Hi dodo,
I get ya! A few years ago, I worked on an international pensions project and pensions in this country - compared to elsewhere - can be mad stuff when you look under the bonnet!
The figures in your projection have probably been calculated correctly - in part, for the reason that Gordon mentioned. The other factors are that these projections assume conservative investment growth rates between now and retirement and low annuity/interest rates at retirement. These assumptions being prescribed by the Pensions Authority (PA). This is what happens in the defined contribution (DC) world.
The bizarre thing is that the same PA presides over the transfer value basis (for DB plans) - where, in simple terms, the implied growth rates pre-retirement and interest rates at retirement are at the other end of the assumption spectrum (….think optimistic)
Best to explain with an example.
Say someone aged 40 and had a deferred DB pension of €x p.a., payable at 65. If you wanted to transfer your DB entitlements to a DC scheme, a transfer value (TV) calculation is done. This TV would be calculated using a basis prescribed by the PA and is meant to calculate the net present value of your deferred pension. This TV calculation would calculate a current value of, say, €y.
So far so good. Now the fun bit. If you were then to get a projection to show what €y would buy in terms of pension at retirement - back now to prescribed PA assumptions for DC plans (i.e. the same regulator) - you would end up with a pension of €z. [Some of the actuaries on the site might be able to specify what €z is likely to be but if I was to guess - it's probably of the order of 50% of €x!! I kid you not]
At a high level, my key take-away from this was that the TV basis is far too weak. Again, I'd be interested in hearing form actuaries on their views in this regard and why such a basis prevails!!
As a matter of curiosity, what company sent you out a video? Was it an animated video?