캐나다 연금 플랜: 지속 가능성 및 은퇴 계획 인사이트

### 캐나다 연금 플랜에 대한 이해: 캐나다인을 위한 지속 가능한 은퇴 자산
* 🇨🇦 캐나다 연금 플랜(CPP)은 캐나다인의 중요한 은퇴 자산으로, 26세부터 65세까지 최대 불입액을 채운 경우 **70세부터 매월 약 3,800달러의 잠재적 혜택**을 받을 수 있습니다.
* 📈 2025년 기준 연간 최대 CPP 적립금은 **약 8,860달러**로, 고용주가 제공하는 확정급여형 퇴직연금의 감소 추세 속에서 퇴직자의 소득원으로서 그 가치가 더욱 부각될 것입니다.
* 🔍 미국 사회보장제도와 달리 **CPP는 부분적으로 기금이 적립**되어 있어 자산에서 미래의 급여를 지급할 수 있으므로 신규 기여금에만 의존하는 것을 완화합니다.
* 🛡 CPP는 1966년 도입된 이래 개혁을 거듭해 왔으며, **1997년에는 초과 적립금을 투자하고 장기적인 지속가능성을 보장하기 위해 캐나다연금계획투자위원회(CPPIB)를 설립**하는 등 큰 변화를 겪었습니다.
* 💼 캐나다 최고 보험계리사는 CPP의 건전성을 독립적으로 평가하여 **현재 기여율이 최소 요구 사항을 훨씬 상회**하는 등 **향후 75년 이상 지속 가능한 플랜**임을 확인합니다.
* 📊 현재 CPP는 **6,465억 달러**로 전 세계에서 7번째로 큰 연금 기금을 보유하고 있으며, 향후 투자 수익이 급여에서 차지하는 비중이 증가할 것으로 예상하고 있습니다.
* 💡 적극적인 운용 전략에 대한 우려에도 불구하고 CPP 인베스트먼트는 **장기 부채를 효과적으로 헤지**하고 있으며, **탄탄한 재무 상태**를 유지하고 있어 안정적인 은퇴 소득원이 되고 있습니다.
* 🎙 캐나다의 수석 보험계리사가 Rational Reminder 팟캐스트를 비롯한 다양한 토론에서 강조한 것처럼 은퇴를 계획하는 사람들에게는 **CPP를 중요한 수입원**으로 고려하는 것이 필수적입니다.

캐나다 연금 플랜은 지속 가능한 은퇴 자산으로 캐나다인의 재정 계획에 매우 중요한 역할을 합니다.

The Canada Pension Plan is one of the most valuable retirement assets available to Canadians. By my calculations, a 26-year-old today who maxes out their CPP contributions until age 65 will receive around $3,800 per month for life, adjusted for inflation, starting at

age 70. That amount is guaranteed for life and increases with the Consumer Price Index once the benefit starts. But is it really guaranteed? Only if the Canada Pension Plan remains solvent. I'm Ben Felix, Chief Investment Officer at PWL Capital, and I'm going to tell you

why CPP probably will be there when you retire, and why not counting on it is likely a mistake. As of 2025, the maximum annual combined employer and employee Canada Pension Plan contribution will be approximately $8,860, and it is extremely valuable to

retirees. Inflation-indexed annuities are not available for sale privately in Canada, and most employers have stopped offering defined benefit pension plans to their employees. Unlike Social Security in the US, CPP is partially funded, meaning that it is able to sustain paying a portion of future benefits

out of the assets held by the plan, as opposed to fully relying on new contributions to fund benefits. Despite CPP being a well-run and well-funded pension plan, a lot of people are skeptical that it will be there for them when they retire. This view has real

financial planning implications. Someone who does not count on CPP would need to save substantially more than someone who does, and people who think CPP will collapse any day now are more likely to take their pension benefit early, which has real, quantifiable expected costs. I'm going to argue that thinking this way is

A big mistake when CPP was introduced in 1966: it was like Social Security in the US, a pay-as-you-go plan. This means that all benefits for retired members were funded by contributions from working members of the plan. Changing demographics have strained Social Security, but Canada had the foresight to

introduce partial funding before this became a problem. Back in 1996, it became clear that an aging population, increasing longevity, and the retirement of the baby boomer generation would make the plan unsustainable in the future. A major CPP reform in 1997 increased

contribution rates and introduced the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB). I suspect that some of the CPP skeptics out there still remember that this problem was identified back in 1996, but didn't get the memo that a solution was enacted.  CPPIB has the mandate of

investing excess contributions of the plan in the financial markets to help fund future benefit payments. Rather than a pay-as-you-go program, CPP became a partially funded program intended to be sustainable far into the future. The sustainability of the plan is determined by Canada's Chief Actuary, who provides

independent valuation and advisory services to the federal government. The independence of the Chief Actuary to report on the health of government programs without interference is enshrined in legislation.  The report on CPP independence from government interference is further supported by independent peer review from external

actuaries. Stated simply, the opinion of the Chief Actuary and their report on CPP sustainability are not government propaganda. The actuary report on the CPP determines the minimum ongoing contribution rates for the plan to be sustainable. These minimum contribution rates are compared to the legislated contribution

Contribution rates are the rates that determine how much Canadians are currently required to contribute. If the minimum contribution rates are below the legislative rates, the plan is deemed unsustainable. On the other hand, if the legislative rate is deemed insufficient, the Minister of Finance may decide to

change the contribution rate, change CPP benefits, do both, or do nothing. In any case, two-thirds of the provinces covering two-thirds of the population must agree on any changes to the plan. If an agreement is not reached to resolve an insufficient contribution rate, the CPP

legislation has a self-sustaining mechanism. For base CPP, this means an increase in the contribution rate and freezing of the indexation of benefits. While the possibility for detrimental changes like this exists, recent changes have been beneficial. We've seen post-retirement disability benefits for

early retirees added, the removal of some reductions in survivor benefits for younger survivors, and the introduction of post-retirement benefits. An important point to reiterate here is that CPP is not fully funded and is not designed to be fully funded. It is designed to be

sustainable through a combination of ongoing contributions from working Canadians and investment income from the CPP Investments portfolio. CPP holds the seventh largest pension fund in the world, currently sitting at $646.5 billion, with 30% from investment income. The contribution from investment income is

projected to increase to 40% by 2050. Right now, contributions coming into CPP fully cover ongoing benefits, while all investment income is reinvested into the portfolio. It's projected that by 2030, about 9% of benefits will be funded by

Investment income increasing to 16% by 2050. This is exactly what was planned for with the CPP reforms in 1997; it is working as intended. Demographics are changing, reducing contributions going into the plan relative to the benefits it needs to pay, but there's a pool of

assets there to fund the shortfall. The 31st Actuarial report on the CPP finds that the minimum contribution rates are well below the legislated rates, suggesting that the plan is sustainable for the next 75 years, at least. For example, the minimum contribution rate

for base CPP is 99.54%, which is lower than the legislated rate of 99.9%. Of course, these are long-term projections with a ton of uncertainty surrounding each assumption. To address this, the actuarial report runs through multiple adverse scenarios to test the

sustainability of the plan. They look at a range of outcomes for things like investment returns, economic growth, fertility, mortality and migration, inflation, income distributions, and climate change. While some adverse scenarios suggest that there would be a required increase in the minimum contribution rate, most do not.  Most

impactful are low investment returns, low economic growth, and some of the worst climate scenarios. But overall, the plan is resilient to changes in the assumptions. On the topic of investment returns, I do want to come back to how CPP Investments manages the funds' assets. Early on, they employed a simple index

investing strategy for public stocks and bonds, but in 2006 they made an explicit shift toward active management to provide access to a broader set of investment strategies—their words, not mine. Today, their total costs to manage the portfolio come out to about 1% of

The portfolio's value: 1% to manage $646 billion is wild! If you don't already know my stance on this, I think that most investors, including wealthy families and pension funds, should probably keep it simple and invest in low-cost index funds.

For the majority of their portfolios, an index portfolio would cost very little to manage and implement. But instead, we're paying 1% for active management. I'm not crazy to think that a fund the size of CPP's could just index.

Norway's sovereign wealth fund, which is even larger than CPP's, does mostly look like an index investor and, unsurprisingly, has much lower costs than CPP. To be fair, CPP Investments has a different mandate than Norway's fund; CPP has to meet real long-term liabilities.

The CPP benefits it has to pay out, which are relatively fixed in nature. Evidence does suggest that the investment management model employed by CPP Investments, often referred to as the Canadian pension fund model, does a good job hedging real long-term liabilities. CPP Investments claims that they have

comparative advantages allowing them to invest in markets that wouldn't make sense for an individual household. These include a long-term investment horizon, their significant size and scale, the certainty of the assets they manage, and being the beneficiaries of generally predictable and stable cash flows. There

is anecdotal evidence that CPP Investments has been able to use these advantages to create value for the fund on some specific deals, but overall and in the long run, it's not obvious that active management has been paying off in terms of returns. CPP Investments has a

Reference portfolio that it uses as a benchmark; it is 85% global equity and 15% Canadian government bonds. Since the inception of its active management strategy in 2006 through to the end of its fiscal year 2024, the actively managed portfolio trailed the reference portfolio by 0.1%.

Annualized, or $42.7 billion. There's also a question of whether 85% equity and 15% fixed income is the right benchmark. The CPP portfolio is heavily invested in illiquid private assets, making its overall level of riskiness hard to compare to a portfolio of public

stocks and bonds. If they are taking more risk than the reference portfolio and underperforming it, that is not great. I'm not crazy about the complex and elaborate investment model that CPP Investments is currently running. I think they would be doing just fine if they

had stuck with indexing back in 2006. I mean, I don't just think that; I know it, because they have trailed the reference portfolio since then. But it's also important to recognize that CPP Investments should be benchmarked on its ability to hedge its real long-term

liabilities, which it does seem to be succeeding at, not on its ability to beat a passive benchmark. Despite my concerns and my preference for a more passive approach, CPP Investments could be doing worse. They are managing a portfolio diversified across asset classes all

over the world, and their investment model is well-suited to the purpose of hedging its real long-term liabilities. If stocks have lower returns in the future, their exposure to other risk premiums should help the fund. Time will tell, but at least so far they've been

able to nearly match the reference portfolio while hedging their real liabilities, which is pretty impressive considering their high costs.  Canada Pension Plan is a well-managed and well-funded public pension plan. It is designed to withstand the demographic shifts that we are currently experiencing.

through, and it's resilient to multiple adverse scenarios that could affect the fund's sustainability. While it does employ a relatively expensive active management strategy that I don't fully agree with, it has nearly matched its benchmark since 2006, and research suggests that its investment management model is well

suited to its purpose. In the words of Canada's Chief Actuary, CPP is in excellent financial health; it's also in excellent governance health. If you do your retirement planning, please count CPP as one of the major retirement income sources for your retirement. If

you want to hear more from Canada's Chief Actuary, Asia Billig, she was a guest on episode 318 of the Rational Reminder podcast. If you don't know what that is, it's my podcast; we release an episode every week. You should check it out. Thanks for watching. I'm Ben Felix,

Chief Investment Officer at PWL Capital. If you enjoyed this video, do me a favor: send it to someone who thinks CPP won't be there for them when they retire.

Will Canada Pension Plan (CPP) Still Be There When You Retire?

I post videos on investing, financial decision-making, and living a good life.

My name is Ben Felix. I am a Portfolio Manager and the Head of Research at PWL Capital. I am a CFA charterholder and CFP professional. I am securities licensed in Canada by CIRO.

All channel content is produced and owned by PWL Capital Inc.


Ben Felix

캐나다 연금 플랜(CPP)의 가치와 보장

CPP는 캐나다인에게 귀중한 은퇴 자산으로, 매월 약 3,800달러(인플레이션에 따라 조정)를 지급받을 수 있습니다.

CPP 지급 보장은 플랜의 지급 능력에 따라 달라집니다.

2025년 연간 최대 CPP 부담금(고용주 및 직원)은 약 8,860달러가 될 것입니다.

CPP는 완전 종량제 시스템과 달리 부분적으로 자금을 지원받습니다.

CPP의 미래에 대한 회의론은 재무 계획과 연금 혜택 결정에 영향을 미칩니다.

처음에는 종량제 요금제였던 CPP는 인구 통계학적 변화로 인해 1997년에 개혁을 거쳤습니다.

개혁에는 기여율 인상과 국민연금투자위원회(CPPIB) 설립이 포함되었습니다.

CPPIB는 초과 기여금을 투자하여 미래 혜택을 위한 기금을 조성하여 CPP를 부분적으로 기금화합니다.

수석 보험계리사는 독립적으로 CPP 지속가능성을 평가하며, 동료 검토를 통해 보고서를 뒷받침합니다.

최소 기여율은 법으로 정해진 요율과 비교하여 플랜의 지속 가능성을 결정하며, 변경 시에는 주정부의 동의가 필요합니다.

최근 변경 사항에는 CPP 혜택에 유익한 추가 사항이 포함되어 있습니다.

CPP는 기부금과 투자 수입을 통해 지속 가능하도록 설계되었으며, 전액 기금으로 운영되는 것이 아닙니다.

CPP는 투자 수익이 증가할 것으로 예상되는 대규모 연금 기금을 보유하고 있습니다.

투자 수익은 점점 더 많은 혜택의 재원이 될 것으로 예상됩니다.

31차 보험 계리 보고서는 최소 75년 동안 지속 가능성을 제시합니다.

보험 계리 보고서는 다양한 불리한 시나리오를 평가하여 플랜의 복원력을 테스트합니다.

CPP 투자 관리 및 액티브 대 패시브 전략

CPP 투자는 2006년에 적극적 관리로 전환하여 약 1%의 관리 비용이 발생했습니다.

발표자는 패시브 지수 기반 투자 전략에 대한 선호도를 표명합니다.

대부분 소극적인 접근 방식을 채택하는 노르웨이의 국부 펀드와 비교합니다.

CPP 인베스트먼트의 임무는 다르며 장기 부채를 관리해야 합니다.

2006년 이후 적극적으로 관리되는 포트폴리오는 기준 포트폴리오에 비해 실적이 약간 저조했습니다.

능동적 관리 전략의 복잡성과 비용에 대한 우려.

CPP는 잘 관리되고 불리한 시나리오에 탄력적으로 대응합니다.

투자 전략에 대한 우려에도 불구하고 벤치마크와 거의 일치하는 성과를 거두었으며 부채를 효과적으로 헤지하고 있습니다.

발표자는 은퇴 소득 계획에 CPP를 포함할 것을 권장합니다.

캐나다의 수석 보험계리사가 출연하는 팟캐스트를 참조하세요.