Today, with many DB pension schemes better funded and a growing range of options available, trustees and sponsors are increasingly focused on developing a clear endgame strategy. Indeed, around 80% of schemes are fully funded on a low dependency funding basis and more than 60% of schemes are fully funded on a solvency (or “buyout”) basis, according to the Pension Regulator (TPR)*[1]. The overall position of the schemes included in our survey supports similar results.
Against this backdrop, we surveyed pension scheme trustees and corporate pension managers and received over 130 responses, representing more than a quarter (£300 billion) of all private sector DB scheme assets in the UK, to understand their current views and perspectives on the growing range of endgame options available.
In our Endgame Report 2026, we find that:
Endgame strategy is becoming clearer, but it is not yet set in stone
Full insurance remains the predominant long-term strategy, but more schemes, especially larger ones are looking to run-on. Despite the majority having considered their endgame options previously, over half of the schemes surveyed are expecting to revisit their strategy in the next two years.
Member security is paramount, but strategy is typically shaped by covenant, size and accounting considerations
Overall, larger schemes are seeing greater scope for run-on and surplus sharing opportunities whilst managing the risks, with smaller schemes prioritising reducing governance burdens.
“Fair share” and confidence in funding and covenant strength are essential for surplus sharing
However, fair does not always translate to an equal share, with most respondents favouring an outcome that tilts towards the employer.
A larger surplus opportunity is emerging as schemes reassess risk appetite and focus on low dependency
Close to half of the schemes expecting a modest increase in risk if a surplus-sharing deal is agreed and a similar proportion are willing to consider sharing relative to a low dependency measure of the liabilities.
In some cases, the prospect of higher member benefits from a superfund could steer schemes away from buyout
Although buyout is generally seen as safer than superfunds, a meaningful number would seriously consider a superfund if it meant that higher benefits could be delivered to members.
WTW has developed frameworks and modelling tools to help evaluate your endgame options. Key to our process is to ensure:
- Clear objectives are set: The priority objectives and critical issues for each party are clearly articulated from outset to help form an objective assessment against the options.
- The big picture is considered: Undertake an initial feasibility to understand the art of the possible. For all the options that fit with the objectives, the opportunities, risks and practical implications need to be properly examined and understood.
- The option is sharpened and defined: Further assess the preferred solution to optimise the outcomes and overcome initial hurdles and, where needed, ensure guardrails and protections are acceptable to trustees and sponsors.
- The finer details are agreed: Achieve stakeholder agreements, setting out the clear rationale for the preferred solution before proceeding to implement a robust and durable approach.
If you are interested in finding our more, please read our Endgame Report 2026 and contact us or your usual WTW consultant.
Footnote
- * Source: Annual Funding Statement 2026 (TPR, 6 May 2026). Return to article
Authors
