bpf 2000”) came into effect. This decree regulates, among other things, the exemption from mandatory participation in an industry pension fund. The amendment is part of the broader transition to the new pension system under the Future of Pensions Act (Wet toekomst pensioenen). Although the decree has been adjusted in several respects, one element stubbornly remains: actuarial equivalence as a criterion for dispensation. I consider this a missed opportunity.

Transitional Law: Only Financial Assessment During the Transition

First of all, transitional law has been included in the Decree to give employers more flexibility in choosing their transition moment. If an industry wide pension fund and an exempted employer have different transition moments, then during the transition period only the requirement of financial equivalence applies, and only with regard to the old-age pension. This means that the savings premium in the exempted scheme must be comparable to the savings premium at the pension fund. The actuarial assessment only becomes relevant again after the transition.

Actuarial Equivalence Remains – Despite Sector-Wide Criticism

Actuarial equivalence means that the present value of the pension accrual in the exempted scheme is equivalent to the present value of the pension accrual at the industry wide pension fund. Despite repeated suggestions from the pension sector to abolish actuarial equivalence, the minister has decided to retain this assessment. As a result, the assessment for exemption is not limited to comparing premiums and risk coverages, but requires complex calculations based on the actual investment policy and the effect of the solidarity reserve at the pension fund.

Why I Consider This a Missed Opportunity

Maintaining actuarial equivalence leads to complexity and uncertainty for employers who wish to retain or apply for an exemption. In practice, this means that an employer with a flat premium may have to use a higher premium than the industry wide pension fund, purely to meet the actuarial assessment. This runs counter to the aim of the Future of Pensions Act: transparency and simplicity.

The sector had hoped that the minister would opt for a more pragmatic approach, where financial equivalence would suffice.

In Conclusion

The requirement of actuarial equivalence, in combination with the Future of Pensions Act, may mean that dispensation is no longer financially advantageous. Employers will therefore need to consider whether they wish to continue their exemption.