This chapter looks at the evolution of assets earmarked for retirement in 2024, looking at different jurisdictions and type of plans, and the average amount of assets under management of pension providers.
Pension Markets in Focus 2025
Abstract
The capacity of asset-backed pensions to finance retirement benefits depends on the amount of assets accumulated during working life. A growing amount of assets provides a larger capital to pay benefits at retirement. At the same time, it also represents a potential source of investment that can support the real economy. Even pay-as-you-go public pension systems have been building up reserves in ring-fenced funds as an additional source to finance benefits on top of current contributions, to address demographic changes and other challenges that may affect the sustainability or operations of public pension schemes.
This chapter looks at the growth in assets in 2024 and its evolution over time. It does so by looking at the growth of assets across jurisdictions, the different types of plans, and the average amount of assets under management of pension providers. Pension providers include pension funds and any other financial institutions providing and managing occupational and personal pension plans, whether they are private or public.1 Occupational plans are those that employers set up for their employees (OECD, 2005[1]). They can be defined benefit (DB) if employers provide some benefit guarantees (e.g. a regular income, an investment rate of return), and otherwise defined contribution (DC). Personal pension plans are those that individuals can access directly through a financial institution and in which they can select some aspects of the plan (e.g. the investment strategy). Public pension reserve funds also accumulate assets to finance retirement as they hold reserves from the pay-as-you-go public pension system.
Assets earmarked for retirement grew to a record level in 2024. After experiencing a drop in 2022, assets in the OECD grew by 11.6% in 2023, and 7.1% in 2024. Assets totalled USD 69.8 trillion at end-2024, including USD 63.1 trillion managed by pension providers and USD 6.7 trillion in public pension reserve funds. This exceeds the previous record of 2021 of USD 66.7 trillion (Figure 1.1). While assets under management of pension providers have increased since 2001 (despite falls in 2008, 2018 and 2022), those in public pension reserve funds have remained relatively stable since 2017 (between USD 6 and USD 7 trillion) and were slightly lower at the end of 2024 than at the end of 2023.
In USD trillion
Note: For more details, please see the methodological notes in Annex B.
Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics and other sources.
This overall growth in assets under management of pension providers reflects a widespread trend in nearly all reporting jurisdictions in 2024. Assets grew the fastest in the Republic of Türkiye (hereafter, Türkiye), the Baltics and Greece, among OECD countries, with asset growth exceeding 20% in nominal terms in local currency (Figure 1.2). Nearly a third of reporting non-OECD jurisdictions also recorded a growth rate in assets above 20% in 2024. Growth was more moderate elsewhere but still significant in some countries such as Canada (12.1%) or the United States (10.9%). Guyana and Peru are the only two reporting countries where assets under management of pension providers declined in 2024. The reserves of public pension reserve funds also increased in 2024, except in the United Kingdom (-11%) and the United States (-3.9%).
In per cent
Note: For more details, please see the methodological notes in Annex B.
Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics and other sources.
The amount of pension assets still varied widely across regions at end-2024. North America recorded USD 48.2 trillion in assets under management of pension providers, which represents over 70% of the total assets accumulated globally in 87 jurisdictions (Figure 1.3, Panel A). Europe had the second largest pool of assets (USD 9.7 trillion). Pension providers in Asia managed assets worth USD 4.3 trillion or 12.5% of the combined GDP of the reporting Asian jurisdictions, the lowest amount across all regions. However, Asia is one of the regions accumulating the largest reserves to support public pension systems, at USD 3.1 trillion or 11.4% of GDP in 10 jurisdictions (Figure 1.3, Panel B). Africa is the region with the lowest amount of assets managed by pension providers in USD terms.
Note: The charts show the overall amount of assets managed by pension providers (Panel A) and public pension reserve funds (Panel B) in jurisdictions with data available for this report. The charts specify how many jurisdictions data cover in brackets next to the name of each region.
Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics.
The size of pension assets also varies widely within regions. These differences are especially visible in Africa where assets under management of pension providers range from 1% of GDP in Egypt to over 100% in Namibia; in Asia (from less than 1% in Pakistan to 82% in Singapore);2 and in Europe (from less than 1% in Albania to 206% in Denmark) (Figure 1.4). In some jurisdictions, the assets accumulated in public pension reserve funds exceed those managed by pension providers, such as in Japan, Korea, Macau (China) and the Philippines.
As a percentage of GDP
Note: For more details, please see the methodological notes in Annex B.
Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics and other sources.
All pension plans recorded an increase in assets in 2024. Pension assets increased in both occupational plans, those that employers set up for their employees, and personal plans, where individuals select the pension providers themselves. However, the increase in assets in 2024 was lower in occupational DB plans, where plan sponsors, usually employers, guarantee future benefits to employees, than in occupational DC plans where there is no such guarantee from the employer (Figure 1.5).3 Assets in DB plans have been growing at a slower pace than other plans for years, and amounted to just below a third (31.9%) of all pension assets at end-2024, compared to 39.7% ten years before.
Note: For more details, please see the methodological notes in Annex B.
Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics, Statistics Canada; DREES (France); DNB (Netherlands); PREVIC (Brazil for occupational plans); RBA (Kenya).
Many jurisdictions have witnessed a decline in the weight of occupational DB plans. Over the last decade, the share of assets in DB plans has been shrinking the fastest in Iceland, Israel and Kenya (Figure 1.6). This move away from DB plans is ongoing even in countries that used to have a significant share of assets in DB plans (e.g. Ireland, the United States). The proportion of assets in DB plans has declined with the growing prevalence of DC plans. In the United Kingdom, DC plans have grown in size since the introduction of automatic enrolment in 2012, unlike private sector DB plans (Pensions Policy Institute, 2024[2]). New types of plans are also emerging, such as in the United Kingdom, where the first collective defined contribution (CDC) scheme opened in 2024 (DWP, 2025[3]). The proportion of assets in DB plans remains high and stable in only a few countries: Canada (57.4% at end-2022), and Finland (93.4%), the Netherlands (97.5%) and Switzerland (88.8%) (at end-2023). In Canada, the shift from DB to DC plans has been concentrated largely in the private sector. Canadian public sector pension plans, which hold the largest amount of occupational pension assets, remain mostly DB (Tamburro, 2023[4]). While the share of assets in DB plans is still relatively high in the Netherlands, the Future Pensions Act (in force from 1 July 2023) overhauled the system and requires existing plans to transition into new DC plans by 2028.
As a percentage of total assets managed by pension providers
Note: For more details, please see the methodological notes in Annex B.
Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics.
The growth in assets in DB plans has helped to improve the solvency of DB pensions plans, together with the rise in interest rates. The funding ratio of the DB plans (the ratio of assets over liabilities) rose again in 2024 in most jurisdictions, reaching new highs in the United Kingdom and the United States (Table 1.1). Assets of DB plans exceeded the level of liabilities at end-2024 in most reporting jurisdictions except Iceland (25.9%), the United States (74.5%) and Hong Kong (China) (95.9%). The funding levels vary across DB plans, such as in the United States where corporate pension plans have higher funding ratios than public pension plans. The 100 largest corporate pension plans in the United States held surpluses at end-2024 with a funding ratio above 100% (Milliman, 2025[5]).
In per cent
Note: For more details, please see the methodological notes in Annex B.
Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics and other sources.
Sponsors of DB plans, or the governing body of the funds, may have seized the opportunity of higher funding ratio to lock-in solvency gains and transfer risks to insurers. Sponsors may have several ways of transferring risks to insurers, such as through buy-ins, buy-outs or longevity swaps (Box 1.1). The demand for pension risk transfers has been increasing over the last few years in Canada, the United Kingdom and the United States (Morningstar DBRS, 2025[6]). In Canada, the number of deals and amounts of premiums for buy-ins and buy-outs increased and reached a record in 2024 (TELUS Health, 2025[7]). In the United Kingdom, private sector DB and hybrid plans exhibited higher insurance policies assets in 2024 (ONS, 2025[8]), indicating more buy-ins and longevity swap contracts between pension schemes and insurance companies. The United States saw a 14% increase in premiums for pension risk transfer in 2024, with more premiums paid for buy-outs (USD 48.1 billion) than for buy-ins (USD 3.7 billion) (LIMRA, 2025[9]).
Higher interest rates may have also made pension risk transfer deals more attractive to plan sponsors. Insurers may be able to offer more favourable prices due to higher interest rates (Morningstar DBRS, 2025[6]).
Buy-outs also appear to be gaining popularity in the Netherlands amid the transformation of occupational pension system. Some pension funds chose to transfer their portfolios to life insurers through buy-outs in 2024 instead of transitioning to DC schemes by 2028 (OECD, 2025[10]).
Sponsors of defined benefit plans face several risks. These risks include investment risk (which is the risk that investments provide lower returns than expected), longevity risk (which is the risk that members live longer than expected and payments have to be made for longer than planned) and interest rate risk (which is the risk that changes in interest rates increase the value of liabilities).
Plan sponsors can transfer some or all the risks to a third-party (e.g. insurer). This process is also called pension risk transfer. Plan sponsors may be able to choose among different options depending on the market:
Buy-in: this is a contract with an insurer who agrees to pay an income to cover the benefits of plan members, in exchange for a premium. The contract may only cover a subset of members. The contract is held in the plan’s assets.
Buy-out: this is a contract with an insurer fully transferring risks. The plan winds up and the insurer becomes fully responsible for paying benefits to plan members.
Longevity swap (also known as longevity insurance): this is an insurance policy protecting against the risk that members live longer than expected (longevity risk). It is an asset of the pension plan. It is similar to a buy-in but the policy only covers longevity risk.
Buy-ins and buy-outs are also known as bulk annuities or bulk purchase annuities.
Source: (Alight[11]), What is pension risk transfer? Ask Alight, https://www.alight.com/library/what-is-pension-risk-transfer; (The Pensions Regulator, 2025[12]), New models and options in defined benefit pensions schemes, https://www.thepensionsregulator.gov.uk/en/document-library/scheme-management-detailed-guidance/funding-and-investment-detailed-guidance/new-models-and-options-in-defined-benefit-pensions-schemes
The average amount of assets that the average pension provider manages has grown in most reporting jurisdictions over the last decade, although it remained relatively steady in US dollar in 2024 compared to 2023. The average amount of assets managed by pension fund administrators in Chile grew between 2023 and 2024 and over the last decade in local currency, but remained relatively stable when expressed in US dollar (Figure 1.7) due to the evolution of the exchange rate between Chile’s peso and the US dollar. In Mexico, the average amount of assets per administrator grew in 2024 in local currency but declined in US dollar due to the depreciation of the Mexican peso against the US dollar. Pension providers manage the largest average amounts in Latin America (e.g. Chile, Mexico), where the overall amount of assets for retirement is relatively large for a small number of providers (up to ten). By contrast, the average amount of assets per provider remains low or declined where asset-backed pension plans have not yet fully taken up (e.g. Türkiye) or where the number of providers is large (e.g. in Australia with hundreds of thousands of small managed superannuation funds).
In USD million
Note: For more details, please see the methodological notes in Annex B.
Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics and other sources.
Some countries have seen a reduction in the number of pension providers managing the growing amount of assets. This could be due to the consolidation of the sector through closures or mergers of institutions. Consolidation is underway in many European countries (Figure 1.8), which may be due to the search for pooling resources to comply with regulatory requirements (IORP II), for efficiency gains, or for a more professional management of assets. For example, Belgium’s pension supervisor (FSMA) noted two waves of consolidation of pension funds in 2008 and 2018, and attributed them to two European regulations (IORP I and IORP II) (FSMA, 2025[13]). In Ireland, the number of DB schemes keeps declining while DC schemes consolidate into (large) master trusts (Pensions Europe, 2024[14]). In the United Kingdom, the consolidation of the sector has seen many employers moving from single-employer trusts to master trusts and the number of master trusts reducing (Pensions Policy Institute, 2024[2]).
In unit
Note: For more details, please see the methodological notes in Annex B.
Source: OECD Global Pension Statistics and other sources.
The consolidation of the pension sector is not a global trend, and some countries saw the number of pension providers remain stable or grow. This was the case in countries with relatively few providers (e.g. in Latin America). Markets with a small number of pension providers and potentially high concentration may have room for additional market entry. Chile was considering introducing a new public institution to foster competition while developing its pension reform. Although less concentrated, other markets also saw the number of pension providers increase, such as in Australia. Although consolidation is under way in some parts of the sector, most funds are small self-managed super funds (SMSFs), and their number keeps growing. The growth of SMSFs may reflect a preference for the flexibility and control that these funds may provide over larger super funds.4 The average amount of assets per pension provider has also increased in Australia and in Latin America (in local currency) over the last decade, despite relatively stable or increasing number of pension providers, showing that pension assets grew faster than the number of providers.
← 1. Pension providers are pension funds, pension fund management companies, insurance companies, or other financial institutions. They may provide asset management services for the contributions they receive, as stipulated in a contract, or manage funds pooling all the assets for retirement.
← 2. The amount of assets in Singapore covers all the accounts of the Central Provident Fund (CPF), with some earmarked for other purposes than retirement (e.g. the Medisave account).
← 3. The pension provider may provide some sort of guarantees (e.g. a minimum investment rate of return).