Case study
Why swapping a pension for the family home is never the like-for-like trade it appears to be, and why the real question is not the value, but what each of you needs, and when.
Home › Case studies › Why swapping a pension for the house is never like for like
General information, not advice on your own case.
Illustrative example. This is not a real case. The figures are round numbers chosen to show how the arithmetic works.
A divorcing couple with two main assets: a family home worth about £500,000, and one spouse's defined benefit pension with a transfer value of about £500,000. One of them wants to keep the house. The other has the pension. On paper it looks like a clean swap: you keep the house, I keep the pension, £500,000 each.
Equal numbers, equal deal. Five hundred thousand against five hundred thousand. Shake hands and move on.
The two £500,000s were nothing alike. The house is jam today: somewhere to live now, that you can use, sell or borrow against. The pension is jam tomorrow: income locked away until retirement, taxed when it is finally drawn, and, because it is a guaranteed defined benefit pension, often worth more than its transfer value suggests. So even in pure money terms, a pound of house and a pound of pension are not the same pound. But the deeper mismatch is about needs: the person who has to keep a roof over the children's heads needs the house now, and the person staring at retirement needs the income later.
Trade one wholesale for the other and you can leave each of them holding exactly the wrong asset for the life they actually have to live: one house-rich but with nothing to retire on, the other with a pension they cannot touch for fifteen years and no way to rehouse today.
£500,000 of house and £500,000 of pension are not £500,000 of the same thing, and they do not meet the same needs at the same time.
Taken at face value, the equal-looking swap could leave one spouse with a home but no retirement income, and the other with a locked-away pension and no way to house themselves now. Equal on the spreadsheet, and unequal in real life. In a needs case, that is not a rounding error, it is the whole outcome.
Offsetting a pension against a house is not a like-for-like swap. Done well it adjusts for tax, for timing, and for the guarantees a defined benefit pension carries, and then, just as importantly, it asks what each of you actually needs and when: housing now, or income later. A transfer value sitting next to a house price tells you none of that.
Read more in the guide on pension offsetting, or start with the "Do I need a PODE?" tool.
The free check takes about two minutes and tells you where you stand.