Sponsor Fair-Value Analysis.
A bespoke advisory engagement for a single question a defined-benefit sponsor faces: retain the scheme risk and carry it on an economic-capital footing — assuming it, or managing it directly — or transfer it to the regulated market on a regulatory-capital footing through a bulk annuity or reinsurance. The engagement sets the two routes on one comparable basis for a specific scheme. It is advisory, not a productised tool, and its construction is engagement methodology, not stated here.
One promise, two routes, one comparable basis. The engagement does not declare which capital number is smaller and call that the answer; it quantifies the trade-off the choice actually is — the price of certainty against the cost of retention — conditioned on the scheme and sponsor.
Economic capital, or regulatory capital.
A defined-benefit sponsor can carry the scheme risk itself — assuming it, or managing it down over time — in which case the relevant measure is the sponsor's own risk-bearing capacity over the period the scheme depends on it. Or it can move the risk to the regulated insurance market through a bulk annuity or reinsurance, in which case the relevant measure is the declared regulatory-standard cost of holding it there. These are not two presentations of the same thing; they are genuinely different routes, with different costs, different residual risks, and different consequences for members.
The engagement does not declare which capital number is smaller and call that the answer. It quantifies the trade-off the choice actually is — the price of certainty against the cost of retention — conditioned on covenant strength, scheme maturity, the sponsor's risk appetite and the duty owed to members. The smaller-number reading is a misframe; the conditioned trade-off is the work.
Both routes, on one comparable basis.
What carrying the risk asks of the sponsor.
What carrying the scheme risk actually asks of the sponsor — read against its capacity over the reliability horizon, the same economic-capital basis as the covenant work, not a qualitative comfort.
The declared cost of moving it out.
The declared regulatory-standard cost of moving the risk to the regulated market, read as it bears on the sponsor and trustee's decision — not bespoke capital advice to any insurer; the firm holds no insurer ties.
Quantified and conditioned.
The two routes set on one comparable basis and the trade-off between them made explicit — price of certainty against cost of retention — conditioned on covenant, maturity, risk appetite and the member-security duty.
Independence is structural.
No insurer commercial relationships, no broking pipeline, no transaction fee. Independence on the retain-versus-transfer question is structural, and the fee is not linked to the route chosen.
A genuine choice needs a covenant with real capacity.
The engagement is at its most valuable where both routes are live. Where the covenant has real capacity over the reliability horizon, retain-versus-transfer is a genuine decision and the trade-off is the work. Where the covenant is orphaned or very weak the retain route is largely degenerate — the analysis still runs, but the conclusion is substantially determined, and the engagement says so plainly rather than manufacturing a contest that does not exist.
One advisory engagement, two defined offerings.
The advisory engagement is the integrated whole — both routes, for a specific scheme, under engagement sign-off. Its two halves stand alone as defined, independently defensible offerings: BPA Fair-Value Pricing is the transfer side — an independent check that a bulk-annuity quote is consistent with the risk-neutral fair value of the promise; Sponsor Covenant Analysis is the retain side — covenant strength as an explicit economic-capital line of sight. The products are the audited front doors; this engagement is the depth behind them.
The boundary is part of the method.
It is defined-benefit only. It does not predict the price an insurer will charge, it is not a credit rating or a solvency opinion, and it gives no bespoke capital advice to insurers. The construction that sets the two routes on one basis is the firm's engagement methodology, applied within a specific engagement and not set out here; what is stated publicly is the decision it informs and the principle it rests on.
DB sponsors and trustees at the retain-or-transfer point.
Sponsors weighing whether to carry the DB risk on the balance sheet or buy it out — needing the trade-off, not a grade, for board and audit.
Trustees testing whether a transfer is in members' interests against a credible retain alternative, on one comparable basis.
This is an independent advisory analysis, not a price forecast, a credit rating, or a recommendation to transact. Defined benefit only. The construction is engagement methodology. Subject to responsible-actuary review before reliance.
Bespoke per matter; scoped at first conversation.
Funding-position engagement
Triennial Valuation discussions, statement-of-funding-principles drafting, Long-Term Objective discussion, and other funding-code matters where the sponsor wants a quantitative reference point on what the trustee position is asking. Scoped per matter; engagement letter agreed before work begins.
Pre-buy-in stage
For sponsors preparing for buy-in/buy-out who want a fair-value reading on the scheme position before going to the bulk-annuity market. Frames the BPA decision in sponsor-economic terms rather than insurer-quote terms.
Statement of Work — how the fee is fixed
Engagements are scoped through a first conversation and then fixed in writing before any work begins. The firm’s Invitation Letter contains a Statement of Work fixing: the scope of the engagement, the timetable for delivery (key milestones and final-deliverable date), the price (with any stage payments scheduled against milestones), and the named individuals on both sides.
The scope-to-price conversion is based on the firm’s published charge-out rate: £350 per hour for engagements led by a Director or Senior Actuary (the only grades that lead engagements at Congruent). The Statement of Work converts scoped hours into a fixed fee — the buyer’s commercial commitment is to the fee in the Statement of Work, not to an open-ended hourly meter.
The firm tends to come in competitively on the fixed quote. Because Directors lead engagements directly — without the layered team structure typical of larger firms — scoped hours convert into a fixed fee that compares favourably against equivalent senior-led work elsewhere in the market.
Rate as at 1 January 2026, reviewed annually.
The methodological position behind the engagement.
For buy-in/buy-out specifically, the productised BPA Fair-Value Pricing Solution is the right engagement shape. For sponsor covenant analysis under the funding code, see Sponsor Covenant Analysis.
Discuss a retain-versus-transfer decision.
Brief context, scope and timing — the firm responds within one working day with whether it can take the engagement and what it would need to scope it.