Bim Afolami, who was promoted in a ministerial reshuffle this month, said on Tuesday that regulators
“need to realise that if you’re regulating a market, in any area, there’s no point having the safest graveyard. Animal spirits need to be there, we need to innovate, we need to drive growth and initiative,”
This is the earliest recorded use of “the safest graveyard” on this blog and a very welcome addition to my dictionary of phrase and fable.
Who is this Bim? I looked him up. His family originates in Nigeria – his Dad’s a doctor and he went to England. He got a blue playing football for Oxford University and he is a serious 400 m runner.
He qualified as a lawyer at Freshfields and worked as a banker, so he’s no stranger to regulation. His parliamentary record has really focussed on financial regulation.
Well I’m with him and his sentiments. But most of all with a Minister in the Treasury who speaks a language I can understand and enjoy!
I’m always interested in the origins of pithy sayings.
Maybe this one is from rocket science, Henry.
A graveyard orbit is apparently an orbit at an altitude of 36,050 Km above the earth’s surface (higher than most common operational orbits) where decommissioned satellites are moved to reduce the probability of them crashing into other functional satellites and generating space debris.
But the phrase appears in some translated foreign literature too.
Nice one.
At long last, hopefully some Ministerial oversight over TPR, which has been left to run amok in the long-grass of UK investment and growth for over 2 decades. De-risking is the kryptonite of growth.
I’d associated the poetic language to animal / elephant graveyards, where spirits may safely rest unknown and undisturbed after their days in the savanna.
“regulators need to realise that if you’re regulating a market, in any area, there’s no point having the safest graveyard.”
Hear, hear. A pension scheme which is closed to new entrants is dying, and one which is wound up is dead.
People need pensions. The pension industry, if it is to be useful, should be in the business of bulk provision of pensions, not pots, which provide a decent income in retirement, are cost efficient (which means the assets need to be rewardingly invested), and need little decision making from their members beyond the decision to join.
TPR should be in the business of facilitating, not obstructing, this objective. Comfortable retirements are not provided by regulating pension schemes out of existence.
Bim is onto something, but he can’t just point fingers at the regulators. The safest graveyard is a result of the incentives that apply. Change the incentives, change the outcome.
We can deal with incentives. More difficult swimming against the tide of a Regulator with a mission to de-risk (ie trash) an economy.
First immediate port of call must be to overhaul TPR’s remit.
Pingback: Bim gets his feet out of the “wet cement of institutional rigidity” | AgeWage: Making your money work as hard as you do