UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (8) | Ignore Thread Prev | Next
Author: alaric2 Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 91869  
Subject: Re: A stroll down Whitehall Date: 29/02/2012 00:25
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
Who awarded these excessive bonuses ?

I think it can only have been Roy Ranson

Why ?

Vanity , perhaps ? I am clever enough to be able to lead the pack.


Perhaps, but I'd put it down to allowing a sales based culture to rule. So their key test was
"Are we selling lots of business"
rather than
"Are we selling lots of business at a profit"

In a mutual, "profit" can have a different meaning, but whilst getting a load of "loss" making business is, or should be easy, writing volumes on self sustaining terms would have be more difficult.

They had a lot going for them, well-off potential clients, an experienced and knowledgeable sales team, a reputation for value, integrity and lower expenses compared to income than their rivals. Why they felt obliged to resort to smoke and mirrors on their finances still remains something of a mystery. Perhaps they just couldn't bring themselves to admit that they didn't get everything right. To my mind the crunch was the end of 1990 where to be consistent with the "it's just like unit linked" premise of WPWM, they needed to do nasty things like slash bonuses and impose MVAs to keep the assets and nominal fund values in line.
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post  
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (8) | Ignore Thread Prev | Next

Announcements

Want to discuss your Equitable Life Policy?
Please visit the 'Equitable Life: Current Policies' board
Compensation
The Government has agreed in principle to pay compensation - but when and how much?
Free investing reports you can download right now
Pick and choose from several free Motley Fool reports.