CIP vs CRP: what changes in retirement?
While CIPs and CRPs share a focus on consistency, they diverge sharply in what they’re designed to achieve:
| Feature |
CIP (accumulation) |
CRP (decumulation) |
| Primary goal |
Grow capital |
Sustain income over time |
| Time horizon |
Long-term |
Often shorter, with more focus on short-term risks |
| Key risks |
Market volatility |
Sequencing, inflation, withdrawal, longevity |
| Focus |
Risk-adjusted growth |
Income sustainability and capital preservation |
| Investment strategy |
Risk-rated models |
Income-oriented or bucket-based portfolios |
| Tools and modelling |
Attitude to risk and fund selection |
Cashflow modelling and scenario planning |
| Review cycle |
Periodic rebalancing |
Ongoing income reviews and outcome testing |
Why the FCA is focused on CRPs
The FCA’s 2024 thematic review (TR24/1) made clear that many firms are still applying accumulation based thinking in retirement. Too often, the review found:
- No clear approach to managing withdrawals
- Inadequate use of cashflow modelling
- Weak alignment between advice, objectives and risk
- Poor record-keeping and inconsistent client outcomes
As the report warns: “The absence of a structured decumulation framework increases the risk of unsuitable advice.” With more clients staying invested in retirement, the regulator is clear: a robust CRP is now a regulatory expectation, not simply an optional extra.
Why your CRP matters
Retirement is a uniquely personal journey, and one that can span decades. Circumstances may change through choice (such as returning to work or relocating) or through events beyond a client’s control (such as health issues, inflation, or market downturns).
That’s why the value of a CRP lies not just in how it supports the initial advice, but in how it enables regular, structured reviews that allow plans to evolve over time. A robust CRP ensures advisers can adapt strategies to keep retirement income sustainable, aligned and responsive, no matter how a client’s situation develops.