One hundred and forty-seven people currently draw a pension from the second pillar. The average amount is 9,878 denars a month. Those are all the beneficiaries of a system that has been running since 2006 and has accumulated over 3.4 billion euros in individual accounts belonging to around 638,000 insured people.

The figure of 147 sounds small, and that is accurate - the system is still maturing. By 2030 the number of beneficiaries is expected to be between four and five thousand. But right now, as the first payouts begin, the question of what happens to that money is opening up.

Nationalisation as a solution for a year and a half

The association of pension fund management companies came out with a clear position: the assets in the second pillar are personal property, they are inherited, and they enjoy a higher level of protection, whether the coverage applies during working life or after retirement.

„That is only a short-term solution that will not solve the long-term problems,” the association says of proposals to transfer the assets into the state fund. Their estimate is that the money would cover the budget deficit for somewhere between a year and a half and three years. After that - the same problem, but without the fund.

The average annual return of the mandatory pension funds since they were introduced is over 5.5 percent. Of the total accumulated assets, more than one billion euros is added value distributed across individual accounts.

Eighty to ninety percent below the minimum pension

Here the story gets more complicated than the press release. Prime Minister Hristijan Mickoski announced he is considering pension reform and suggested that second-pillar beneficiaries might be disappointed by the state of their accounts.

And the numbers are not on the side of optimism: it is estimated that 80 to 90 percent of future pensioners in the 2030-2032 period could end up with a pension below the legal minimum, which would once again require a state top-up.

So each side has one accurate claim. The funds are right that nationalisation is a temporary patch. But the critics also have a point when they say a system in which nearly nine out of ten beneficiaries fall below the minimum is not delivering the role it promised.

The proposal: several funds instead of one

The association proposes multi-fund portfolios tailored to the insured person's age, and more aggressive investment strategies for younger members - those still twenty or thirty years from retirement who can absorb higher risk for a higher return. Strengthening voluntary insurance is also mentioned.

The government, for its part, is waiting on the results of three independent analyses before deciding what reform to carry out.

Three analyses, two opposing positions, and 638,000 people whose money is the subject of the debate. The one thing everybody agrees on is that the system as designed will not produce adequate pensions. The only disagreement is over who pays that shortfall - and when.