OPS vs NPS vs UPS: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly?

Retirement planning is a crucial aspect of financial security, especially for government employees in India. The choices available—Old Pension Scheme (OPS), New Pension Scheme (NPS), and Unified Pension Scheme (UPS)—each come with their own sets of benefits and challenges. This article will critically examine these schemes.

OPS: The Good?

Why OPS may be Good:

• No Employee Contribution: Under the Old Pension Scheme (OPS), employees are not required to contribute to their pension fund. The government bears the entire cost, making it financially advantageous for employees.
• Guaranteed Pension: OPS provides a guaranteed pension amounting to 50% of the last drawn salary, along with dearness allowance (DA) hikes. This ensures a predictable and stable income during retirement, which is unaffected by market fluctuations.
• Inflation Protection: The inclusion of DA hikes means that the pension is adjusted to keep pace with inflation, ensuring that retirees maintain their purchasing power over time.

Example (considering last drawn salary is ₹1,00,000.00):
Consider an employee who joined the workforce in 2003 and retires in 2035 under OPS. This individual would receive a pension of approximately ₹50,000 per month, which is 50% of the final salary. This amount is further adjusted for inflation through DA hikes, offering substantial financial security.

Critical View:
OPS is often considered “good” because it offers a no-risk, guaranteed income in retirement, with no financial burden on the employee during their working years. However, it places a significant financial burden on the government, making it unsustainable in the long term.

NPS: The Bad?

Why NPS Might Be Bad:

• Market-Linked Returns: The New Pension Scheme (NPS) is market-linked, meaning the returns are subject to market fluctuations. While there is potential for higher returns, the lack of stability can be a drawback for those who prefer certainty. Historically, NPS returns have averaged around 8-9% annually, although they can vary significantly.
• No Guaranteed Pension: Unlike OPS, NPS does not guarantee a fixed pension amount. The final pension depends on the accumulated corpus and the annuity purchased at retirement, introducing uncertainty in retirement planning.
• Inflation Risk: NPS does not automatically adjust for inflation. This means that over time, the purchasing power of the pension could be eroded, especially if the returns are lower than expected.

Example (considering last drawn salary is ₹1,00,000.00):
For an employee who joined in 2005 and retires in 2035, assuming an average annual return of 8%, the accumulated corpus might be around ₹1.5 crore. Depending on the annuity option chosen, this could translate to a monthly pension of ₹50,000 to ₹70,000. However, if market conditions are favorable and returns are closer to 12%, the pension amount could be higher.

Critical View:
While NPS offers the potential for higher returns, its market-linked nature introduces risk and uncertainty. The lack of a guaranteed pension and the potential erosion of purchasing power due to inflation are significant concerns, making NPS less attractive to those who prioritize stability in retirement.

Now pause for a moment and think, given that the average mutual fund in India is delivering returns of 15-20% annually, it is reasonable to expect that the New Pension Scheme (NPS) could potentially achieve returns of at least 10% per year. Here’s an example illustrating this potential.

UPS: The Ugly?

Why UPS Might Be Ugly:

• Limited Flexibility and Lower Returns: The Unified Pension Scheme (UPS) offers a guaranteed pension amounting to 50% of the average basic salary drawn in the last 12 months before retirement. While this provides stability, the returns are fixed and typically lower than what NPS could potentially offer, particularly in a strong market environment.
• Employee Contribution Required: UPS mandates a 10% contribution from the employee’s salary, with an 18.5% contribution from the government. Despite the higher government contribution, the lower flexibility and fixed returns make it less attractive compared to the potential higher returns of NPS.
• Complex Commutation and Lump Sum Calculation: UPS involves complex calculations for lump sum payments and commutation. The pension amount is temporarily reduced if the retiree opts for a lump sum, with the original amount being reinstated after 15 years. This complexity can be confusing and may not be appealing to all employees.

Example (considering last drawn salary is ₹1,00,000.00):
An employee who joined in 2005 and retires in 2035 under UPS might receive approximately ₹40,000 per month as a pension, based on the average salary in the final year. This pension is guaranteed, but the lack of market-linked growth could make it less valuable compared to NPS, especially in a high-return market environment.

Critical View:
UPS can be considered “ugly” due to its lower flexibility, mandatory employee contributions, and the complex process involved in calculating the lump sum and pension amounts. The fixed returns might seem unattractive compared to the potential higher returns of NPS, particularly when considering the contribution requirement.

Conclusion: Evaluating Your Pension Options

Choosing the right pension scheme depends on your individual risk tolerance, financial goals, and retirement expectations. OPS is “good” for those who value a guaranteed, stable income with no contribution requirement. NPS might be seen as “bad” due to its market-linked risks, but it also offers the potential for higher returns if managed well. UPS could be considered “ugly” due to its lower flexibility, complex processes, and potentially lower returns.

Understanding the nuances of each scheme can help you make an informed decision that aligns with your long-term financial security and retirement goals.

FAQs

Do follow me at Linkedin

Looking for an Investment Idea? Click here