View more on these topics

Verity&#39s View

It is becoming a familiar story. A giant company is formed in a few short years by a series of mega-mergers, justified in good times with the jargon of unprecedented opportunities for growth and in bad times by the need to cut costs and consolidate. The growth opportunities fail to materialise as hoped. In fact, the much-heralded new markets are only a fraction of their predicted size. Cost-cutting opportunities and synergies have largely been used up. With the feelgood factor gone, the company seeks to present its financial state in the best possible light. The rulebook is raided for legal ways to tweak the figures and introduce a bit of colour into an increasingly pallid-looking set of financial reports.

I am not talking about Enron or WorldCom. This familiar story, carefully read, applies to none other than our very own CGNU. Britain&#39s biggest life insurer is not, of course, under any suspicion of wrongdoing or illegality, nor would I suggest it intended anything of the sort. Everything this life company has done is not only legal, it is respectable within the life insurance world. It is accepted practice among senior life insurance practitioners and allowed by the regulator. That is the whole problem.

When CGNU confirmed that it had counted £2bn pounds of future profits as a current asset, it admitted that the move had a beneficial effect on its free-asset ratio. Of course, that could only help it distribute products through the regrettably large number of IFAs who do not bother to look beyond this extremely malleable measure of financial strength. But it could also point out that this is quite a normal procedure in the life insurance world and nothing to fuss about. CGNU even justified it by saying the solvency requirements on life insurers can make the financial position look worse than it really is.

So this sort of made up for its decision to use the future profits tweak – a bizarre argument. If the regime makes the finances look worse than they really are, that must also be the case in the good times when the FTSE is riding high. In those times, every life insurer looks robustly healthy without the help of any financial cosmetics. So why use them now, when the market is down, if not to downplay the impact of the market slump?

But let us not be unfair on CGNU just because it is the biggest. A recent study by the University of Nottingham showed that 11 of the UK&#39s 20 biggest life insurers count future profits as a current asset in their latest returns to the FSA, thus boosting their free-asset ratio. This is nonsense. By counting in future profits, life insurers are pretending they can predict and rely on a profit stream from the policies currently on their books. But anyone who has ever examined the regulator&#39s persistency figures knows how many clients lapse or surrender policies after divorce, unemployment, illness and so on. The profits are neither predictable nor reliable. Counting profits as a current asset is spurious, to say the least. The fact that it is legal speaks volumes about the inadequacy of the law and very little about the ethics of the practice.

Of course, there are a number of other common tweaks (to put it delicately) which are also perfectly legal. Equitable Life pulled off one of them – financial reinsurance. This is where you get some of the liability off your balance sheet by paying a premium to a reinsurer to take on the risks. The trouble is that it is quite possible to get the liability off your balance sheet without really transferring the risk. So although the free-asset ratio looks a bit more robust, the company&#39s financial position will be just as bad if things go wrong.

How ironic, then, that at a time when fears about aggressive accounting practices have dented financial markets more than the worst terrorist atrocity we have ever seen, these practices are blithely allowed. The incentive to tweak like this is clear – there are plenty of IFAs out there without the time or research budgets to do a more thorough financial healthcheck and who rely on the free-asset ratio as their only measure of financial strength. For the life office, the logic is simple – the bigger the free-asset ratio, the more policies that will be sold.

The FSA actually reviewed the use of future profits as an asset in life office returns. Its conclusion came out in May. With the toughness we have come to expect from the FSA, it concluded the practice is perfectly acceptable.

Surely, in these choppy markets, there can be few more important questions when buying an investment than the financial strength of the life insurer issuing it? Yet the use of these accounting practices robs even the most conscientious IFAs of any simple method of measuring that. Is this problem going to be addressed? The Sandler review – supposedly the Government&#39s big attempt to make financial services focus on the consumer – barely touches on this.

Who are we consumers to argue? Why should we want a reliable measure of the financial state of the company looking after our life savings? Per=haps the regulators and Treasury, like some in the actuarial profession, are still stuck in an old-fashioned paternalistic mindset. It is not desirable for millions of us ignorant customers to know the truth about financial strength. It would only cause unnecessary panic.

If we need a crackdown on aggressive accounting practices in the UK, we need it most of all in the life insurance sector. These practices may be legal but should they be?

Andrew Verity is personal finance corresondent at the BBC

Recommended

Sandler could help more IFAs keep independence

Ron Sandler&#39s proposals for the future of the independent sector have been met with gratitude from IFAs who have concluded he has made it easier for advisers to remain independent. Sandler&#39s report published this week proposes a “substantial relaxation” of the FSA&#39s Defined Payment System by removing providers from influencing how much and how IFAs […]

Don&#39t take your eye off the business ball

The reform of UK financial services, a process we confidently predict will never end in the working lifetime of most IFAs, continues apace this week as Sandler and Pickering publish their views.IFAs are set to suffer collateral damage in the cause of getting the great “unsaved” to put some money away and will take some […]

IFAP highlights £315m wasted by non-taxpayers

IFA Promotion says 5.1 million non-taxpayers would each save an average of £62 if they registered their status with the Inland Revenue.The savings amount to a total of £315m. IFAP says non-taxpayers, including low earners, can obtain form R85 from their IFA, bank or building society to inform the Revenue of their situation.Once the Revenue […]

Threadneedle appoints Holden to new team for UK equities

Threadneedle Investments has recruited Mark Holden onto its new UK equities high alpha team.The team will manage UK equities for both retail and institutional clients, and will include the UK select growth fund. It will be lead by Paul Findley, and will include Peter Wilton, Steve Hewitt and Mark Holden.Holden, who joins in September, is […]

Jelf flexible benefits

In Focus: How to choose a flexible benefits provider — seven top tips

Jelf Employee Benefits looks at some of the key considerations employers should think about when reviewing and choosing a flexible benefits provider. Choosing the right benefits for your employees is one thing but delivering a successful employee benefits strategy is about understanding the complete picture and delivering it in a personalised way so that it resonates with each and every individual in your business. 

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

    Leave a comment