Altersvorsorgedepot 2027: Not a sure thing

Dr. Jutta Krienke

Published on 6 August 2026 · Managing Director, Aeiforia GmbH and Aeiforia Operations GmbH

From 2027, the Altersvorsorgedepot (the new state-subsidised retirement investment account) expands subsidised private retirement provision. Its success depends on comprehensible products, transparent costs and a well-founded assessment of existing Riester-Rente (Germany's existing subsidised private pension) contracts. What consumer surveys, the broker market and BaFin show.

The simple formula: policy here, ETF there

The debate around the new Altersvorsorgedepot is usually told as a simple formula: expensive life insurance on one side, a cheap ETF at a neobroker on the other. Anyone who follows this narrative is making their retirement decision on too narrow a basis. That is because the Altersvorsorgedepot, launching on 1 January 2027 alongside the Riester-Rente, will be neither a sure thing nor a pure free-for-all.

The key question is not "policy or ETF?" but: what is left after all costs are deducted — and under what conditions do you achieve that result?

Three perspectives give a solid answer. Each measures a different fact, but together they add up to a single test question:

• The customer view: savers want access to the capital market, and very few want it with no protection at all.
• The intermediary view: the market expects more complex advice and anticipates that costs will become the decisive criterion.
• The supervisory view: BaFin increasingly assesses retirement products by the benefit that remains for the customer after costs.

These three perspectives lead to two concrete consequences that feed into your decision: the effective costs, and the question of what should happen to an existing Riester-Rente contract. We cover both below.

58 percent of the population eligible for the subsidy have already heard of the new retirement model^[3]. Awareness, however, is not the same as understanding. Anyone who does not know the statutory framework and the subsidy logic cannot meaningfully assess even the cheapest provider. So let's start where the decision actually gets made: with the savers themselves.

The new product landscape demands more than a price comparison

The Altersvorsorgereformgesetz (Retirement Provision Reform Act) was promulgated in May 2026. The new products can be offered from 1 January 2027. The law distinguishes two product categories: Altersvorsorgedepots, including the Standarddepot, and guarantee products.

In the Altersvorsorgedepot, capital is invested without a contribution guarantee. This allows for higher equity allocations and greater return potential. At the same time, savers bear the capital market risk. The Standarddepot follows the same principles but reduces the number of investment decisions needed through statutory default settings.

Guarantee products secure at least 80 or 100 percent of contributions paid in at the start of the payout phase. The guarantee affects how the capital is invested: a larger share of the assets must be invested conservatively. This limits potential losses while also reducing return potential.

For consumers, this creates a choice between different risk profiles, cost structures and payout forms. The lowest price alone is not a sufficient basis for a decision. What matters is the expected result after costs, taking into account your personal time horizon and risk appetite.

First perspective: which product variants savers prefer

The market study "Altersvorsorge im Aufbruch" ("Retirement provision on the move") by Sirius Campus and Aeiforia is based on an online survey of 1,013 people eligible for the subsidy in April 2026. According to the published results, 58 percent of the roughly 44 million people eligible already know about the Altersvorsorgedepot^[3]. Respondents could choose between a guarantee-free investment and guarantee variants. This produced the following distribution:

The results show a pronounced need for security. Three-quarters of respondents prefer an 80 or 100 percent guarantee. In this particular survey, the guarantee-free Altersvorsorgedepot finds a considerably smaller target group^[3].

The decision to take a guarantee depends largely on the remaining accumulation time. Over a long term, capital market fluctuations can be smoothed out over a longer period. As the remaining term shortens, capital preservation becomes more important. A guarantee, however, ties up part of the capital in conservative investments. Its effect on return potential is often more pronounced over short terms.

A careful choice therefore starts with three personal factors:

• the time remaining until the payout phase begins,
• your financial capacity to absorb interim losses,
• the minimum capital you want at the start of retirement.

Great potential, considerable forecasting uncertainty

Among the respondents who already know about the Altersvorsorgedepot, 34 percent say they would definitely or probably take one out. Applying a discount between stated intent and actual behaviour, the study's authors derive a baseline scenario of around 4.5 million new contracts in 2027. Under intensive information, marketing and customer outreach, they consider up to 10 million new contracts possible in an optimistic scenario^[3].

These figures describe market potential. They are not a reliable sales forecast. The study relies on self-reported responses. Actual take-up numbers may differ considerably. The future products, their costs, their digital usability and the quality of customer outreach will also influence behaviour.

The wide range between the two scenarios makes one thing clear above all: awareness alone does not translate into take-up. Consumers need comprehensible information about subsidies, risks, costs and payout forms.

Second perspective: the broker market expects more demand for comparisons

The AssCompact TRENDS II/2026 study reflects the views of 256 insurance brokers and multi-agents. It describes the expectations of the intermediary market and is not a direct measurement of customer behaviour^[5].

The survey paints a cautious picture:

The figures show that a significant part of the intermediary market expects growing need for explanation. According to respondents, product costs and comparisons with capital-market-based offerings will become particularly relevant.

The need for advice arises from several issues that must be considered together:

Product category and risk

Consumers can choose between a guarantee-free Altersvorsorgedepot and guarantee products. Within these categories, the investments, costs, risk profiles and payout options differ.

Subsidy and tax effect

The new Grundzulage (the basic state allowance) is based on the contributions paid in. Kinderzulagen (child allowances) and a possible additional tax benefit change the individual subsidy rate. Households with the same savings contribution can therefore achieve different results.

Costs over the term

Setup costs, administration costs, fund costs, transaction costs and payout-phase costs all affect the retirement assets available. A meaningful comparison takes into account the full term of the contract and possible changes during that term.

Existing Riester-Rente contracts

For an existing contract, the existing guarantees, allowances received to date, actuarial assumptions, costs and remaining term must all be factored in. A comparison based on general return assumptions is not enough.

In an advisory setting, the recommendation and its underlying reasons must be documented in a comprehensible way. This makes a solid numerical comparison more important. Self-directed savers bear the responsibility for this assessment themselves.

Third perspective: BaFin focuses on customer benefit

BaFin examined the effective costs of unit-linked and hybrid insurance investment products at 54 life insurers. Effective costs indicate by how many percentage points the average annual return is reduced by all costs taken into account.

For unit-linked and hybrid products with a typical term of 30 years, effective costs in the most expensive market quartile averaged 1.9 percent for a regular contract term. Compared with the 2021 survey, this is a decrease of more than 0.4 percentage points. Individual products still show effective costs of more than 3 percent^[6].

Terminating a contract early can significantly worsen the cost impact. For contracts designed for a 30-year accumulation phase, just over half of customers have often already terminated the contract after 15 years. In the most expensive market quartile, effective costs on termination after 15 years stood at around 3.2 percent — typically 1 to 1.5 percentage points higher than for a regular contract end.

The main reason lies in the setup costs at the start of the contract term. If you exit early, these costs are spread over a shorter period. The anticipated returns of later contract years can then no longer offset the initial burden.

The Standarddepot's cost cap

The Standarddepot is a particularly simple form of the Altersvorsorgedepot. It works with two predetermined investment funds. One fund follows a more cautious investment profile; the other offers greater return potential and carries larger investment risks. Before the payout phase begins, the capital is gradually shifted into the lower-risk fund, unless the customer sets a different allocation.

A statutory cost cap applies to the Standarddepot. The average annual return reduction caused by costs may not exceed 1.0 percentage point. At a gross return of 5 percent, effective costs of 1 percent leave a calculated return of 4 percent.

The Standarddepot is also designed to allow easy online sign-up without prior advice. The default settings reduce the number of investment decisions needed. Customers can deviate from these defaults in part.

Comparing this with the BaFin data illustrates the cost difference: the Standarddepot's limit is below the average effective costs of the most expensive quartile of the unit-linked and hybrid life insurance products examined. However, the products differ in what they offer. Insurance policies can include guarantees, annuitisation options or additional protection. A pure cost comparison therefore does not replace a full comparison of benefits.

For consumers, one concrete test question remains:

The real stress test lies in existing Riester-Rente contracts

Existing Riester-Rente contracts enjoy grandfathering protection. They can continue under the previous subsidy rules. Contract holders can also switch solely to the new subsidy system while generally keeping the other contract terms. Another option is to transfer the assets to a new retirement provision contract. Switching back to the old subsidy system later is not possible.

The market study by Sirius Campus and Aeiforia shows considerable uncertainty among the Riester-Rente customers surveyed:

• 57 percent have not yet decided whether to continue their contract.
• 26 percent say they have already decided to switch to an Altersvorsorgedepot.
• 44 percent express dissatisfaction with their existing contract.

According to the study's authors, most undecided respondents want advice first.

The study puts the total Riester-Rente capital stock at around 225 billion euros. Based on the stated intent to switch, the authors calculate a possible transfer volume of 64.8 billion euros, of which around 49 billion euros relates to Riester-Rente annuity insurance policies.

These figures, too, should be read as a scenario. They extrapolate survey results to the entire stock of contracts. The actual volume of switching will depend on the products available, contract terms, information from providers and individual calculations.

What to check before making a decision

Guarantees and actuarial assumptions

An existing contract may include guarantees or actuarial assumptions that are not available in a new product. Their economic value must factor into the decision.

Existing capital and allowances

The existing contract balance, allowances received and any tax benefits form the starting point of the calculation. A detrimental cancellation can trigger a clawback of subsidy amounts. A transfer that does not harm the subsidy entitlement follows different rules.

Old and new subsidies

The existing Riester-Rente subsidy and the new contribution-proportional subsidy create different incentives. Children, income, your own contribution and your spouse's subsidy eligibility can significantly change the outcome. The BMF (Federal Ministry of Finance) explicitly recommends also factoring in a possible additional Sonderausgabenabzug (deduction as a special expense) and indirect subsidy eligibility.

Remaining term

With a short remaining accumulation period, switching costs and early market losses can weigh more heavily. There is less time left to offset them through higher return potential.

Ongoing costs

What matters is the future costs of the existing contract versus the new product. Costs already paid cannot be recovered by switching. For the decision, it is above all the costs from today onward that are relevant.

Payout phase

The new rules allow for a lifelong life annuity or a drawdown plan running at least until you turn 85. The payout form you choose affects costs, inheritability and protection against longevity risk.

A blanket switching rule cannot do justice to these factors. Every contract needs its own calculation.

Four questions for your personal decision

A structured comparison starts with four questions:

1. Which product category suits my risk appetite and remaining accumulation time? Options to consider are the Standarddepot, which can be taken out online without advice, the equally guarantee-free Altersvorsorgedepot, and guarantee products with an 80 or 100 percent guarantee.
2. How much is my personal subsidy? This includes the Grundzulage, any Kinderzulage, and a possible additional tax benefit.
3. How much do all the costs reduce my expected return? The calculation should account for both a regular contract term and possible early termination.
4. What are the economic consequences of changing my Riester-Rente contract? Relevant factors are the guarantees, contract balance, remaining term, past subsidies, future costs and the planned payout form.

Anyone who can answer these questions with solid figures has a sound basis for an independent decision. For complex existing contracts, multiple subsidy-eligible people within a family, or uncertainty about guarantees and tax effects, expert advice can provide additional confidence.

Conclusion: good retirement provision needs a clear decision path

The Altersvorsorgedepot adds direct access to the capital market to subsidised private retirement provision. The Standarddepot reduces the number of investment decisions needed and caps effective costs. Guarantee products appeal to people who want binding capital preservation.

The surveys conducted so far point to substantial market interest. At the same time, they show a pronounced need for security and considerable uncertainty around existing Riester-Rente contracts. How the market actually develops will depend on product quality, cost structure and how comprehensible the customer information is.

For a good decision, consumers need to bring several factors together: subsidy, costs, risk, guarantee, term, flexibility and payout form. Digital calculators and standardised comparisons can support much of this task. Personal advice gains value where individual contracts, tax interactions and multiple courses of action need to be considered.

The Altersvorsorgedepot can make private retirement provision easier to access. That does not make it a sure thing. The decisive achievement lies in a comprehensible link between the product, the subsidy and your personal life situation.

How Vorsorgedepot-Lotse can help

Vorsorgedepot-Lotse offers two ways in:

• For self-directed savers: the knowledge section, the subsidy calculator and a provider comparison provide the basis for an independent choice.
• For those seeking advice: for complex subsidy questions, existing Riester-Rente contracts, or uncertainty about the right product category, the advice brokerage service arranges contact with qualified professionals.

The subsidy calculator is a sensible starting point. It makes your personal subsidy effect visible and creates a data basis for the further questions. A model calculation still depends on the assumptions used and does not replace an individual suitability assessment.