The PER (Retirement Savings Plan) continues to gain momentum

The PER (Retirement Savings Plan) continues to gain momentum, with assets under management growing by nearly 20 percent year-over-year. The Ministry of the Economy confirms its growing role in financing the economy.
 

Sustained Growth in Fund Inflows
In the third quarter of 2025, the PER had 12.7 million account holders, with total assets under management of 141.1 billion euros, up nearly 20% year-over-year. 

Individual PERs total 82.4 billion euros, group PERs total 31.7 billion, and mandatory PERs total 27.1 billion. 

According to France Assureurs, premiums rose by 16% in 2025, to 20.2 billion euros. The product’s success stems from the French public’s persistent concern about their standard of living in retirement (72% of non-retirees believe pensions are insufficient, according to the Cercle de l’Épargne), the upfront tax deduction mechanism, and competitive returns.
 

A Tool for Financing the Economy
Beyond its individual dimension, the PER plays a growing role in financing the productive economy. More than 80% of assets are invested in France and the European Union. More than 60% of assets under management contribute to corporate financing through equity and private debt, including more than 5 billion euros allocated to unlisted assets. The default-driven management approach promotes a gradual allocation toward dynamic assets during the savings phase, followed by a shift toward safer investments as retirement approaches.
 

Next Step: Expansion to SMEs and Broader Access
The Ministry of the Economy anticipates the continued development of the PER in 2026, particularly to contribute to the objectives of the Draghi Report regarding the financing of the European economy. The next step involves increased adoption among SMEs through the collective PER and broader access for low-income households. The PER is now establishing itself as a key instrument for long-term savings, at the intersection of demographic, wealth management, and economic challenges. 

For wealth management advisors, it is an essential tool for their clients’ retirement planning. The retirement savings plan is often presented as a single product. In reality, it is primarily a framework: while the tax structure is the same, the plans vary significantly depending on the insurers, distributors, fees, and financial offerings. A France Assureurs/Cercle de l’Épargne survey highlights significant performance disparities in managed accounts, which remain the dominant investment approach for the general public.
 

Mostly managed accounts… with highly uneven performance
In 2024, the France Assureurs association published a performance barometer for PERs: the variation is striking. Among managed accounts, the best-performing plan posted a return of +15.32% in the dynamic profile, while the worst-performing plan managed only +10.09%. The same pattern holds true for the balanced profile (+11.42% versus +7.42%) and the conservative profile (+7.38% versus +3.10%). These disparities can be attributed to the selection of investment vehicles, the quality of asset allocation, and, of course, fees that erode performance over time.
 

The PER is therefore less of a product and more of a “pre-packaged portfolio.” Two contracts with the same regulatory name may offer radically different investment universes: more or fewer stocks, more or less diversified funds, more or less transparent fees, and management strategies that are more or less appropriate. For the advisor, the key is to look under the hood: the composition of the portfolios, the degree of diversification, equity exposure, methods for gradually building up the portfolio, and rebalancing discipline.
 

Why Performance Differences Matter More Than We Think
With a retirement investment, performance isn’t just a “bonus.” It determines the final principal, because the time horizon plays a major role: an annual difference of just a few percentage points, repeated over many years, can change the order of magnitude of the final result. It’s tempting to focus solely on the tax advantage; however, a less-than-competitive plan can, over time, offset part of the initial gain. The PER is therefore no exception to the rule regarding investment limits: the investment limit is important, but asset allocation and fees make all the difference.
 

Tax benefits don’t make up for everything
The PER retains a powerful incentive: the tax deductibility of voluntary contributions, which depends on the marginal tax rate. This mechanism can enhance the ability to save, since part of the savings effort is “co-financed” by the tax reduction. But tax benefits cannot offset a performance that is several percentage points lower if that underperformance persists for years. The decision must therefore balance two factors: the immediate tax benefit and the quality of management over the long term. A good PER is not just one that offers “tax relief”; it is one that converts savings into capital with the right level of risk.
 

Beyond performance, the PER raises a question about how to withdraw funds: lump sum, annuity, or a combination. The answer depends on the need for regular income in retirement, family circumstances, and the desire to maintain flexibility. This is not a minor detail: it influences how risk is managed and the portion of one’s total assets to allocate to the PER.
 

Making the Right Choice: A Simple but Demanding Method
The barometer suggests a selection method. Step one: Compare fees (contribution, management, and transaction) and ensure they are transparent. Over the long term, recurring fees often have the greatest impact. Step two: Analyze the financial structure. A PER that provides access to a diversified range of investment vehicles (including ETFs, where applicable) and allows for a switch to self-directed management offers greater flexibility. Step 3: Evaluate the managed portfolio itself: how are the profiles constructed, what is the actual level of risk, and how does the asset allocation evolve with age?
 

Finally, the PER should not be considered in isolation. From a wealth management perspective, it fits into a broader strategy that includes life insurance (for liquidity and estate planning), the PEA (for stocks), real estate, and—above all—employee savings plans, when available. The message from 2026 is clear: the PER is not a standard product. It is a tool; and like any tool, its value depends entirely on how it is chosen, funded, and managed.