APC is in a strong financial position. That is precisely why participants have every right to demand higher standards of transparency, purchasing-power protection and accountability.
Opinion — by a pension contributor, future retiree and critical citizen
APC ended 2025 with a funding ratio of 115.6 percent, more than ANG 6 billion in assets and an investment return of 8.4 percent. Its 2025 annual report presents the picture of a financially strong pension fund. The funding ratio also increased from 113 percent to 115.6 percent.
That is good news.
But as a participant, I have another question:
What do these figures mean for my pension?
My pension is not a percentage in an annual report. It is my income tomorrow.
A Healthy Balance Sheet Is Not the Same as Purchasing Power
APC is a mature pension fund. The number of retirees is increasing, and the fund also expects further growth in the number of participants with deferred pensions. At the same time, pension assets are becoming increasingly important in ensuring that the fund can meet its obligations.
That is why strong investment returns are essential.
But one good year in the financial markets does not guarantee a good pension outcome twenty or thirty years from now. APC itself shows that its overall financial result depends on several factors: investment returns, indexation, pension accrual, costs and various risks.
The question therefore has to go beyond: How high was the return?
How resilient will our pensions be when investment returns disappoint? How is the fund preparing for an aging population, changes in interest rates and inflation? And how much room will remain for future indexation?
These are not questions from a difficult participant.
They are questions from someone entrusting his future to the fund.
That 0.38 Percent Does Matter
The annual report states that the government increased wages by 1.92 percent in 2025. APC adjusted pensions by 1.54 percent. The remaining 0.38 percentage point was added to the amount of indexation still to be made up in the future.
According to the fund’s policy, indexation is conditional and depends on APC’s financial position.
I understand that a pension fund must act prudently. Not every financial windfall can immediately be distributed.
But to a retiree, 0.38 percent is not an actuarial detail.
It is purchasing power.
Groceries, rent, electricity and healthcare expenses do not care about the level of APC’s funding ratio.
That is why I believe participants deserve more than being told that indexation is conditional. They deserve a clear explanation of the considerations behind these decisions, how much room exists within the policy and what the prospects are for catching up on indexation that was not previously granted.
Trust Requires More Than Numbers
Interestingly, APC itself identifies an important concern. A survey of participants found that while people have confidence in the fund, APC is sometimes perceived as technical and distant.
That deserves attention.
APC has knowledgeable board members and external specialists. The fund is supervised by the Central Bank of Curaçao and Sint Maarten and is also subject to oversight by the Court of Audit.
But expertise behind the scenes is not enough.
Participants must be able to understand what is happening.
Where is my pension money being invested? What risks are being taken? Why is a particular level of indexation granted or withheld? And what does today’s policy mean for my pension tomorrow?
If the answers are understandable only to actuaries, accountants and investment experts, there is still work to be done.
Our Money Deserves Critical Questions
APC manages collective pension assets. The pension contribution amounts to 18 percent: 12 percent paid by the employer and 6 percent by the employee.
Participants therefore have every right to critically examine how that money is invested.
APC invests locally as well and mentions projects including Brakkeput Noord and preparations for Waterfort Plaza in its annual report.
I am not opposed to local investments. On the contrary. If pension money can generate responsible returns while also contributing to Curaçao’s development, that can be a good combination.
But the order of priorities must remain clear:
The pension interests of participants come first.
Every major investment should therefore be subjected to straightforward questions: What return is expected? What risks are being taken? And why is this investment in the long-term interests of participants?
Creating value for society is important.
But it must never replace investment returns, sound risk management and transparency.
I Am Not Asking for a Favor
My criticism does not mean that APC is in poor financial condition. Quite the opposite. The figures for 2025 are strong.
The fund has also conducted a new Asset Liability Management study for its 2026–2028 strategic investment policy, with return and risk at its core.
That is precisely why the bar can and should be set higher.
As a participant, I do not simply want to hear that APC is financially solid.
I want to understand why.
I want to know how my interests are weighed. I want to understand why difficult decisions are made. And I want to be confident that broader social ambitions will never become more important than the pension promise made to participants.
APC itself states that pensions are about trust, independence and dignity for participants, and that this requires clear communication and accessible services.
I intend to hold APC to that standard.
Because I am not simply a number in a participant database. I am someone paying contributions today for an income that I must be able to depend on later.
My pension is my future.
That is why my questions are not an attack.
They are my right as a participant.
And ultimately, APC will not be judged only by its 2025 annual report.
My generation will make the real assessment later.
Not on paper.
But in our wallets.
drs. Luigi A. Faneyte MSc., CFE, CICA, CCS
Economist, financial expert and parliamentary staff member for PAR in the Curaçao Parliament.