Documents: 22/04/2003 - Paul Braithwaites address to the Standard Life AGM 22 April '03 - Paul Braithwaite at the AGM of Standard Life, Edinburgh "I don't recognise the company that Iain Lumsden has just been talking about" Let me start by addressing David Stonebanks on demutualisation: Standard Life has been suffering from a dreadful wasting disease. It's in the operating theatre now, and we're talking life and death. So, now REALLY isn't the time to be rifling through the patient's pockets for small change. Please, Mr Stonebanks, stand back and let the team try to save the life, instead of distracting them. 20 years ago I had what looks now like the misfortune to start contributing to pensions with both Equitable and Standard Life. For more than the last two years I've been working full-time on trying to help beleaguered Equitable Life policyholders. A year ago I came to the AGM here and begged the board to ameliorate its over-exposure to equities. And I observed then that I could see alarm signals of arrogance and complacency similar to the Equitable. Arguably, I'm uniquely positioned to see parallels and hopefully to flag potential pitfalls to the new chairman and his non-executive board, before it's too late. A year ago Iain Lumsden replied to me that there were NO similarities. OH, that he were right! Here are a few of the ones that I observe - apart from arrogance and complacency:
In Equitable's case it was on going to the House of Lords over the GARs. In Standard Life's, it's equities. Ned Cazalet tells me that Standard Life has lost £15 billions in the last three years. I fear that 'The Mortgage Promise' could yet prove to be Standard Life's own 'black hole'. Last year Mr Lumsden assured us that there was NIL provision. Now, it's £1,500 million - with £1,200 millions yet to be found. Will the non-executives please take it upon themselves to obtain quotations for the cost of covering that risk? It was accepting management's view of the cost of GARs that was partly responsible for wrecking the Equitable Life. And the KILLER similarity?
The danger of this possibly fatal flaw was demonstrated last year by Iain Lumsden's rather defiant assertion to my reasonable plea: He said: "Equities have always served us very well. With 75% in equities, we are well placed for the imminent upturn in the stock market". And we heard the same again this afternoon! On April 30th last year the FTSE was at 5,200 - one third higher than it is today. Equities may have served us well, Mr Lumsden, UNTIL THEY HAVEN'T. In my opinion 55% in equities is still far too high. I thought actuaries were meant to anticipate the remote possibility of awful things happening and provide for them. Our actuaries, with their 'one-trick-pony' dedication to 'the cult of equities', have clung doggedl like dinosaurs, to their fig leaves until well past the 'sell-by date'. Iain Lumsden's stewardship has been an unmitigated disaster. Nothing personal. I'd like to wish him a long retirement. With his enviably huge, and recently much enhanced, pension. I plead to all the non-executive directors we see before us today, who are the members' guardians: Wake up and smell the coffee! My question is, therefore, perhaps best addressed to the new chairman, Sir Brian: PLEASE, we desperately need a 'new broom' because Iain Lumsden's management regime is "A BUSTED FLUSH"." Paul Braithwaite |