View more on these topics


How bad must a regulatory system be to allow a company like Equitable Life to fail?

If my memory serves me correctly, Equitable was being highlighted as a tad ropey on the free-asset ratio side of things as far back as 1988.

Whenever one of those massive and ever so slightly tedious surveys of life office financial strength was produced, there it was – Equitable Life, the seven-stone weakling surrounded by musclebound giants.

Then there was the small matter of Equitable&#39s failure to honour its guaranteed pension contracts.

Even if the regulators could be forgiven for falling asleep halfway through the survey material, surely they must have twigged that something was wrong when the firm was dragged kicking and screaming to the House of Lords.

No doubt, the DTI and the Treasury will claim that it was too late by then to have saved Equitable but would they be right?

So far as I recall, the company was on TV virtually every other night during that two-year period urging us all to invest. That advertising campaign must have cost the company tens of millions of pounds, never mind the cost of underwriting all the new business that flooded on to its books as a result.

If the regulators knew the company was in trouble, should they not have stopped it advertising at the very least?

On the bright side, one unique aspect of the Equitable scandal is that IFAs had absolutely no part to play in it, probably because the company refused to pay commission to independent advisers.

To be fair, Sir Howard Davies and the FSA also appear to be innocent of blame in this particular cock-up. Regulation of life offices was the responsibility of the Treasury between January 1998 and January 1999 and before that the DTI took the lead role.

Since neither of these organisations has ever taken the protection of consumers seriously, the FSA would have had virtually no chance of detecting the problem and acting on it when the files were handed over 12 months ago.

If the FSA made a mistake, it was that it adopted the Treasury&#39s “regulatory” personnel along with its files.

Not that everything is lost quite yet. Equitable is not insolvent but has simply closed its doors to new business. Its poor financial position means it is having to cut its exposure to the stockmarket, thereby cutting future returns for policyholders, but, with new capital, the company&#39s position could still be turned round.

Initially, more than a dozen potential bidders expressed an interest in the company but none put a solid bid on the table, apparently because the final bill for the guaranteed pension contracts is still not known.

Last weekend, there were reports that this problem could be overcome if the company&#39s policyholders were to accept reduced payouts on their “guaranteed” pension contracts. In short, the policyholders who successfully took the company to court for reducing their payouts initially now find themselves back at square one.

To my mind, this is unacceptable. It is a difficult call for policyholders who, if they fail to compromise, could see the company go bankrupt but if I were in their shoes I would take the battle to the Gov ernment.

It was the job of the Government to make sure the company was financially sound. Having failed to do that, it should be the Gov ernment that plugs the hole it has so irres ponsibly allowed to emerge.


Bank of England resists rate cut call

The Bank of England has resisted calls from business and trade unions for a cut in interest rates, maintaining the rate at six per cent at today&#39s monetary policy committee meeting. Most economists expected the rate to remain the same in the light of recent consumer credit figures and mortgage approvals which remain buoyant. The […]

James Hay sipps the fruits of external funds

Cocken says: “James Hay’s reputation of poor service is not justified as far as I am concerned, as I have always found it to be efficient and accurate with the information it has provided to me. As long as you see the company as administrators and not as an insurance or investment company, you shouldn’t […]

Broadband leaders

The two most common complaints I hear from IFAs about online services are that they are slow and phone charges can make them expensive. Both are valid criticisms. It is not without reason that all too often the internet is referred to as the World Wide Wait. Equally, the historical practice of charging for local […]

Dynamic fund for Merrill

Gaffney says: “It is actively managed, rated AAA by Standard & Poor&#39s and has a flexible investment approach. It is able to take a defensive stance at times of anticipated market decline. It can also take an opposite course of action and position the fund aggressively at times of anticipated market strength.”Flowers says: “Not being […]


News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up


    Leave a comment


    Why register with Money Marketing ?

    Providing trusted insight for professional advisers.  Since 1985 Money Marketing has helped promote and analyse the financial adviser community in the UK and continues to be the trusted industry brand for independent insight and advice.

    News & analysis delivered directly to your inbox
    Register today to receive our range of news alerts including daily and weekly briefings

    Money Marketing Events
    Be the first to hear about our industry leading conferences, awards, roundtables and more.

    Research and insight
    Take part in and see the results of Money Marketing's flagship investigations into industry trends.

    Have your say
    Only registered users can post comments. As the voice of the adviser community, our content generates robust debate. Sign up today and make your voice heard.

    Register now

    Having problems?

    Contact us on +44 (0)20 7292 3712

    Lines are open Monday to Friday 9:00am -5.00pm