Employee Savings Plans: 229 billion that no one really manages
The total value of employee savings and corporate pension plans reached 229.4 billion euros at the end of 2025, up 14.7 percent, with 13.2 million beneficiaries. Relative to the number of people involved, these assets are still largely managed by default.
It is the third-largest source of financial assets for the French, behind life insurance and bank deposits, and the one they talk about the least. In March, based on data as of December 31, 2025, the French Financial Management Association (AFG) estimated the cumulative total of employee savings and corporate retirement savings at 229.4 billion euros, up 14.7% year-over-year. A record high. The total has more than tripled since 2008, with an average annual growth rate of 7.1%.
The number of people involved is just as striking as the amount: 13.2 million employees have access to a plan—whether a company savings plan (PEE), a group retirement savings plan, or the former PERCO. In its previous semi-annual survey, the AFG counted 13.3 million account holders and noted that 31% of employees had an employee savings plan and 27% had a group retirement savings plan, with annual contributions totaling 16.3 billion euros.
A legacy that is imposed rather than chosen
What sets this form of savings apart is that it comes about without having been decided upon. Profit-sharing and incentive payments are distributed in the spring; the company matches contributions according to a formula that employees often learn about for the first time then, and the decision boils down to a simple choice—take the money or invest it—which must be made within a few days. If no response is given, the funds are automatically allocated, usually to a money market fund or a managed investment portfolio whose time horizon does not necessarily align with the employee’s financial plans.
The consequences become apparent over time. An employee who consistently receives profit-sharing payments pays income tax on them, whereas contributions to an employee savings plan (PEE) are tax-exempt—excluding social security contributions—subject to a five-year lock-in period with nine exceptions for early withdrawal, including the purchase of a primary residence. An employee who contributes without considering the employer match is leaving money on the table: the employer match can be up to three times the employee’s contribution, subject to an annual cap, which remains the best immediate return available to an individual.
Corporate retirement savings add another layer. Across all formats, retirement savings plans (PERs) had 12.7 million account holders and €141.1 billion in assets under management, according to an inter-federal report published in February, including €82.4 billion in individual PERs, €31.7 billion in group employer-sponsored PERs, and €27.1 billion in mandatory PERs. Looking solely at insurance-based PERs, France Assureurs reported 8.5 million policyholders and €124.8 billion in assets under management as of the end of June, with €3.2 billion in contributions during the second quarter and 229,600 new policyholders over the period.
The Blind Spot in Financial Advice
The problem isn’t the lack of investment vehicles; it’s the lack of a point of contact. An employee with 30,000 euros in a PEE and a group PER isn’t a profitable client for an independent wealth management advisor, whose business model relies on larger asset under management. Nor is the employee well-served by their bank, which does not manage these accounts, nor by their company’s account custodian, whose role is limited to executing orders.
Some companies are filling this gap by billing the employer for support services rather than billing the employee for the product. Industry professionals estimate this “corporate wealth” at over 230 billion euros for more than 13 million employees—a figure consistent with AFG data—and argue that separating advisory services from the sale of financial products is essential for providing meaningful support. While this argument warrants further factual verification, it highlights a reality: value sharing has generated revenue streams, not investment decisions.
For an employee, three checks are worth the time it takes to do them at the start of the school year. The plan’s rules, to understand the employer-match formula and its cap. The default allocation grid, to see if funds are sitting in a cash-equivalent investment when the investment horizon exceeds ten years. And the fees—partly paid by the employer and partly by the employee—whose split changes upon leaving the company, at which point many former employees discover that they are now responsible for paying account maintenance fees on a plan they had forgotten about.
