
Philip Hodges
![]() |
|||
|

Philip Hodges
![]() |
|||
|
Thanks to my digital contact Johnny Timpson for this poem he posted a couple of weeks ago on Burns Night. I had never properly read it before but in the context of my friendship with Johnny and the photos he includes at the bottom of his post, it has an immediacy that reaches out over a couple of hundred years.
I’m sorry I did not catch this first time around but it’s point is not lost. Burns set his feelings to words and those words can wait the couple of weeks since posting!
I will post two Scottish heroes
To end – this fine suggestion from Derek Scott
There seems to be something amiss with your Johnny Timpson item this morning, or it may just be me …
Having introduced you to Emmylou, the modern day best interpreter of Burns in song is Eddi:

Last week my blogs saw more reads of my posts than any week since 2009 when this blog started. I cannot say why but I can say that there was a lot of reading from the USA which looks like it wasn’t done by humans but by computers. The numbers of subscribers to this blog remains constant and I have no explanation for this explosion.
I have while blogging my thinking before work even starts , been finding that my work is a lot easier than it used to be. It is because so much of what I do- create ideas and commit them to words is taken up by software that transforms what I wanted to say to how I want to say it.
My favorite organ, the FT, stands up for artificial intelligence makes the point. Can you or I be sure that this beautifully written paragraph is straight from the fingers of Nathan Graf?
I don’t know and I don’t care – it touches me in a good place.

I don’t know Nathan, for all I know he could be artificial though I have contacted him to say I appreciated his message

The emotional truth behind what I do for my companies is my unique contribution. I write what I feel not what I think is compliant to law and regulation and it certainly doesn’t set out to win popularity contests.
But what I say can become more compliant, more easy for my readers to digest and more valuable to the organisations I own and those we work for, by being processed by AI.
As for blogging, this is where all the ideas that we use in business start and because what I think is authentically me, I find my blogs valuable to me. It is comforting when they are well read and I like the comments from the tight numbers of readers who engage in conversations on my blog and on social media.
And this interaction with those who read me , has I think some value to me, my businesses and to those of others. As Nathan Graf sums up, so I feel this morning , Nathan argues that the buffeting the AI stocks got last week especially and this year generally will make AI reset and ultimately stronger
Organisations who martial data and sell it into the market have been particularly hit,

Some of these organisations will not survive, they will not prove valuable to those who use them and they will either close or be integrated into others.
We will work out what information we get from the market is valuable as “true” to the feelings of users because we all ultimately are users and test ideas using our own emotional reactions. We know when AI is doing its job because we test insights from AI against our experience. Here’s Nathan
AI will deepen these moats by surfacing new insights from the data and automating portions of the workflow, accelerating business productivity. And the sector will reap its fair share of the gains.
I asked myself what AI will do to blogging and I am beginning to think that I should be asking what blogging can do to AI. Did all those thousands of reads that I got last week occur from humans or from robots? It doesn’t really matter to me the blogger. I am hear to set down what I see as true and I will fault or be found valuable because of my capacity to articulate my thinking and my feeling.
Thanks very much for bearing with me, it is very wet and windy outside and I am by the sea in the dark. I could not be more in touch with what I do , nor grateful for the AI that helps me blog and keeps me blogging. As far as I know, AI does not feel the cold and wind and rain of Poole, nor is it inspired by the dark of the early morning before the sky lightens.
So I have a unique gift to give AI in return for its gift to me! My blogging is feeding AI and so is your reading and commenting!
![]() |
|||
|

I’m writing to let you know, following your previous articles, that Universal Credit are continuing to incorrectly not recognise pension payment contributions when calculating net income for the purpose of UC awards.
I recently started paying £200 per month by direct debit into a personal pension as well as my works pension, to bring my total pension contributions up to 15 per cent of my gross salary.
Despite reporting this on my journal online they have repeatedly told me that I cannot have my net pay award adjusted to reflect the total pension payments that I am making.
They have now ignored my request for a mandatory reconsideration of this decision so I will hopefully raise a tribunal claim in due course.
If you’ve got a problem, you can email for help Steve Webb: Get in touch with your problem at pensionquestions@thisismoney.co.uk

Steve Webb looking very smart!
This is an issue that we have been raising on This is Money for several years and it is deeply frustrating that DWP is still getting it wrong.
You certainly should not have to go to a benefit tribunal to get it to apply the rules correctly.The background to the issue is that when income is measured for Universal Credit, the Government should deduct any money you pay into a pension.
This is intended to help and encourage people who are on UC, perhaps only temporarily, to keep saving for retirement.For those who pay into a workplace pension, the process is straightforward, as the information is transmitted directly by your employer to the Department for Work and Pensions under a process known as ‘real-time information’.
Your workplace pension contributions should be deducted without any further action on your part.For the self-employed, there is a standard process for reporting deductions such as pension contributions.
In principle, this should pick up personal pension contributions in a reasonably systematic way.But the situation which their systems seem unable to cope with is where an employee chooses to make voluntary contributions into a personal pension separately to anything deducted via your pay packet.
If you notify UC of your payments through your ‘journal’, and provide any necessary documentary evidence, they should – in theory – increase your UC award to reflect the fact that you are paying into a pension.Unfortunately, we repeatedly hear of people being told that this cannot be done
I first wrote about this issue in a column in summer 2024 and we then heard from a number of readers who had all had the same experience.We contacted DWP, which dealt with the individual cases, and we hoped that the matter was then resolved.
‘We have resolved this issue and informed your reader.’We have improved guidance for staff to accurately assess Universal Credit entitlement to help prevent this issue happening again.’
Just may not be in the bonanza for ever, but that does not mean they will suffer!
Just’s story reminds me of the huge take on of DB transfer business in the later years of quantitative easing when low yields mad CETVs so attractive that de-risking of pension schemes meant taking money into DC pots. This huge surge of business is also driven by gilt yields though it works the other way round. Nowadays, pension schemes de-risk by passing their assets (including the notional surplus) to insurers in return for first a buy-in and then a buy-out.
Andy Smith’s excellent post tells me that there comes a time when the bonanza comes to an end. That does not mean that those who profited from DB to SIPP transfers are suffering, firms like Tideway now sit on large portfolios of SIPPs and many of their clients will enjoy pension freedom. But the surge that came in early years at some point slows down. That is what is happening at Just and just as with the DB/SIPP bonanza, eventually the alternatives to de-risking become clear.
I would like to think that many DB trustees will be thinking going forward that de-risking is not necessarily in the member’s best interests, just as transferring out of DB schemes into SIPPs didn’t make sense once gilt yields ticked up. Indeed for many members of DB schemes, the SIPPs on offer were not suitable and many will wish in years to come that they had run on in the DB schemes they were in (most notably BSPS).
But let me not go to far, Just has not behaved shadily, if their is a criticism , it is that TAS 300 was not publicised by actuarial consultants and superfunds were not able to challenge the insurers. There may have been an advisory and regulatory failure since 2022.
I hope that we are moving into a more meaningful stage of the “endgame” when Just and the new insurers are made to work harder for new business and DB pension trustees are more informed about the choices that they have.
There are many other areas for Just to move into, one may be the insuring of DC defaults where self-insurance is not chosen via CDC. Rothesay have shown the way by winning the account of Nest but there are others and so long as people want the certainty of the annuity, there will be a large retail market for them to prosper.

These gents had the guts to explain the problem five months ago
Last September Thomas Aubrey and Con Keating highlighted the inanity of the Government’s plan to finance with gilts the growth needed for new towns and growth that is needed if Britain is to succeed and this Government be remembered for stimulating it.
If the full amount needed to fulfil the plans for new towns was found from gilts, the gilt market would be spooked and we would have a financial crisis the like of which we have not seen since October 2022.
You can read the last of the blogs published on here, there are also blogs on the PlayPen Coffee Morning featuring these gents.
What they argued for is now the subject by major organisations keen to make growth happen hand in hand with Government.
Now comes an article in the FT which has seen a letter to Rachel Reeves asking that a change of position, in line with what Aubrey and Keating are asking for, be put into place. It is good to see Calum Cooper of Hymans Robertson included alongside the insurers and the USS. The FT report
Development corporations — public bodies that drive new housebuilding and regeneration — should be able to “borrow outside the fiscal rules” in line with other European countries…
If left unaddressed, this current constraint will massively inhibit [the government’s] scope to raise the UK growth rate,” it added, arguing that development corporation borrowing would not be seen as “adding to the UK’s debt sustainability challenges”.
Yes this is a pension story, because these insurers and USS and a consultancy speak as one as organisations responsible for delivering through pensions the growth the Government sees as its responsibility by 2029.
I read the article that quotes Thomas Aubrey and have been in touch with him. He pointed me to his tweets.
more jobs in the Oxford to Cambridge growth corridor.” You cannot put in a public transport system for £500m. No public transport system means you don’t get more houses at higher density to expand local labour markets & hence no boost to productivity. My @BennettSchoolPP report
— Thomas Aubrey (@ThomasAubreyCCA) February 8, 2026
on funding & financing new towns indicated the region required about £10bn in infrastructure investment that could be self-funded. https://t.co/xv77CLjXzR But HMT refuses to permit self-funding which by definition worsens the public finances as it means more gilt issuance driving
— Thomas Aubrey (@ThomasAubreyCCA) February 8, 2026
unilaterally diverged from recognised international accounting standards (ESA 2010) which emerged from the Maastricht criteria largely drawn up by the Bundesbank. These are fiscally prudent but pro-growth. The UK has junked the pro-growth bit which would ironically today prevent
— Thomas Aubrey (@ThomasAubreyCCA) February 8, 2026
robust public finances (45% debt to GDP vs UK 95%) AND higher productivity. Here is a great piece on the subject by @dsmitheconomics https://t.co/y3EMiSoMdk What is even stranger is the fact that the UK with its strong financial services sector is one of the few countries without
— Thomas Aubrey (@ThomasAubreyCCA) February 8, 2026
this @marymcdougall13 piece here https://t.co/NauT9nCVih If HMT continues with its strategy, it is a clear sign they are not serious about growth. There is widespread interest in this mechanism across the political spectrum as it has 150 years of evidence it works! If you
— Thomas Aubrey (@ThomasAubreyCCA) February 8, 2026
enjoyed this thread this @BennettSchoolPP piece provides further detail. https://t.co/a4tzjgKv9s
— Thomas Aubrey (@ThomasAubreyCCA) February 8, 2026
Frankly the £500m Treasury promise was not going to meet the £10bn bill for the Oxford to Cambridge Growth corridor, let alone the new towns around the nation.
The FT is keen to get the question of growth a proper airing
One person familiar with the matter told the FT that the Treasury should consult on how to adjust the fiscal rules to permit borrowing by certain development corporations. Without such changes, plans for ambitious projects such as the government’s new towns and the Oxford-Cambridge Arc would lack sufficient scale, the person added.
The government on Wednesday launched a consultation on creating a new Greater Cambridge development corporation, vowing to tackle challenges including
“infrastructure deficiencies, commercial accessibility and housing affordability.”
A person familiar with the problem told me
My view is that the UK should align with internationally recognised accounting standards. The idea of the consultation is to get HMT to realise how ridiculous their rules are which are constraining growth
I think that all parties to the letter have Keating and Aubrey to thank for the publication of Aubrey’s work and for the ongoing work of Aubrey in keeping this matter in the public’s eye.
Well done the insurers , a pension scheme and a consultancy for their letter and well done the FT for publishing financing re-thought.

A couple of weeks back , Kim Gubler pointed out that a perfectly good system for measuring the value people get for their pension money exists. It is offered by AgeWage that allows people can see how their pension money has grown against how they could have done against the average (benchmark) and against other things that matter – inflation being the main one.
People will not get this information from the Government’s proposals from VFM and having said this for the past five years (and operated the AgeWage VFM reports for the last 7 years), I’m not going to waste more of my time telling the Government that this VFM system is a waste of time.
Thanks to Claire Altman this week for telling the VFM podcast what is even more pertinent, VFM is what people want from pension saving and that is the amount of pension they will get.
But here is Robert Ellison saying it for me! He’s talking in Professional Pensions and this is just one section of a long essay this week! Read here.
Welcome to Emma Douglas
Emma Douglas is being appointed the new chair of The Pensions Regulator (TPR). She will be a safe pair of hands, but she is being immediately faced with the prospect of being forced to sip from a slightly poisoned chalice.
TPR, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Financial Conduct Authority have issued a consultation (not another one says Brenda from Bristol) on value for money (VfM).VfM is motherhood and apple pie; why would any of us object to doing it, and we do it subconsciously every day anyway, especially those of us buy our biscuits from Aldi rather than Fortnums.The document – The value for Money Framework: response to consultation, further consultation and discussion paper – is around 212 pages long and is a masterpiece of dross.TPR’s problem is Terry Smith. Terry Smith’s Fundsmith has had a few ropey years recently (see: Patrick Brusnahan, Terry Smith gives three reasons behind Fundsmith Equity’s ‘challenging’ year, Investment Week, 9 January 2026), but, if we had held it since inception, it would still have proven good value for money for members but probably would have failed the TPR and FCA VfM tests.
How on earth should pension fund trustees measure the value for money of Smith’s very sensible decisions, which presently have been affected by a bubble in seven or so stocks?
The VfM document is a flagship of absurdity, but Emma Douglas may have to burn some political capital to get it ditched – as it needs to be, even if only to meet the government’s productivity aspirations. Hopefully her board will be supportive.
Actually what we need to do is to move to where the Government said it would be by now and start measuring what they called “Decumulation”.
Decumulation is of course a long and silly word for the payment of a pension which is what the Pension Schemes Bill wants to be the default for the ordinary person. Of course extraordinary people who opt out of pensions for “freedom” will not worry about decumulation but the rest of us will really be measuring the value for money on “pensions” will eventually be the amount of pension they get for their money.
Claire Altman wants “pension” to be measured by using the annuity (that’s her job – to manage them). The amount of “pension” you’ll see on the pension dashboard will be the estimated retirement income you get from an annuity purchased by your pot.
The Government has told us that we can expect to get (up to ) 60% more value from a CDC pension than the annuity from our pot. Where’s the VFM?

But of course you didn’t need me to tell you that. Robin Ellison had already told you that.

Will
During the week, I had lunch with Will Hutton at the RSA Coffee House. It was a strenuous meal where the calories absorbed were burned off in our determination to out-gesticulate each other!
We discussed British pensions from Stakeholder to CDC, we even talked of the Stakeholder CDC proposal from Derek Benstead a quarter of a century ago!
You can find how hard it is to keep up with the thinking of “Mr Stakeholder” even though he’s in his mid 70’s. I, 10 years his younger, was left in his wake. Here is his most recent thinking in the Observer.
He puts well what I cannot articulate, the pride in our country’s technological prowess and our inability to turn it into productivity and profitability for our people. We have the capital locked up in our pensions to make our technology work for us and yet we let the technology leak out to America and soon to China. Hutton has other ideas!
But I will shut up and remind myself that Will Hutton was a hero of mine 25 years ago, a long time to wait for lunch but no worse for that. He made sense at the RSA and he makes sense in this article.

China is simultaneously the workshop of the world and an economic calamity waiting to happen. It is arguably the most successful autocratic regime on the planet monitoring, controlling and smothering every move of its 1.4 billion inhabitants, yet at the same time one of the most vulnerable and illegitimate. In some areas – notably its commitment to green technologies, reliance on dirt cheap renewable energy and predictability in its approach to international relationships – it is a welcome exemplar and partner. In others, such as cyber hacking, escalating military ambition and aggressive financial colonialism via its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), it is an adversary to be feared.
Yet for all the ambiguity, the second-largest economy in the world cannot be ignored. The International Standard Industrial Classification identifies 419 industrial product categories ranging from furniture to computer manufacture; China’s industry minister boasts that because China produces in each of them it has a “comprehensive” industrial chain. President Xi Jinping’s declared ambition is “completion” – or to dominate all 419 product categories and then do the same in science and technology.
As matters stand, it could. Even if China eventually falls short, to be able to make the claim plausibly is impressive. Today no country can build a 21st century industrial sector without deploying components that are Chinese made, in a crowding out of western industrial capacity that is part of the reason for the widespread slowdown in productivity across the industrialised west. It is an awesome power, allowing China to emerge relatively unscathed in the tariff wars with the US. Yet while Donald Trump may have gone over the top in claiming that Britain’s attempt to create a more sophisticated win-win “strategic” relationship with China – provoked by Keir Starmer’s state visit last week to Beijing – is “dangerous”, real wariness is more than justified.
Even while President Xi was welcoming the thawing of the relationship with Britain, China was assembling a formidable navy in the South China Sea as a reminder to the US that it is all too ready to exploit the vacuum left by the deployment of US naval power to Iran. And note that last year China offered more than $200bn in soft loans under the BRI; more than 150 countries, largely in the global south, are indebted. This is an economic superpower that can count the majority of the world’s countries as client states – a soft 21st century imperialism.
But it is a superpower with chronic weaknesses. If the key to its economic success is its engineering culture and the emphasis on production that follows, as argued by Dan Wang in Breakneck, a book rapidly becoming a must-read on China (and reportedly read by the team around Starmer on the flight to Beijing), that is also a potential foundational flaw. Churchill once said he would rather see finance less proud and industry more content – as true now as it was a hundred years ago – but in China industry is hubristically dominant while finance is the pliant and helpless servant on which the whole system is constructed.
Essentially, China’s economic prowess is built on a volume of never-to-be-repaid bank debt that dwarfs its economy. It is a banking system that, if the losses of trillions of dollars of defunct loans to its industrial corporations were ever crystallised, would be bankrupt. Only the economy’s forward momentum – rather like a bicycle that can never come to a standstill – stops the whole machine from collapsing.
Nor is an Orwellian state’s smothering of all social interaction, and at the limit imprisoning successful entrepreneurs, conducive to innovation. Eighteen months ago, Xi deplored that China’s capacity to produce so-called unicorns – tech companies whose share capital is valued at more than $1bn – seemed to be weakening. The mote is in his own eye, but no colleague is brave enough to tell him. Attacking any source of power other than that dispensed by the party in order to keep control – Xi’s mantra as he enjoys self-appointed lifelong power – necessarily ensures that every Chinese tech founder either aims low or kowtows to the party. Why get arrested for success?
Here, China is as interested in the UK as the US: it wants to build a super-embassy in London and build relations with the UK for similar reasons to that of Larry Ellison, the second-richest man in the US, who wants to embed himself at the heart of Oxford University’s life science research via the Ellison Institute. Britain’s range of scientific achievements, and its capacity to create a generation of viable businesses from them, is understood by the Chinese Communist party and US venture capitalists alike to be among the best in the world.
Britain has the capacity and entrepreneurial culture to become Europe’s tech superpower, especially if the Labour government could reproduce some of China’s single-minded support for science, technology and production by turbo-charging its still too timid if promising policy programme. The world wants to invest in our scale-ups and be part of an emergent success free of the shadow of either Xi or Trump. So, for example, should our irrationally anti-British pension funds and our even more irrational anti-British rightwing political parties.
More importantly, this is one of the most promising avenues to address the cost of living crisis. For a century until the financial crisis British output per person hour grew on average by 2% per year. Since then, the growth has collapsed, and with it the growth in living standards – the background for so much disaffection and the rise of Reform. Almost no great companies have emerged from all our technological and scientific ventures, instead sold overseas. Too many atrophying monopolies have continued. Too much production has been offshored to China.


Emma Rampton became Registrary in 2017.

Emma Rampton – Cambridge Registrary
The office of Registrary was created in 1506 and Emma Rampton was the 27th person – and first woman – to hold it. The Registrary is the University’s principal administrative officer, head of the UAS and Secretary to the University Council.
Here the 21 Group measure the impact of financial services (administration) on funds available to Cambridge University through its endowment over the past 15 years and especially those of the last 8 years since 2017.
Here, we will track the real performance of Cambridge University’s endowment over time and isolate the impact of administrative spending growth above inflation.
We express values in constant 2025 pounds, taking inflation into account through CPI index, and we benchmark investment performance against the MSCI World Index.
We show a counterfactual scenario as to what the endowment would have been if administrative costs had been frozen in real terms at their 2011 level. The gap between the actual and counterfactual endowment values represents the cumulative opportunity cost of excess real administrative spending, showing how above inflation administration growth compounds into materially lower long-term endowment value.
Under this scenario the endowment would now be GBP 1.3bn larger than it is, or about 30% greater than the current level. Instead of growth, the real value of the endowment is more or less flat over the past decade. (For reference, Ms Rampton takes over as Registrary in 2017).
Table 1. Estimated impact of administrative spending above inflation on endowment value
| Year | Actual Endowment (£bn, real 2025) |
Counterfactual Endowment (£bn, admin spend inflation-capped) |
Cumulative Excess Admin Spend (£bn, real) |
Implied Endowment Shortfall (£bn) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | £2.65 | £2.65 | £0.00 | £0.00 |
| 2015 | £3.98 | £4.03 | £0.11 | £0.06 |
| 2020 | £4.57 | £4.79 | £0.40 | £0.22 |
| 2025 | £4.40 | £5.46 | £0.95 | £1.06 |
| 2026 (projected) | £4.42 | £5.70 | £0.95 | £1.28 |
1 All figures are June 30 each year (date of reporting for CUEF). The 2026 figures are a projection, not audited outcomes.
The 2026 counterfactual endowment is a conservative projection based on applying the observed 2025–26 real investment return of the actual endowment to the inflation-capped counterfactual path. No additional excess administrative spending beyond the 2025 cumulative level is assumed.
By 2020, cumulative administrative spending above inflation is associated with an estimated £0.22 bn reduction in the real value of the endowment relative to an inflation-capped spending path. By 2025, it is £1.06bn. These are secure numbers.
On a like-for-like investment basis, the cumulative opportunity cost associated with above-inflation administrative spending is projected to be about £1.3 bn in real terms by July 2026.