The third option – “co-branding” – was deemed less favourable because it would perpetuate the existing situation, where schemes are protected from competition by national borders. If the majority of schemes were to opt for co-branding and this situation were to become  2  BIS Review 135/2010  permanent, the market would remain highly fragmented.
Few people realize how large the capital stock will need to be and how low the rate of withdrawal has to be, irrespective of the asset allocation chosen. Individuals have a poor appreciation of the financial implications of longevity.