UNJSPF Claims Record-Breaking Performance in 2025
UN Feb 17 2026
The United Nations Joint Staff Pension Fund (UNJSPF) closed 2025 with record-breaking results, processing 23,277 new benefits — 33% more than the previous record set in 2024 — driven largely by the UN80 Initiative, which pushed initial separations up by 53%.
Despite the surge, 95.5% of new benefits were processed within the 15-day benchmark target. Client Services handled 114,188 queries, resolving them on average within two and a half business days.
Technology advances included the rollout of the automated Separation Notification Interface at UNICEF in June 2025, the UNJSPF Connect CRM system with a 91% positive client rating, and a digital certificate of entitlement used by nearly 60% of eligible beneficiaries. An overall client satisfaction score of 4 out of 5 was recorded across all client groups.
"Behind these numbers lies a clear priority: delivering excellent service to our clients. The Fund's ability to sustain high performance during a period of significant organizational change is a credit to our team." — Rosemarie McClean, UNJSPF Chief Executive
There may be different ways of measuring success. A better way is to measure how much the pot has grown and how sustainable the growth is.
ReplyDeleteWith record separations, the income to the pension fund will go down, while there will be additional payouts for many years to come. In other words, there will be no more contributions from the many staff who leave, while the number of recipients of pensions will go up. Surely that is not success. An analysis of the Pension Fund's sustainability would be more appropriate than bragging about process time and satisfaction ratings.
ReplyDeleteEqually important is the fact that the US has experienced 20% inflation over the past 5 years, affecting those based in the US in particular, but others with pensions in USD are also affected by the dollar having lost 10% of its value vis-Ã -vis a basket of currencies. The pensions have not kept up with inflation or the loss of value of the dollar. That is a concern. Financial repression combined with infaltion are well tried and tested ways of dealing with overindebtedness, something most countries suffer from. That might be what we are experiencing over again, although no government or central bank would admit to it. An analysis of the impact of these phenomena would be welcome.
Delete@ anonymous: pension benefits in Dollar increased more than compensated for the inflation:
Delete2022 +8.6% (effective 1 Apr 2022)
2023 +6.4% (effective 1 Apr 2023)
2024 +3.4% (effective 1 Apr 2024)
2025 +2.8% (effective 1 Apr 2025)
Compound adjustment over the past 5 years: 22.8%
Certainly, the UN system knows how to look after itself
Detlef is right to point out the nominal increases in USD terms. A compound adjustment of 22.8% over five years certainly looks reassuring at first glance.
DeleteHowever, two additional factors matter for those of us residing in the Euro area and other parts of the world taking their pensions in USD.
First, US cumulative inflation over roughly the same period has been around 20%. That means the real increase in purchasing power in the United States is modest at best, closer to statistical noise than to generosity.
Second, and more importantly for Euro-area-based retirees, the EUR has appreciated against the USD over this period by more than the combined effect of inflation and nominal increases. In practical terms, someone receiving a pension in dollars but spending in euros has experienced a decline in effective purchasing power, even if the USD amount on the payslip looks higher.
So while the pension may have kept pace in nominal USD terms, that does not necessarily translate into real value for those outside the United States. Currency exposure is not theoretical; it shows up every month when converting dollars into euros or other currencies to pay rent, utilities, or groceries.
This suggests that the situation is more nuanced than “the system knows how to look after itself.” For a globally distributed retiree population, sustainability and real purchasing power, not nominal growth percentages in USD, are the metrics that matter.
A fuller analysis, incorporating inflation differentials and exchange-rate movements, would give a clearer picture than headline compound figures alone.
@ Thomas: I don't agree.
DeleteFive years ago, one euro was worth $1.21; today it's worth $1.17 (which is more advantageous for European UN pensioners).
Over the past five years, the cumulative inflation rate in the Eurozone has been 23%. At the same time, my COLA statements show a 27% increase in benefits.
Ergo, rising egg prices in the United States work to the advantage of UN pensioners living in the rest of the world.
The five-year COLA figures are noted.
DeleteThey demonstrate that during a period of elevated global inflation and extraordinary monetary conditions, nominal adjustments broadly tracked consumer prices in selected jurisdictions. That is welcome.
It does not follow that the Fund’s long-term sustainability has been demonstrated.
Record separations imply a structural shift: fewer contributors, more beneficiaries, and longer payout durations. This is not a matter of interpretation but of demographic arithmetic.
Operational efficiency, client satisfaction scores, and timely processing are indicators of administrative competence. They are not indicators of actuarial resilience.
A pension fund is a multi-decade liability structure. Five favourable years are insufficient evidence of robustness.
The appropriate metric is the funding ratio under conservative return assumptions, stress-tested against demographic and market volatility.
Until that analysis is presented, confidence should remain measured.
@ Thomas: You can relax. As of 31 December 2023, the assets of the Pension Fund were ~US$92.3 billion vs. liabilities of ~US$83.2 billion. It means the funding ratio was about 111 %. And that means there were more assets than promised benefits (on this closed-group view).
Delete
DeleteYou are right, a 111% funding ratio at the end of 2023 is, on the face of it, reassuring. More assets than liabilities is a good place to start.
But three caveats remain.
First, 2023 is already some distance away in market terms. A snapshot funding ratio tells us what the picture looked like then. It says nothing about how resilient the Fund is under less friendly return assumptions, weaker equity performance, or persistent inflation.
Second, most assets are dollar-denominated, while most beneficiaries live outside the dollar zone. Over the past decade, EUR/USD has swung dramatically. For those drawing in USD but spending in other currencies, exchange-rate movements materially affect real purchasing power. A healthy funding ratio does not remove currency risk.
Third, demographics are arithmetic, not opinion. Record separations mean fewer contributors and more beneficiaries. Over a multi-decade liability horizon, sustainability depends on conservative return assumptions, not just on one favourable valuation point.
Measured confidence is welcome. Prudence is healthier still.
Not to worry, even if UN pensions get cut by half. More than seven billion people manage to live on less.
DeleteTrue, more than seven billion people manage to live on less. Many also manage without running water, functioning healthcare, or a predictable income. That, however, has never been the benchmark for sound pension policy.
DeleteThe question is not whether retirees could survive on less. Most people can survive on very little. The question is whether a contributory, actuarially designed pension system should aim merely at survival, or at delivering the benefits it promised, on the assumptions under which contributions were made.
A 111% funding ratio in 2023 is reassuring. But funding ratios are snapshots, not guarantees. Markets move. Return assumptions matter. Currency exposure matters, particularly when liabilities are effectively global, but assets are predominantly dollar-based. And demographics remain stubbornly arithmetic rather than philosophical.
After all, “others have less” is a moral observation. Sustainability is a financial one. Pension funds, fortunately, operate on the latter.