Viewing offline content

Limited functionality available

Dismiss
Deloitte UK
  • Services

    Highlights

    • Major Programmes

      Connecting people and technology to anticipate and respond to ever-changing conditions, and solve for society’s greatest challenges.

    • Deloitte Ventures

      Connecting our clients to emerging start-ups, leading technology players and a whole raft of new Deloitte talent.

    • Towards net zero together

      Discover the people leading the change and what could be possible for your business.

    • Audit & Assurance

      • Audit
      • Audit - IASPlus
      • Assurance
    • Consulting

      • Core Business Operations
      • Customer and Marketing
      • Enterprise Technology & Performance
      • Human Capital
      • Strategy, Analytics and M&A
    • Financial Advisory

      • Mergers & Acquisitions
      • Performance Improvement
    • Legal

      • Legal Advisory
      • Legal Managed Services
      • Legal Management Consulting
    • Deloitte Private

      • Family Enterprises
      • Private Equity
      • Emerging Growth
    • Risk Advisory

      • Accounting and Internal Controls
      • Cyber and Strategic Risk
      • Regulatory and Legal
    • Tax

      • Global Business Tax Services
      • Indirect Tax
      • Global Employer Services
  • Industries

    Highlights

    • Ecosystems & Alliances

      An engine to embrace and harness disruptive change

    • Resilience Reimagined

      Resilient organisations thrive before, during and after adversity. How will you become more resilient?

    • Consumer

      • Automotive
      • Consumer Products
      • Retail, Wholesale & Distribution
      • Transportation, Hospitality & Services
    • Energy, Resources & Industrials

      • Industrial Products & Construction
      • Mining & Metals
      • Energy & Chemicals
      • Power, Utilities & Renewables
      • Future of Energy
    • Financial Services

      • Banking
      • Capital Markets
      • Insurance
      • Investment Management
      • Real Estate
      • FinTech & Alternative Finance
    • Government & Public Services

      • Health & Human Services
      • Defence, Security & Justice
      • Central Government
      • Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Government
    • Life Sciences & Health Care

      • Health Care
      • Life Sciences
    • Technology, Media & Telecommunications

      • Telecommunications, Media & Entertainment
      • Technology
  • Insights

    Deloitte Insights

    Highlights

    • Deloitte Insights Magazine

      Explore the latest issue now

    • Deloitte Insights app

      Go straight to smart with daily updates on your mobile device

    • Weekly economic update

      See what's happening this week and the impact on your business

    • Strategy

      • Business Strategy & Growth
      • Digital Transformation
      • Governance & Board
      • Innovation
      • Marketing & Sales
      • Private Enterprise
    • Economy & Society

      • Economy
      • Environmental, Social, & Governance
      • Health Equity
      • Trust
      • Mobility
    • Organization

      • Operations
      • Finance & Tax
      • Risk & Regulation
      • Supply Chain
      • Smart Manufacturing
    • People

      • Leadership
      • Talent & Work
      • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
    • Technology

      • Data & Analytics
      • Emerging Technologies
      • Technology Management
    • Industries

      • Consumer
      • Energy, Resources, & Industrials
      • Financial Services
      • Government & Public Services
      • Life Sciences & Health Care
      • Technology, Media, & Telecommunications
    • Spotlight

      • Deloitte Insights Magazine
      • Press Room Podcasts
      • Weekly Economic Update
      • COVID-19
      • Resilience
      • Top 10 reading guide
  • Careers

    Highlights

    • Hear from our people

      At Deloitte, our people are at the heart of what we do. Discover their stories to find out more about Life at Deloitte.

    • Careers Home

  • UK-EN Location: United Kingdom-English  
  • UK-EN Location: United Kingdom-English  
    • Dashboard
    • Saved Items
    • Content feed
    • Profile/Interests
    • Account settings

Welcome back

Still not a member? Join My Deloitte

Retirees of the future: Increased worries about income security and growing inequality

by
  • Save for later
  • Download
  • Share
    • Share on Facebook
    • Share on Twitter
    • Share on Linkedin
    • Share by email
Deloitte Insights
  • Strategy
    Strategy
    Strategy
    • Business Strategy & Growth
    • Digital Transformation
    • Governance & Board
    • Innovation
    • Marketing & Sales
    • Private Enterprise
  • Economy & Society
    Economy & Society
    Economy & Society
    • Economy
    • Environmental, Social, & Governance
    • Health Equity
    • Trust
    • Mobility
  • Organization
    Organization
    Organization
    • Operations
    • Finance & Tax
    • Risk & Regulation
    • Supply Chain
    • Smart Manufacturing
  • People
    People
    People
    • Leadership
    • Talent & Work
    • Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
  • Technology
    Technology
    Technology
    • Data & Analytics
    • Emerging Technologies
    • Technology Management
  • Industries
    Industries
    Industries
    • Consumer
    • Energy, Resources, & Industrials
    • Financial Services
    • Government & Public Services
    • Life Sciences & Health Care
    • Tech, Media, & Telecom
  • Spotlight
    Spotlight
    Spotlight
    • Deloitte Insights Magazine
    • Press Room Podcasts
    • Weekly Economic Update
    • COVID-19
    • Resilience
    • Top 10 reading guide
    • UK-EN Location: United Kingdom-English  
      • Dashboard
      • Saved Items
      • Content feed
      • Profile/Interests
      • Account settings
    11 minute read 09 August 2019

    Retirees of the future: Increased worries about income security and growing inequality Issues by the Numbers, August 2019

    11 minute read 09 August 2019
    • Save for later
    • Download
    • Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on Linkedin
      • Share by email
    • The current state of affairs
    • Rough going ahead
    • Possible solutions could further increase income inequality among...
    • How will the responsibility for retirement funding change?

    ​Pension funds of major economies are stressed for resources in the face of aging populations and falling birthrates. Policy fixes exist, but some of the most popular will further increase income inequality among retirees. Ensuring retiree income-security is a tightrope walk for governments and current and future retirees alike.

    It is not only the workforce of the future that presents challenges to business and policy leaders. With more of the current workforce contemplating their postwork future with increasing trepidation, policy changes by the private and the public sector are critical … and this must happen sooner rather than later.

    Learn more

    View the related infographic

    Explore the Issues by the Numbers collection

    Download the Deloitte Insights and Dow Jones app

    Subscribe to receive related content

    Advances in health care, education and nutrition, declining birthrates, and a growing proportion of older adults have put the world economies in uncharted territory—of planning for retiree benefits. With fewer people entering the workforce, the exit of the older adults from the workforce is creating stress in many government retirement plans, particularly in those where retirement payments are funded by current workers (the pay-as-you-go systems). Some of these plans will potentially be in a fund deficit—where taxes coming in will be insufficient to make full and timely payments—in the near term. In other words, the retirement plans will be bankrupt—unless something changes.

    Governments have a tough task on hand as there is more than what meets the eye. Although most governments are encouraging businesses to help ensure a financially secure retirement for their workers and are urging citizens to save for their own retirement income security, the reality is that most people depend on national plans for retirement income-security. However, national plans are stressed for funds and to shore up funds, they are pushing governments to increase retirement ages of workers. This worsens the hardships already borne by lower income workers and exacerbates the already increasing income inequality, even in retirement.

    To illustrate the precariousness of the situation faced by a growing number of countries, we examine the national pension plans for six countries: The United States, China, Japan, India, Brazil, and the Netherlands.

    The current state of affairs

    The combined public and private retirement systems of the countries examined in this article cover a wide range of combinations of adequacy and sustainability.1 India ranks low on both factors, providing inadequate benefits and falling into the unsustainable range. Brazil ranks high in adequacy of benefits but ranks even lower than India on the sustainability scale. Japan’s pension system ranks slightly higher than Brazil’s in terms of sustainability, but below average in the adequacy of its benefits. China’s pension is equal to Japan’s in terms of benefits and somewhat higher in terms of sustainability. The United States has slightly higher sustainability and adequacy ranks, but it is the Netherlands that compares very well not only with this group but with the entire group of 34 countries that Mercer included in its study—second only to Denmark.2

    As the cornerstone of most retiree security-systems is the public component, we focus our discussion on public financing schemes. For example, in the 24 countries from the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for which data is available, private pension spending averaged 1.5 percent of GDP in 2013, equal to just 20 percent of the average public spending on retirement benefits.3 A description of the pension plan designs of the countries discussed in this article is shown in figure 1. These countries, with the exception of India, rely on a pay-as-you-go system (payments made by or on behalf of current workers flow to current retirees as a set or defined benefit) and coverage is universal or near universal. In India, workers get the payout from their individual accounts at age 58. The full retirement age for the more standard pension plans ranges from 50 years to 66 years. Benefit formulae generally factor in wages and years of work, and most programs are financed by a combination of employer and employee contributions, with some countries also including general transfers from the government.

    A snapshot of government or other mandatory pension plans: The Netherlands offers the best adequacy and sustainability among the countries explored in this article

    Another important measure of retiree benefits is the replacement rate. Only India has a flat replacement rate of 87.4 percent across income classes, and while it looks impressive, it is not actually as useful as one might believe because a mere 12 percent of the population is covered by the plan (figure 2). The other five countries have progressive replacement rates, i.e., although high earners will receive higher-value pension amounts, lower earners receive a higher proportion of their prior earnings than their better-paid peers. Of these countries, only the Netherlands has mandatory private plans. With both private and public plans, the country has a flatter distribution of replacement rates, albeit rates in all three earnings groups are almost 100 percent.

    Gross pension replacement rates vary across countries (percent of individual earnings)

    EXPLORE THE INFOGRAPHIC

    Retirees of the future

    Rough going ahead

    While policymakers can debate as to what portion of retirement income governments should have responsibility for, what is not in debate is that all these programs will face challenges due to aging populations. Although Japan has the most severe imbalance between the size of the working population and the retiree population, all the six economies we are discussing are aging. Even Brazil and India, with their relatively younger populations, will likely face severe demographic headwinds in the future. In the next five years, the ratio of people aged 65 and older to working age population will average just under 30 percent for the OECD countries, but for all these economies that ratio rises rapidly after that (figure 3).

    Economies are getting older

    With fewer workers to support a growing number of retirees, the pay-as-you-go pension plans are going to get significantly more expensive. Three of the six countries discussed will see their public pension costs rise substantially as a percentage of GDP between now and 2050 (figure 4). India, Japan, and the United States will not see a large relative increase, but each for a different reason. In India, pension coverage is very low, and the country follows a fully-funded model. Therefore, public spending as a percentage of GDP could remain unchanged. Japan has undertaken reforms to rein in costs by changing the indexation scheme for benefits and gradually raising the mandatory contribution-rate from 13.9 percent in 2004 to 18.3 percent in 2017.40

    Public pension costs as a percentage of GDP are set to rise substantially for some countries

    The United States’ projected increase is not particularly large, but it is not clear how the system will be funded once the current source of public pension funds runs out. There is only one source of funds for the retirement portion of Social Security—the funds payed into the Old-Aged Survivor Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund. Until 2011, this trust fund was still growing relative to costs outlays (benefit payments and administration costs). However, according to the intermediate estimates in the 2019 Annual Report of the Board of Trustees, the OASI trust fund reserves will be depleted in 2034. After this point, only an estimated 77 percent of scheduled benefits would be payable.41 In addition, the United States has another major retirement funding issue. A large group of employees—approximately one-quarter of state and local government employees—are not included in the federal Social Security pension plan, but are covered by state and local plans, many of which are extremely underfunded.42

    As for China, the public pension program faces a similar funding-crisis timeline. Public reporting indicates that accumulated pension funds are likely to peak in 2027 before running dry in 2035.43 Despite government support (more on this later in this paragraph), pension funds are likely to be in deficit in 2028 and accumulated deficits are projected to increase to 90 percent of GDP by 2050.44 For now, however, the government can and does make up shortfalls in the various plans. Each of the three two-tiered pension schemes (covering government workers, urban workers, and rural workers; detailed in figure 1) faces funding challenges. The plan for urban workers, for example, is fully funded in principle, but as the retiree population grew, administrators of tier-one funds reached into tier-two funds to make current payments. To add to this, employers fell behind in making their payments. A 2018 survey revealed that only 27 percent of companies paid their entire social security contributions.45 As a result, several individual and notional accounts at the second tier were depleted. Not all hope is lost, though, as the National Social Security Fund will likely be used to make pension payments.

    In general, the risk of poverty increases with age, and public pension funds are in a position to influence it to an extent with appropriate budget planning. For example, funds in the Netherlands and Brazil have been instrumental in reducing poverty among those over 65 to very low levels (figure 5). However, in China, the United States, and Japan, the poverty rates of the elderly are high and exceed even that of children, while in India, the poverty rate among those over 65 is roughly on a par with that of children.

    Brazil and the Netherlands have lowered their poverty rates for the aged

    Possible solutions could further increase income inequality among retiree populations

    Shoring up public systems while figuring out how to lower (or at least not raise) retiree poverty-rates is a challenge. The two approaches usually considered are (1) increasing mandatory contributions and (2) raising the full retirement age. Each approach is likely to harm those at the lower end of the income spectrum and contribute to income inequality among those 65 years and older.

    Income inequality has been increasing across the globe,46 and raising mandatory contributions will further exacerbate it. The fact that retiree benefits are almost always based on earnings contributes to increased inequality in the retirement phase, especially as the lower-paid workers are also much less likely to have access to private pension plans or to be able to save much toward their own retirement. There is also a substantial urban/rural divide, another type of inequality created in some countries. This is certainly true in India and China, and the state and local pension issues in the United States could also contribute to increase in geographic unevenness.

    The other avenue to shore up the health of public systems is increasing the age when a person can receive full retirement benefits, but this can leave lower-paid workers worse off than the higher earners. Specifically, lower-paid workers are more likely to have physically demanding jobs and a higher likelihood of poorer health, causing them to take early retirement with smaller pensions. In contrast, the more highly compensated workers may be able to work longer, earning higher-than-full-retirement payouts (in countries that have that feature), as they accrue additional savings and private-pension balances and are able to put off drawing down assets for living expenses.

    Besides these two popular solutions is the “means-testing” approach. A means-tested public pension system decides eligibility for pension payments based on income and assets. Retired workers with income and assets above a certain threshold are considered ineligible to receive full pension payments, despite having made contributions to the pension system. Such an approach, if adopted, could bolster state coffers, reduce retiree poverty, and narrow inequality after retirement by redistributing wealth. However, the approach has been criticized for discouraging savings, and transition to such an approach in countries where it does not already exist is likely to be contentious.

    How will the responsibility for retirement funding change?

    The current economic environment of low investment returns makes it harder for the funds to fulfill their pension obligations. As a result, there is a palpable retreat from defined benefit models to defined contribution models, with the burden of providing for the future shifting from the state and the employer to the worker.47 Defined contribution models are common in developing countries, but workers in developed countries are likely to feel unease at the idea of not being guaranteed a pension.48 Nonetheless, such a shift seems necessary from a financial-sustainability perspective.

    Unfortunately, for older workers, it usually means more work and less leisure, a prospect that has been met with consternation. For instance, in the Netherlands, where the pension system is considered one of the best in the world, workers and trade unions were on strike, in June, against further increase in retirement age and proposed cuts to existing benefits.49 In Brazil, reform proposing a longer period of work before pension benefits can be availed has faced fierce opposition for decades.50 In Japan, the existing pension system catalyzes intergenerational conflict while proposed reform is usually met with political opposition. In the United States and China and even in India, existing pension systems are caught between workforce expectations and what can be provided. Amid all of this, the population of workers on the verge of retirement keeps growing … and so does the problem. The employees are increasingly focused on this issue, so too should the employers.

    Acknowledgments

    Cover art by: Tushar Barman

    Endnotes
      1. Monash University, Melbourne Mercer Global Pension Index 2018, October 2018. View in article

      2. Ibid. View in article

      3. OECD iLibrary, “OECD pensions at a glance,” pp. 146–167, accessed July 16, 2019. View in article

      4. The United States Social Security Administration, “Fact sheet,” accessed July 16, 2019. View in article

      5. Congressional Research Service, “How social security benefits are computed: In brief,” May 3, 2019. View in article

      6. The United States Social Security Administration, “Fact sheet.” View in article

      7. The United States Social Security Administration, The 2019 annual report of The board of trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds, April 25, 2019. View in article

      8. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Pensions at a glance 2017: Country profile—China, 2017; Huoyun Zhu and Alan Walker, “Pension system reform in China: Who gets what pensions?,” Wiley Online Library, January 22, 2018. View in article

      9. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Pensions at a glance 2017: Country profile—China. View in article

      10. Ibid. View in article

      11. The Social Protection Platform, Universal Pension Coverage: People’s Republic of China, accessed July 16, 2019. View in article

      12. Ibid. View in article

      13. Japan Pension Service, “National Pension System,” February 2, 2019. View in article

      14. Ibid. View in article

      15. Ibid. View in article

      16. Ibid; Pension Funds Online, “Pension System in Japan,” February 2, 2019. View in article

      17. Japan Pension Service, “National Pension System.” View in article

      18. Alfie Blincowe, “Understanding the Japanese Pension System part 1/3: What is it and how does it work?,” GaijinPot, August 2, 2018. View in article

      19. All About Japan, “All about pensions in Japan,” March 18, 2019. View in article

      20. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Pensions at a glance : How does Japan compare?,” December 5, 2017. View in article

      21. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Pensions at a glance: Country profile—India, 2017. View in article

      22. Ibid. View in article

      23. National Portal of India, “National Pension System,” accessed July 16, 2019. View in article

      24. Ibid. View in article

      25. Yogima Sharma, “Finance ministry seeks labour ministry help to fund proposed hike in minimum EPS pension,” Economic Times, February 6, 2019; Paisabazaar, “Employees’ Pension Scheme (EPS): Eligibility, calculation & formula,” May 23, 2019. View in article

      26. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Pensions at a glance: Country profile—India. View in article

      27. Sharma, “Finance ministry seeks labour ministry help to fund proposed hike in minimum EPS pension” ; Paisabazaar, “Employees’ Pension Scheme (EPS). View in article

      28. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Pensions at a glance 2017: Country profile—Brazil, 2017. View in article

      29. Ibid. View in article

      30. Ibid. View in article

      31. Aureo Dias Mesquita, “The case for pension reform in Brazil: An unequal and exhausted retirement system on the verge of collapse,” Wilson Center, May 29, 2018. View in article

      32. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Pensions at a glance,” December 5, 2017. View in article

      33. Mesquita, “The case for pension reform in Brazil.” View in article

      34. Ibid. View in article

      35. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Pensions at a glance.” View in article

      36. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “OECD policy memo: Pension reform in Brazil,” April 2017. View in article

      37. Sociale Verzekeringsbank, “AOW pension,”accessed July 15, 2019; IamExpat, “Pensions & retirement age in the Netherlands,” accessed July 15, 2019; Expatica, “The Dutch pension system,” March 21, 2019. View in article

      38. Ibid. View in article

      39. Ibid. View in article

      40. Sharma, “Finance ministry seeks labour ministry help to fund proposed hike in minimum EPS pension”; Paisabazaar, “Employees’ Pension Scheme (EPS)”; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, “Pensions at a glance : How does Japan compare?.” View in article

      41. The United States Social Security Administration, The 2019 annual report of The board of trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds. View in article

      42. The Pew Charitable Trusts, “‘Lost decade’ casts a post-recession shadow on state finances,” June 4, 2019. View in article

      43. Gao Baiyu, “China’s pension system is out of pocket,” Caixin, April 19, 2019; Zheng Bingwen, China Pension Actuarial Report 2019–2050, China Labor and Social Security Publishing, April 2019. View in article

      44. Baiyu, “China’s pension system is out of pocket”; Economist, “Paying for the grey,” April 5, 2014. View in article

      45. Caixin, “China’s dilemma: Lower tax burden or bigger pension hole,” November 20, 2018. View in article

      46. For some examples, see Sonali Jain-Chandra et al., “Inequality in China: Trends, drivers and policy remedies,” IMF working paper, June 5, 2018; Kaja Bonesmo Fredriksen, “Income inequality in the European Union,” OECD working paper, April 16, 2012; Daniel Bachman, Income inequality in the United States: What do we know and what does it mean?, Deloitte Insights, July 12, 2017. View in article

      47. John Authers and Brooke Fox, “Legacy of Lehman Brothers is a global pensions mess,” Financial Times, September 24, 2018. View in article

      48. Ibid. View in article

      49. Chris Flood, “Clock ticks louder as Netherlands’ pension crisis intensifies,” Financial Times, June 1, 2019. View in article

      50. BBC News, “Bolsonaro proposes pension overhaul for Brazil,” February 20, 2019. View in article

    Show moreShow less

    Topics in this article

    Issues by the Numbers , United States (U.S.)

    Deloitte Global Economist Network

    The Deloitte Global Economist Network is a diverse group of economists that produce relevant, interesting and thought-provoking content for external and internal audiences. The Network's industry and economics expertise allows us to bring sophisticated analysis to complex industry-based questions. Publications range from in-depth reports and thought leadership examining critical issues to executive briefs aimed at keeping Deloitte's top management and partners abreast of topical issues.

    Learn more
    Get on touch
    Contact
    • Patricia Buckley
    • Director
    • Deloitte Services LP
    • pabuckley@deloitte.com
    • +1 571 814 6508

    Download Subscribe

    Related content

    img Trending

    Interactive 3 days ago

    • How do Americans spend their time? Infographic4 years ago
    • The services powerhouse: Increasingly vital to world economic growth Infographic4 years ago
    • America's growing generational wealth gap Infographic4 years ago
    • No college, no problem? Article5 years ago
    • Income inequality in the United States Article5 years ago

    Share article highlights

    See something interesting? Simply select text and choose how to share it:

    Email a customized link that shows your highlighted text.
    Copy a customized link that shows your highlighted text.
    Copy your highlighted text.

    Retirees of the future: Increased worries about income security and growing inequality has been saved

    Retirees of the future: Increased worries about income security and growing inequality has been removed

    An Article Titled Retirees of the future: Increased worries about income security and growing inequality already exists in Saved items

    Invalid special characters found 
    Forgot password

    To stay logged in, change your functional cookie settings.

    OR

    Social login not available on Microsoft Edge browser at this time.

    Connect Accounts

    Connect your social accounts

    This is the first time you have logged in with a social network.

    You have previously logged in with a different account. To link your accounts, please re-authenticate.

    Log in with an existing social network:

    To connect with your existing account, please enter your password:

    OR

    Log in with an existing site account:

    To connect with your existing account, please enter your password:

    Forgot password

    Subscribe

    to receive more business insights, analysis, and perspectives from Deloitte Insights
    ✓ Link copied to clipboard
    • Contact us
    • Careers at Deloitte
    • Submit RFP
    Follow Deloitte Insights:
    Global office directory Office locations
    UK-EN Location: United Kingdom-English  
    About Deloitte
    • Home
    • Press releases
    • Newsroom
    • Deloitte Insights
    • Global Office Directory
    • Office locator
    • Contact us
    • Submit RFP
    Services
    • Audit & Assurance
    • Consulting
    • Financial Advisory
    • Legal
    • Deloitte Private
    • Risk Advisory
    • Tax
    Industries
    • Consumer
    • Energy, Resources & Industrials
    • Financial Services
    • Government & Public Services
    • Life Sciences & Health Care
    • Technology, Media & Telecommunications
    Careers
    • Careers Home
    • About Deloitte
    • About Deloitte UK
    • Accessibility statement
    • Cookies
    • Health and Safety
    • Modern Slavery Act Statement
    • Privacy statement
    • Regulators & Provision of Services Regulations
    • Deloitte LLP Subprocessors
    • Supplier Standard Terms & Conditions
    • Terms of Use

    © 2023. See Terms of Use for more information.

     

    Deloitte LLP is the United Kingdom affiliate of Deloitte NSE LLP, a member firm of Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu Limited, a UK private company limited by guarantee (“DTTL”). DTTL and each of its member firms are legally separate and independent entities. DTTL and Deloitte NSE LLP do not provide services to clients. Please see About Deloitte to learn more about our global network of member firms.

     

    Deloitte LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales with registered number OC303675 and its registered office at 1 New Street Square, London EC4A 3HQ, United Kingdom. A list of members of Deloitte LLP is available at Companies House.