01 Oct IRFA 2026 and the work behind better member outcomes
By Nazlie Seegers | Chief Experience Officer, Salt Employee Benefits | September 2026
IRFA Conference 2026 asked us to consider “A New World A New Normal”. I came away with a more grounded question: if our industry changes its policies, products and technology, what actually changes for the member? The answer must be visible from the first contribution to the final payment. It must survive the handovers between employers, funds, administrators, asset managers and regulators. The conference gave us several useful ways to test that promise. I also want to acknowledge Nancy Andrews, IRFA’s newly elected chairperson, and wish her well as she leads the Institute’s work. Bringing the industry together to examine these questions is a valuable platform for the collaboration and accountability that better member outcomes require.
A changed world calls for practical choices
Ronak Gopaldas’s opening analysis placed retirement funds in a shifting global order, where economic realities, political agendas, demographic change and migration are intertwined. His slides described “wicked problems” that do not yield to a single technical fix. The proposed playbook was to identify regional opportunities and apply a lens of pragmatism, partnerships and predictability. For our industry, that means resisting the temptation to treat one reform or one product as the whole answer. Boards must keep sight of the long term purpose of savings while making practical choices under uncertainty.
The global outlook panel placed member outcomes at the centre. Photo supplied by the author.
Start with a real person, not an average
In our session, moderated by Ntombi Mlambo, Christine du Toit and I explored what member centricity means in practice. I argued that when we design for the “average member”, we design for someone who does not exist. People differ in language, digital access, financial resilience, working history and family obligations. Christine made the point that some of the most consequential failures happen between functions: data handovers, contribution flows and the evidence needed to process claims. Each team may believe it has completed its part while the member remains stranded in the gap.
This is why member centricity cannot be a communication layer placed over an unchanged process. A member should be able to understand what has been received, what is missing, who is responsible and what happens next. The industry should measure the complete journey, including the effort required of the person at its centre.
Value for money is a global question about what members receive
Value for money is a global retirement policy priority. The International Organisation of Pension Supervisors has included transparency, benchmarking and value for money in its 2025–2026 programme, examining how supervisors can assess value and improve member outcomes. In the United Kingdom, proposals from the FCA, the Department for Work and Pensions and The Pensions Regulator bring investment performance, costs and service quality into the same assessment. These international developments give the conference discussion a wider context: pension systems must demonstrate what the total cost buys for the saver.
The investment discussions offered a useful challenge to boards. One slide asked whether members’ outcomes could withstand three years of underperformance from a fund’s best active manager, whether every holding had a clear reason for being in the portfolio, and whether the complexity paid for improved the reliability of outcomes. These are questions about value, not only investment fashion. A good return figure means less if costs, risk and service are considered separately from what members ultimately receive.
The FSCA presentation located South Africa within this international debate. It described low engagement, fragmented disclosures of returns, costs and services, and the agency problem that arises when employers choose arrangements for workers. The regulator said it was exploring a South African value for money framework; that is a direction under consideration, rather than a settled test. Its underlying question is already useful: are the costs justified by the overall benefits delivered to members over the long term?
For me, this question cannot stop at the administration fee. A lower quoted fee may look attractive in a tender, but the member experiences the quality of the service behind it: whether contributions are allocated correctly, records can be trusted, an employer is helped to resolve exceptions, claims are paid without avoidable delay, guidance is understandable and beneficiaries can be traced. Boards should examine those outcomes alongside the price and ask who bears the cost when a process fails. Equally, a higher fee should be justified with evidence of better service and results. Value is what the member receives from the whole arrangement, after costs, friction and risk—not simply the cheapest line item.
Unclaimed benefits are a warning about the whole system
The most uncomfortable slides concerned unclaimed benefits. National Treasury’s 2026 discussion paper cites an FSCA estimate of approximately R88.56 billion in unclaimed financial assets across banking and non-banking sectors in 2022. That is a historical estimate across several types of assets, not a current figure for retirement funds alone. The conference presentation linked unclaimed retirement benefits to incomplete records, changing employers and administrators, inconsistent tracing, and the legacy of migrant labour. A benefit can be properly calculated and still fail its purpose if it never reaches the person entitled to it.
Treasury has proposed a phased centralised framework, starting with retirement benefits, to improve tracing and claims. The proposal deserves serious engagement, but a central point of contact cannot repair poor records by itself. We need better identity and contact data at enrolment, updates when people change jobs or details, traceable handovers between providers, and clear accountability until payment. Prevention and recovery belong in the same conversation.
Treat contribution defaults as member harm
The contribution challenge session made the link between operations and governance unmistakable. Missing contributions can erode savings, delay benefits and damage trust. The slide on escalation set out a sequence of operational reporting, a written report to the board, and further notification and regulatory steps for material or persistent non-compliance. Its central message was more important than memorising a timeline: a default cannot sit indefinitely as an unresolved exception.
The board’s response must be evidenced. It should know the period, employer, affected members, schedules, payments, reconciliation and interest. It should record its decision, an action owner, deadlines and an escalation route, then monitor recovery and member protection to closure. Reporting that a problem exists is a starting point. Governance earns its meaning when the information leads to action and the member’s position is addressed.
Make technology and reporting useful
Several sessions pointed towards more data, clearer reporting and digital tools. Those developments can help, provided we judge them by what they make possible. A portal that looks simple but leaves contributions unreconciled has moved the friction out of sight. A dashboard that counts cases but cannot identify the affected members does little for a board’s oversight. We should ask whether technology detects exceptions earlier, connects records across handovers, reduces repeat requests and makes the next step intelligible to the member.
The FSCA slides gave that question more detail. Prudential Standard 1 of 2026 was presented as a consolidated framework for annual financial statements and regulatory reporting. Prudential Standard 2 of 2026 was described as bringing Regulation 28 quarterly exception reporting together with information on current holdings, with commencement still to be determined. These changes should make information more consistent and comparable. Yet the governance test remains whether a board can see concentration, non-compliance or a deteriorating outcome in time to intervene. The same standard should apply to claims data, contribution exceptions and member feedback.
Build for African realities
The wider conference discussion of a changed global order and African solutions was a reminder that our systems operate in real economies. Labour mobility, uneven formal employment, connectivity and distinct national rules shape the journeys we ask people to navigate. Collaboration across borders has promise, particularly when a worker’s records and benefits become difficult to trace after a move. The practical work lies in agreed data standards, identity, safe information sharing and a clear route to payment.
I left IRFA encouraged, and with a straightforward challenge for myself and the industry. For every initiative, we should name the member problem, identify who is affected, assign ownership across the journey and show what improved. The measure of a conference about a new normal is what we do after it: fewer contributions left unresolved, fewer benefits left unclaimed, less friction in a claim, and more people able to retire with dignity.