“Scottish Widows” is a brand that pulls at the heartstrings, who are more deserving of our compassion? Well I’d like to see that Scottish Widows get pensions and other benefits paid and – for the matter – all the savers paid whose money is invested by the prudent Scots who look after the money.
I’d like to see the mutuality that is in the concept of looking after Widows ensure that there is money in this country to find benefits – including pensions, for the Widow’s children and grand children to enjoy their elderly years with their affairs looked after by the Scottish Widows Life Assurance Company.
So I am surprised and disappointed that far from sharing the money saved by those putting it by for their future with British tax-payers, Scottish Widows are refusing to sign up to an accord to invest in Britain and instead of operating a home bias – as a mutual might, is behaving like a global financial behemoth would , investing for the benefit of shareholders of the company who bought out the mutual more than 25 years ago
Scottish Widows ceased to be a mutual when it was demutualized and became part of the Lloyds TSB Marketing Group on March 3, 2000. This demutualization was part of a larger acquisition by Lloyds TSB.
Oh dear! And how does a bank , competing in global markets invest the money of the Scottish Widow? Thanks to Mary McDougall of the FT
Scottish Widows, one of Britain’s largest pension providers, is preparing to significantly reduce its allocation to UK equities just as the government is pushing retirement funds to invest more in British companies.
The group, which manages £72bn of workplace pension assets in its default funds, was planning to cut the allocation to UK equities in its highest growth portfolio from 12 per cent to 3 per cent, according to a document seen by the Financial Times.
So not only does it not sign up to the Accord but it decides that it is not going to invest in the country that gives it its money through savings and in tax that its savers and their employers pay.
Scottish Widows said in a separate document explaining the change to clients that it was adopting a “more globally-diversified approach” with the aim of “enhancing risk-adjusted returns by capturing more growth opportunities in high-performing international markets”.
Really?
Has the life assurance company owned by the bank not worked out what anyone who can read a chart known for fifteen years?
Might Scottish Widows be wanting to reverse this sorry underperformance by Britain’s red line? Might Lloyds Bank not have an announce of mutuality left in its fabric or has that gone along with any sense of societal responsibility for its policyholders?
Shame on you Scottish Widows and shame on your parent.
Plans to lower allocation to UK equities come with plans to increase exposure to US stocks. The highest risk portfolio would increase North American equity exposure from 46 per cent to 65 per cent by January, while the lower risk portfolio would increase US stocks from 17 per cent to 25 per cent.
Is there any consultation going on with policyholder’s, members of the master trust and with the widows of those members? Scottish Widows and Lloyds are good at doing well publicised work with savers, we had some on Monday with our Pension Minister and Nest listening on.
I hope that Torsten will be reading the news in the FT with the shock that I do. Actually I had a diet coke on the top of the FT yesterday in 30 degrees of climate warmth talking with an old friend and reporter about such matters. Mary McDougall was downstairs with her finger hovering over the “send” to the editor. I’m glad she did and I’m sorry that Lloyds Bank, whose head offices are only a few hundred yards from the FT’s, are not stepping up to defend this change of investment strategy.
Mr Trump will be happy. The widows in Scotland should be shocked.
Pingback: Ros Altmann has coffee with us Tuesday – “conversation with conviction” | AgeWage: Making your money work as hard as you do
Could it be the case that the US market is significantly over valued? What happened in 2012 to cause the two markets to diverge? If this is true and the dollar continues to decline maybe it is time to take a profit.
There’s that too John!
Couldn’t disagree with you more Henry. I applaud Widows for the stance they have taken. The chart in your piece shows the cost to members if scheme trustees had indulged the Government and weighted towards home bias. Lost investment returns. The argument then is the hypothetical counter-factual; that by pursuing home bias, the schemes would boost economic growth; a self-fulfilling strategy. I can’t buy this argument. Like the UK government’s vain and ridiculous Net Zero strategy, which will do nothing for climate change and will serve only to impoverish the very people they purport to care so much about, the Mansion House compact will not of itself shift the economic dial. Many other, more impactful policy initiatives can be pursued to stimulate growth, on energy, welfare costs, employment taxes, immigration etc there is a multitude of things this Government could do.
Just as businesses should focus on making money for shareholders, pension schemes should focus on optimising risk-adjusted returns for members.
Rather than this dirigiste, top-down, technocratic socialist approach, the Government should focus on clearing the runway for business enterprise and risk taking; alongside this it could pursue initiatives such as the National Wealth Fund, the Growth Partnership, LTAFs and so on to make it easier for pension schemes to be able to, and crucially, to want to invest in British businesses.
Until then pension schemes should members’ interests first and not forget their fiduciary duty.
The Widows was apparently overweight UK during the period covered by that chart, Tom, so the “cost to members” may have already been experienced to some extent.
I could make a case for overweighting certain UK shares and other assets based on relative yield, but with the proviso that said assets overall also deliver(ed) growth. Passive investing in (including so-called active investing relative to) UK market indices is less likely to achieve that kind of absolute performance consistently.
It remains to be seen, with future hindsight, whether the timing of this year’s reduction in UK weighting will prove beneficial
or not.
I guess my answer to that is to agree with Nigel’s comment: that the decision should be an investment decision, not one driven by the latest fashion for Government policy.
On that we can agree.
Scottish Widows should be maximising returns for their savers. If the government wishes more funds to be invested in the UK it should make the UK a more attractive place to invest by cutting taxes, onerous red tape and improving infrastructure. Mandating where savers invest will simply reduce returns, diminish saving and drive investment elsewhere.
Do institutions like the Widows really “maximise”
returns, or do they not tend more to target market relative returns, and use market performance as their excuse when answerable to savers?
Just asking for a friend …
Based on the facts as presented Scottish Widows missed the rise in the US market and are now proposing to shift into a market which is arguably (according to respected managers like Andrew Smithers) overvalued.
Classic buy high sell low, how is that VFM?
Pingback: Are pensions political? You bet they are. | AgeWage: Making your money work as hard as you do
Pingback: It will take more than the Government to make us invest in ourselves | AgeWage: Making your money work as hard as you do
Pingback: “Conversation with conviction”- Altmann and the PlayPen mob- today! | AgeWage: Making your money work as hard as you do