CRP and decumulation — centralised retirement propositions for UK IFAs

Designing for the phase where the maths is asymmetric

Accumulation maths and decumulation maths are different. A market fall helps an accumulator and destroys a decumulator. A CRP exists because the same risk-profile band lands in different solution sets depending on which side of the line the client is on. The pieces below are the strategy choices, the ongoing-review cadence, and the suitability work that comes with running a CRP.

The CRP sub-hub is younger than the CIP sub-hub — the regulatory and practical thinking on decumulation has moved faster in the last three years than on accumulation. Expect more material here through the rest of 2026 as the FCA's Retirement Income Advice Thematic Review work generates further supervisory output.

CRP and decumulation strategy

What a CRP is, how it differs from a CIP, the four risks decumulation raises, the named strategy options and the UK-specific safe-withdrawal-rate question.

10 min read

Ongoing service review under Consumer Duty

The seven-step annual (or six-monthly) review structure, the vulnerability check, the fair-value confirmation and the file note. Relevant for every decumulation client.

9 min read

How to write a suitability report

Suitability work for drawdown clients differs from accumulation — capacity-for-loss stress tests, withdrawal-strategy reasoning and Consumer Duty disadvantages all bite harder.

12 min read

Coming next

Pieces in draft for this sub-hub: a worked CRP transition case study (accumulator to decumulator), an analysis of guaranteed-income solutions for the floor-plus-flexible model, and a piece on six-monthly review cadence for early-drawdown clients. For the accumulation side of the proposition see CIP design, and for the umbrella view the CIP & CRP pillar.