LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!
Comments
-
Also, knowing what Putin has done to eliminate people who go against him. Would you question any decisions made with this regard? I thought it was ridiculously brave to give access in the first place.0
-
Pension funds and / or insurance companies running "closed books" on behalf of DB schemes may have some appetite for certain types of higher risk investment. Infrastructure projects in the operational phase is the investment type that has received a fair amount of publicity in this respect as the capital implications of such investments are generally held to be on the onerous side, so there may be some mileage here. But "start ups" or even SMEs looking to "scale up" are more akin to development projects, and these are a wholly different kettle of fish from a risk viewpoint.rick_chasey said:
With all due respect, I thought the entire point was the regulation meant institutional investors were not really able to invest in the part of the market, even if there was appetite, so how are we now deciding no-one wants it?pblakeney said:
Rather missing the point.rick_chasey said:
Can't have the government spending money, , can't have firms access capital from the pension space, where is the investment capital going to come from in this economy?pblakeney said:
This.surrey_commuter said:
That is exactly my point. For a closed scheme once you are in surplus they will lock down the assets to prevent the chance of a future deficit. They also need to be liquid as they are paying out pensions every month. There is no upside in them chasing additional growth.wallace_and_gromit said:
Isn't that SC's point? i.e. we don't have big DB pension funds any more? Or at least not big DB schemes with lots of active members and thus "surplus" funds to invest in risky assets? DC schemes are presumably already investing is risky stuff to the extent that their investors want exposure to that sort of asset class.rick_chasey said:
Question of scale I guess. Look at the big Canadian pension funds. Huge VC and PE investors.wallace_and_gromit said:
Not sure that pension trustees will be dashing to invest in such firms in any great quantities. Their duty of care is to their members, not to the wider economy. That said though, the current capital requirements are quite restrictive.rick_chasey said:...big institutional investors are a good source of capital for those kinds of firms - if the rules allow.
The Canadian schemes are public sector and ae still open, this means that they are looking at things through a lens of a 100 year timeframe. They also have highly paid financial advisers sat in the room with them.
A far simpler solution is for Rick and others who think like him to pour their pension pots into Neil Woodford's latest fund.
All FAs ask their clients about risk. Not many would place themselves as a 9 or 10.
It's all parsimonious no no no from you lot.
What good is it in offering high risk/high reward products nobody wants?
Surely loosening the regs on where institutional investors can invest will just allow for better discovery.
If it turns out they don't like the risk premium so no-one invests in that part of the market then great, we've got a good efficient allocation of resources and the VC stage companies need to do better.0 -
"Can't" is the wrong word here. Firms may want to accept capital from pension funds, but pension funds may not want to invest.rick_chasey said:...can't have firms access capital from the pension space...
0 -
Fair enough, open it up. If you've ever had a discussion about your pension then you'll know that your attitude to risk is front and foremost. FAs are generally risk avert.rick_chasey said:
With all due respect, I thought the entire point was the regulation meant institutional investors were not really able to invest in the part of the market, even if there was appetite, so how are we now deciding no-one wants it?pblakeney said:
Rather missing the point.rick_chasey said:
Can't have the government spending money, , can't have firms access capital from the pension space, where is the investment capital going to come from in this economy?pblakeney said:
This.surrey_commuter said:
That is exactly my point. For a closed scheme once you are in surplus they will lock down the assets to prevent the chance of a future deficit. They also need to be liquid as they are paying out pensions every month. There is no upside in them chasing additional growth.wallace_and_gromit said:
Isn't that SC's point? i.e. we don't have big DB pension funds any more? Or at least not big DB schemes with lots of active members and thus "surplus" funds to invest in risky assets? DC schemes are presumably already investing is risky stuff to the extent that their investors want exposure to that sort of asset class.rick_chasey said:
Question of scale I guess. Look at the big Canadian pension funds. Huge VC and PE investors.wallace_and_gromit said:
Not sure that pension trustees will be dashing to invest in such firms in any great quantities. Their duty of care is to their members, not to the wider economy. That said though, the current capital requirements are quite restrictive.rick_chasey said:...big institutional investors are a good source of capital for those kinds of firms - if the rules allow.
The Canadian schemes are public sector and ae still open, this means that they are looking at things through a lens of a 100 year timeframe. They also have highly paid financial advisers sat in the room with them.
A far simpler solution is for Rick and others who think like him to pour their pension pots into Neil Woodford's latest fund.
All FAs ask their clients about risk. Not many would place themselves as a 9 or 10.
It's all parsimonious no no no from you lot.
What good is it in offering high risk/high reward products nobody wants?
...
I doubt it would get the boost that you think.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I speak to and hire for investors for a living so I have a pretty good idea.pblakeney said:
Fair enough, open it up. If you've ever had a discussion about your pension then you'll know that your attitude to risk is front and foremost. FAs are generally risk avert.rick_chasey said:
With all due respect, I thought the entire point was the regulation meant institutional investors were not really able to invest in the part of the market, even if there was appetite, so how are we now deciding no-one wants it?pblakeney said:
Rather missing the point.rick_chasey said:
Can't have the government spending money, , can't have firms access capital from the pension space, where is the investment capital going to come from in this economy?pblakeney said:
This.surrey_commuter said:
That is exactly my point. For a closed scheme once you are in surplus they will lock down the assets to prevent the chance of a future deficit. They also need to be liquid as they are paying out pensions every month. There is no upside in them chasing additional growth.wallace_and_gromit said:
Isn't that SC's point? i.e. we don't have big DB pension funds any more? Or at least not big DB schemes with lots of active members and thus "surplus" funds to invest in risky assets? DC schemes are presumably already investing is risky stuff to the extent that their investors want exposure to that sort of asset class.rick_chasey said:
Question of scale I guess. Look at the big Canadian pension funds. Huge VC and PE investors.wallace_and_gromit said:
Not sure that pension trustees will be dashing to invest in such firms in any great quantities. Their duty of care is to their members, not to the wider economy. That said though, the current capital requirements are quite restrictive.rick_chasey said:...big institutional investors are a good source of capital for those kinds of firms - if the rules allow.
The Canadian schemes are public sector and ae still open, this means that they are looking at things through a lens of a 100 year timeframe. They also have highly paid financial advisers sat in the room with them.
A far simpler solution is for Rick and others who think like him to pour their pension pots into Neil Woodford's latest fund.
All FAs ask their clients about risk. Not many would place themselves as a 9 or 10.
It's all parsimonious no no no from you lot.
What good is it in offering high risk/high reward products nobody wants?
...
I doubt it would get the boost that you think.0 -
I find that the most of recruiters who I use to do hiring for tax positions don't know a lot about tax. The few exceptions being those that did tax for a living then went into recruiting.rick_chasey said:
I speak to and hire for investors for a living so I have a pretty good idea.pblakeney said:
Fair enough, open it up. If you've ever had a discussion about your pension then you'll know that your attitude to risk is front and foremost. FAs are generally risk avert.rick_chasey said:
With all due respect, I thought the entire point was the regulation meant institutional investors were not really able to invest in the part of the market, even if there was appetite, so how are we now deciding no-one wants it?pblakeney said:
Rather missing the point.rick_chasey said:
Can't have the government spending money, , can't have firms access capital from the pension space, where is the investment capital going to come from in this economy?pblakeney said:
This.surrey_commuter said:
That is exactly my point. For a closed scheme once you are in surplus they will lock down the assets to prevent the chance of a future deficit. They also need to be liquid as they are paying out pensions every month. There is no upside in them chasing additional growth.wallace_and_gromit said:
Isn't that SC's point? i.e. we don't have big DB pension funds any more? Or at least not big DB schemes with lots of active members and thus "surplus" funds to invest in risky assets? DC schemes are presumably already investing is risky stuff to the extent that their investors want exposure to that sort of asset class.rick_chasey said:
Question of scale I guess. Look at the big Canadian pension funds. Huge VC and PE investors.wallace_and_gromit said:
Not sure that pension trustees will be dashing to invest in such firms in any great quantities. Their duty of care is to their members, not to the wider economy. That said though, the current capital requirements are quite restrictive.rick_chasey said:...big institutional investors are a good source of capital for those kinds of firms - if the rules allow.
The Canadian schemes are public sector and ae still open, this means that they are looking at things through a lens of a 100 year timeframe. They also have highly paid financial advisers sat in the room with them.
A far simpler solution is for Rick and others who think like him to pour their pension pots into Neil Woodford's latest fund.
All FAs ask their clients about risk. Not many would place themselves as a 9 or 10.
It's all parsimonious no no no from you lot.
What good is it in offering high risk/high reward products nobody wants?
...
I doubt it would get the boost that you think.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I remember hearing about a venture capitalist when Telsa needed more cash flow. The initial thought was "no blood way", but when he found out Musk was prepared to go all in himself with his own capital he thought this is a bloke worth banking on.
That was off the cuff not using my internet memory so it might be a bit wrong, meh.0 -
This threads become quite interesting again.0
-
I bet Thatcher would have liked Musk.0
-
Can you keep the hagiography to the right thread? Some of us have eaten recently.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I didn't start it!rjsterry said:Can you keep the hagiography to the right thread? Some of us have eaten recently.
0 -
kingstongraham said:
Got the interview that Johnson no doubt dreams of.
I wonder what questions he'll ask Musk.0 -
Go on then tick Kingston off.0
-
Should find some better recruiters then. My colleague who covers accountants is a FCAStevo_666 said:
I find that the most of recruiters who I use to do hiring for tax positions don't know a lot about tax. The few exceptions being those that did tax for a living then went into recruiting.rick_chasey said:
I speak to and hire for investors for a living so I have a pretty good idea.pblakeney said:
Fair enough, open it up. If you've ever had a discussion about your pension then you'll know that your attitude to risk is front and foremost. FAs are generally risk avert.rick_chasey said:
With all due respect, I thought the entire point was the regulation meant institutional investors were not really able to invest in the part of the market, even if there was appetite, so how are we now deciding no-one wants it?pblakeney said:
Rather missing the point.rick_chasey said:
Can't have the government spending money, , can't have firms access capital from the pension space, where is the investment capital going to come from in this economy?pblakeney said:
This.surrey_commuter said:
That is exactly my point. For a closed scheme once you are in surplus they will lock down the assets to prevent the chance of a future deficit. They also need to be liquid as they are paying out pensions every month. There is no upside in them chasing additional growth.wallace_and_gromit said:
Isn't that SC's point? i.e. we don't have big DB pension funds any more? Or at least not big DB schemes with lots of active members and thus "surplus" funds to invest in risky assets? DC schemes are presumably already investing is risky stuff to the extent that their investors want exposure to that sort of asset class.rick_chasey said:
Question of scale I guess. Look at the big Canadian pension funds. Huge VC and PE investors.wallace_and_gromit said:
Not sure that pension trustees will be dashing to invest in such firms in any great quantities. Their duty of care is to their members, not to the wider economy. That said though, the current capital requirements are quite restrictive.rick_chasey said:...big institutional investors are a good source of capital for those kinds of firms - if the rules allow.
The Canadian schemes are public sector and ae still open, this means that they are looking at things through a lens of a 100 year timeframe. They also have highly paid financial advisers sat in the room with them.
A far simpler solution is for Rick and others who think like him to pour their pension pots into Neil Woodford's latest fund.
All FAs ask their clients about risk. Not many would place themselves as a 9 or 10.
It's all parsimonious no no no from you lot.
What good is it in offering high risk/high reward products nobody wants?
...
I doubt it would get the boost that you think.0 -
I suppose we can be grateful that today’s Government u turn is potentially a good one in retaining ticket offices at stations.0
-
So they can continue to be as useless in person as they are in head office.Pross said:I suppose we can be grateful that today’s Government u turn is potentially a good one in retaining ticket offices at stations.
Still flabbergasted when the ticket person explained that it was up to me to work out the cheapest fare, not them.0 -
They're good recruiters as they've got me the good people I need. They just don't pretend to be tax expertsrick_chasey said:
Should find some better recruiters then. My colleague who covers accountants is a FCAStevo_666 said:
I find that the most of recruiters who I use to do hiring for tax positions don't know a lot about tax. The few exceptions being those that did tax for a living then went into recruiting.rick_chasey said:
I speak to and hire for investors for a living so I have a pretty good idea.pblakeney said:
Fair enough, open it up. If you've ever had a discussion about your pension then you'll know that your attitude to risk is front and foremost. FAs are generally risk avert.rick_chasey said:
With all due respect, I thought the entire point was the regulation meant institutional investors were not really able to invest in the part of the market, even if there was appetite, so how are we now deciding no-one wants it?pblakeney said:
Rather missing the point.rick_chasey said:
Can't have the government spending money, , can't have firms access capital from the pension space, where is the investment capital going to come from in this economy?pblakeney said:
This.surrey_commuter said:
That is exactly my point. For a closed scheme once you are in surplus they will lock down the assets to prevent the chance of a future deficit. They also need to be liquid as they are paying out pensions every month. There is no upside in them chasing additional growth.wallace_and_gromit said:
Isn't that SC's point? i.e. we don't have big DB pension funds any more? Or at least not big DB schemes with lots of active members and thus "surplus" funds to invest in risky assets? DC schemes are presumably already investing is risky stuff to the extent that their investors want exposure to that sort of asset class.rick_chasey said:
Question of scale I guess. Look at the big Canadian pension funds. Huge VC and PE investors.wallace_and_gromit said:
Not sure that pension trustees will be dashing to invest in such firms in any great quantities. Their duty of care is to their members, not to the wider economy. That said though, the current capital requirements are quite restrictive.rick_chasey said:...big institutional investors are a good source of capital for those kinds of firms - if the rules allow.
The Canadian schemes are public sector and ae still open, this means that they are looking at things through a lens of a 100 year timeframe. They also have highly paid financial advisers sat in the room with them.
A far simpler solution is for Rick and others who think like him to pour their pension pots into Neil Woodford's latest fund.
All FAs ask their clients about risk. Not many would place themselves as a 9 or 10.
It's all parsimonious no no no from you lot.
What good is it in offering high risk/high reward products nobody wants?
...
I doubt it would get the boost that you think.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I find the idea that recruiters know lots about the job they are recruiting for a bit annoying. Much like journalists offering the same view.rick_chasey said:
Should find some better recruiters then. My colleague who covers accountants is a FCAStevo_666 said:
I find that the most of recruiters who I use to do hiring for tax positions don't know a lot about tax. The few exceptions being those that did tax for a living then went into recruiting.rick_chasey said:
I speak to and hire for investors for a living so I have a pretty good idea.pblakeney said:
Fair enough, open it up. If you've ever had a discussion about your pension then you'll know that your attitude to risk is front and foremost. FAs are generally risk avert.rick_chasey said:
With all due respect, I thought the entire point was the regulation meant institutional investors were not really able to invest in the part of the market, even if there was appetite, so how are we now deciding no-one wants it?pblakeney said:
Rather missing the point.rick_chasey said:
Can't have the government spending money, , can't have firms access capital from the pension space, where is the investment capital going to come from in this economy?pblakeney said:
This.surrey_commuter said:
That is exactly my point. For a closed scheme once you are in surplus they will lock down the assets to prevent the chance of a future deficit. They also need to be liquid as they are paying out pensions every month. There is no upside in them chasing additional growth.wallace_and_gromit said:
Isn't that SC's point? i.e. we don't have big DB pension funds any more? Or at least not big DB schemes with lots of active members and thus "surplus" funds to invest in risky assets? DC schemes are presumably already investing is risky stuff to the extent that their investors want exposure to that sort of asset class.rick_chasey said:
Question of scale I guess. Look at the big Canadian pension funds. Huge VC and PE investors.wallace_and_gromit said:
Not sure that pension trustees will be dashing to invest in such firms in any great quantities. Their duty of care is to their members, not to the wider economy. That said though, the current capital requirements are quite restrictive.rick_chasey said:...big institutional investors are a good source of capital for those kinds of firms - if the rules allow.
The Canadian schemes are public sector and ae still open, this means that they are looking at things through a lens of a 100 year timeframe. They also have highly paid financial advisers sat in the room with them.
A far simpler solution is for Rick and others who think like him to pour their pension pots into Neil Woodford's latest fund.
All FAs ask their clients about risk. Not many would place themselves as a 9 or 10.
It's all parsimonious no no no from you lot.
What good is it in offering high risk/high reward products nobody wants?
...
I doubt it would get the boost that you think.0 -
FTFYTheBigBean said:
I find the idea that recruiters think they know lots about the job they are recruiting for a bit annoying. Much like journalists offering the same view.rick_chasey said:
Should find some better recruiters then. My colleague who covers accountants is a FCAStevo_666 said:
I find that the most of recruiters who I use to do hiring for tax positions don't know a lot about tax. The few exceptions being those that did tax for a living then went into recruiting.rick_chasey said:
I speak to and hire for investors for a living so I have a pretty good idea.pblakeney said:
Fair enough, open it up. If you've ever had a discussion about your pension then you'll know that your attitude to risk is front and foremost. FAs are generally risk avert.rick_chasey said:
With all due respect, I thought the entire point was the regulation meant institutional investors were not really able to invest in the part of the market, even if there was appetite, so how are we now deciding no-one wants it?pblakeney said:
Rather missing the point.rick_chasey said:
Can't have the government spending money, , can't have firms access capital from the pension space, where is the investment capital going to come from in this economy?pblakeney said:
This.surrey_commuter said:
That is exactly my point. For a closed scheme once you are in surplus they will lock down the assets to prevent the chance of a future deficit. They also need to be liquid as they are paying out pensions every month. There is no upside in them chasing additional growth.wallace_and_gromit said:
Isn't that SC's point? i.e. we don't have big DB pension funds any more? Or at least not big DB schemes with lots of active members and thus "surplus" funds to invest in risky assets? DC schemes are presumably already investing is risky stuff to the extent that their investors want exposure to that sort of asset class.rick_chasey said:
Question of scale I guess. Look at the big Canadian pension funds. Huge VC and PE investors.wallace_and_gromit said:
Not sure that pension trustees will be dashing to invest in such firms in any great quantities. Their duty of care is to their members, not to the wider economy. That said though, the current capital requirements are quite restrictive.rick_chasey said:...big institutional investors are a good source of capital for those kinds of firms - if the rules allow.
The Canadian schemes are public sector and ae still open, this means that they are looking at things through a lens of a 100 year timeframe. They also have highly paid financial advisers sat in the room with them.
A far simpler solution is for Rick and others who think like him to pour their pension pots into Neil Woodford's latest fund.
All FAs ask their clients about risk. Not many would place themselves as a 9 or 10.
It's all parsimonious no no no from you lot.
What good is it in offering high risk/high reward products nobody wants?
...
I doubt it would get the boost that you think."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Battle the RMT for a year on this and then U turn. Good governance.Pross said:I suppose we can be grateful that today’s Government u turn is potentially a good one in retaining ticket offices at stations.
0 -
W&G knows his onions on this subject and should be listened to.wallace_and_gromit said:
Pension funds and / or insurance companies running "closed books" on behalf of DB schemes may have some appetite for certain types of higher risk investment. Infrastructure projects in the operational phase is the investment type that has received a fair amount of publicity in this respect as the capital implications of such investments are generally held to be on the onerous side, so there may be some mileage here. But "start ups" or even SMEs looking to "scale up" are more akin to development projects, and these are a wholly different kettle of fish from a risk viewpoint.rick_chasey said:
With all due respect, I thought the entire point was the regulation meant institutional investors were not really able to invest in the part of the market, even if there was appetite, so how are we now deciding no-one wants it?pblakeney said:
Rather missing the point.rick_chasey said:
Can't have the government spending money, , can't have firms access capital from the pension space, where is the investment capital going to come from in this economy?pblakeney said:
This.surrey_commuter said:
That is exactly my point. For a closed scheme once you are in surplus they will lock down the assets to prevent the chance of a future deficit. They also need to be liquid as they are paying out pensions every month. There is no upside in them chasing additional growth.wallace_and_gromit said:
Isn't that SC's point? i.e. we don't have big DB pension funds any more? Or at least not big DB schemes with lots of active members and thus "surplus" funds to invest in risky assets? DC schemes are presumably already investing is risky stuff to the extent that their investors want exposure to that sort of asset class.rick_chasey said:
Question of scale I guess. Look at the big Canadian pension funds. Huge VC and PE investors.wallace_and_gromit said:
Not sure that pension trustees will be dashing to invest in such firms in any great quantities. Their duty of care is to their members, not to the wider economy. That said though, the current capital requirements are quite restrictive.rick_chasey said:...big institutional investors are a good source of capital for those kinds of firms - if the rules allow.
The Canadian schemes are public sector and ae still open, this means that they are looking at things through a lens of a 100 year timeframe. They also have highly paid financial advisers sat in the room with them.
A far simpler solution is for Rick and others who think like him to pour their pension pots into Neil Woodford's latest fund.
All FAs ask their clients about risk. Not many would place themselves as a 9 or 10.
It's all parsimonious no no no from you lot.
What good is it in offering high risk/high reward products nobody wants?
Surely loosening the regs on where institutional investors can invest will just allow for better discovery.
If it turns out they don't like the risk premium so no-one invests in that part of the market then great, we've got a good efficient allocation of resources and the VC stage companies need to do better.1 -
I guess whoever put Cummings in charge must be feeling a bit stupid.0
-
I can almost sense the greatness travelling from the Atlantic this morning.0
-
He could ask him about Bladerunner.0
-
Sure.surrey_commuter said:
W&G knows his onions on this subject and should be listened to.wallace_and_gromit said:
Pension funds and / or insurance companies running "closed books" on behalf of DB schemes may have some appetite for certain types of higher risk investment. Infrastructure projects in the operational phase is the investment type that has received a fair amount of publicity in this respect as the capital implications of such investments are generally held to be on the onerous side, so there may be some mileage here. But "start ups" or even SMEs looking to "scale up" are more akin to development projects, and these are a wholly different kettle of fish from a risk viewpoint.rick_chasey said:
With all due respect, I thought the entire point was the regulation meant institutional investors were not really able to invest in the part of the market, even if there was appetite, so how are we now deciding no-one wants it?pblakeney said:
Rather missing the point.rick_chasey said:
Can't have the government spending money, , can't have firms access capital from the pension space, where is the investment capital going to come from in this economy?pblakeney said:
This.surrey_commuter said:
That is exactly my point. For a closed scheme once you are in surplus they will lock down the assets to prevent the chance of a future deficit. They also need to be liquid as they are paying out pensions every month. There is no upside in them chasing additional growth.wallace_and_gromit said:
Isn't that SC's point? i.e. we don't have big DB pension funds any more? Or at least not big DB schemes with lots of active members and thus "surplus" funds to invest in risky assets? DC schemes are presumably already investing is risky stuff to the extent that their investors want exposure to that sort of asset class.rick_chasey said:
Question of scale I guess. Look at the big Canadian pension funds. Huge VC and PE investors.wallace_and_gromit said:
Not sure that pension trustees will be dashing to invest in such firms in any great quantities. Their duty of care is to their members, not to the wider economy. That said though, the current capital requirements are quite restrictive.rick_chasey said:...big institutional investors are a good source of capital for those kinds of firms - if the rules allow.
The Canadian schemes are public sector and ae still open, this means that they are looking at things through a lens of a 100 year timeframe. They also have highly paid financial advisers sat in the room with them.
A far simpler solution is for Rick and others who think like him to pour their pension pots into Neil Woodford's latest fund.
All FAs ask their clients about risk. Not many would place themselves as a 9 or 10.
It's all parsimonious no no no from you lot.
What good is it in offering high risk/high reward products nobody wants?
Surely loosening the regs on where institutional investors can invest will just allow for better discovery.
If it turns out they don't like the risk premium so no-one invests in that part of the market then great, we've got a good efficient allocation of resources and the VC stage companies need to do better.
What I have a view on is which firms are in what asset class and to what extent.
CPPIB, for example, built a VC arm in 2019. They also have a dedicated "growth equity" team which look at firms exactly in that "valley of death" (as FA describes it). I may have even been involved in some of that.
OTTP have roughly $7-8bn in VC investments.
NBIM, world's biggest fund, is also revving up to get into the growth equity and VC space. It's easy to dabble with a few bill when you have $1.35trn AUM.
CALPERS is increasing its allocation both to PE and VC right now and is building out their capability there.
VC is never gonna be a big part of any asset allocation, nor should it. But, just having big scale like they do means there is money available.
Sure, the tiny little pension trusts we have over here aren't gonna have the economies of scale to do that. That's part of the problem.
Most asset allocators you speak would in an ideal world have some allocation to VC, largely as the returns are not especially correlated to public markets equities.0 -
What's an "ideal world" depends very heavily on the nature of the pension fund though.rick_chasey said:Most asset allocators you speak would in an ideal world have some allocation to VC, largely as the returns are not especially correlated to public markets equities.
Members of DB schemes in the UK are either retired or reasonably close to retirement, as such schemes have been closed to new members for a couple of decades. The ideal world for such members is fund full of GBP-backed low risk corporate bonds and government bonds, as what they want is a low risk of their pensions not being paid in future. There's no obvious upside to anyone (except maybe the last living pensioner who in theory inherits what's left in the fund when they die) from generating higher returns via VC etc. and there are lots of downsides in the form of VC investments going "pop", leaving an unfillable hole in the balance sheet and insufficient funds to pay guaranteed benefits.
The same logic applies to those in a DC close to retirement (which is why the major DC providers offer lifetime funds that switch to bonds progressively over time, without you needing to do anything) though when managing one's own finances, one can take a few more risks (e.g. remain in equities close to retirement) as if you mess things up, you won't be failing any fiduciary duties in the way that the Trustees of a DB scheme would be if they "went long" on emerging market equities and suffered major losses. (You may incur the wrath of spouse or offspring though!)
In a DC scheme in your 30s, you can afford to take a few punts by being heavily exposed to equities (and other higher risk investments) as (assuming you stay put in the market for the longer term and are diversified) bad investments will be offset by good ones and you should benefit from the higher returns over time that equities typically generate over bonds.
The same logic applies to DB schemes open to new members where there is a "long time" for losses to be recouped by higher returns elsewhere. There aren't many (if any) in the UK though. The overseas examples you quote are public sector sponsored schemes that are funded, I think. (UK public sector schemes are pay as you go, so there's no fund to invest.)0 -
We are talking at cross purposes.wallace_and_gromit said:
What's an "ideal world" depends very heavily on the nature of the pension fund though.rick_chasey said:Most asset allocators you speak would in an ideal world have some allocation to VC, largely as the returns are not especially correlated to public markets equities.
Members of DB schemes in the UK are either retired or reasonably close to retirement, as such schemes have been closed to new members for a couple of decades. The ideal world for such members is fund full of GBP-backed low risk corporate bonds and government bonds, as what they want is a low risk of their pensions not being paid in future. There's no obvious upside to anyone (except maybe the last living pensioner who in theory inherits what's left in the fund when they die) from generating higher returns via VC etc. and there are lots of downsides in the form of VC investments going "pop", leaving an unfillable hole in the balance sheet and insufficient funds to pay guaranteed benefits.
The same logic applies to those in a DC close to retirement (which is why the major DC providers offer lifetime funds that switch to bonds progressively over time, without you needing to do anything) though when managing one's own finances, one can take a few more risks (e.g. remain in equities close to retirement) as if you mess things up, you won't be failing any fiduciary duties in the way that the Trustees of a DB scheme would be if they "went long" on emerging market equities and suffered major losses. (You may incur the wrath of spouse or offspring though!)
In a DC scheme in your 30s, you can afford to take a few punts by being heavily exposed to equities (and other higher risk investments) as (assuming you stay put in the market for the longer term and are diversified) bad investments will be offset by good ones and you should benefit from the higher returns over time that equities typically generate over bonds.
The same logic applies to DB schemes open to new members where there is a "long time" for losses to be recouped by higher returns elsewhere. There aren't many (if any) in the UK though. The overseas examples you quote are public sector sponsored schemes that are funded, I think. (UK public sector schemes are pay as you go, so there's no fund to invest.)
I am talking about professional fund managers, running ideally $100bn+ AUM.
I am not talking about personal individual allocation. That's numpty sh!t.
USS, UK's biggest pension fund, does do some private equity, though not much VC (none AFAIK).
Obviously if you fund is in run off, you are much more constrained re liquidity etc.0 -
Personal individual allocation is made according to individual attitude to risk. Professional fund managers select funds based on clients risk attitude. The two are intrinsically linked.rick_chasey said:
We are talking at cross purposes.wallace_and_gromit said:
What's an "ideal world" depends very heavily on the nature of the pension fund though.rick_chasey said:Most asset allocators you speak would in an ideal world have some allocation to VC, largely as the returns are not especially correlated to public markets equities.
Members of DB schemes in the UK are either retired or reasonably close to retirement, as such schemes have been closed to new members for a couple of decades. The ideal world for such members is fund full of GBP-backed low risk corporate bonds and government bonds, as what they want is a low risk of their pensions not being paid in future. There's no obvious upside to anyone (except maybe the last living pensioner who in theory inherits what's left in the fund when they die) from generating higher returns via VC etc. and there are lots of downsides in the form of VC investments going "pop", leaving an unfillable hole in the balance sheet and insufficient funds to pay guaranteed benefits.
The same logic applies to those in a DC close to retirement (which is why the major DC providers offer lifetime funds that switch to bonds progressively over time, without you needing to do anything) though when managing one's own finances, one can take a few more risks (e.g. remain in equities close to retirement) as if you mess things up, you won't be failing any fiduciary duties in the way that the Trustees of a DB scheme would be if they "went long" on emerging market equities and suffered major losses. (You may incur the wrath of spouse or offspring though!)
In a DC scheme in your 30s, you can afford to take a few punts by being heavily exposed to equities (and other higher risk investments) as (assuming you stay put in the market for the longer term and are diversified) bad investments will be offset by good ones and you should benefit from the higher returns over time that equities typically generate over bonds.
The same logic applies to DB schemes open to new members where there is a "long time" for losses to be recouped by higher returns elsewhere. There aren't many (if any) in the UK though. The overseas examples you quote are public sector sponsored schemes that are funded, I think. (UK public sector schemes are pay as you go, so there's no fund to invest.)
I am talking about professional fund managers, running ideally $100bn+ AUM.
I am not talking about personal individual allocation. That's numpty sh!t.
...The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I want to know what Cummings long term career plan is. Clearly he's good at election campaigning. I also suspect he did a moderate to good job at running Johnson's government (given he had Johnson at the helm, had to follow through on Brexit and then had a pandemic thrown in to the mix). On the other hand, he had a large part to play in Johnson being there, as well as Brexit happening. So it's not like he can complain about being hard done by.kingstongraham said:I guess whoever put Cummings in charge must be feeling a bit stupid.
0 -
and investors can put money into those fundsrick_chasey said:
We are talking at cross purposes.wallace_and_gromit said:
What's an "ideal world" depends very heavily on the nature of the pension fund though.rick_chasey said:Most asset allocators you speak would in an ideal world have some allocation to VC, largely as the returns are not especially correlated to public markets equities.
Members of DB schemes in the UK are either retired or reasonably close to retirement, as such schemes have been closed to new members for a couple of decades. The ideal world for such members is fund full of GBP-backed low risk corporate bonds and government bonds, as what they want is a low risk of their pensions not being paid in future. There's no obvious upside to anyone (except maybe the last living pensioner who in theory inherits what's left in the fund when they die) from generating higher returns via VC etc. and there are lots of downsides in the form of VC investments going "pop", leaving an unfillable hole in the balance sheet and insufficient funds to pay guaranteed benefits.
The same logic applies to those in a DC close to retirement (which is why the major DC providers offer lifetime funds that switch to bonds progressively over time, without you needing to do anything) though when managing one's own finances, one can take a few more risks (e.g. remain in equities close to retirement) as if you mess things up, you won't be failing any fiduciary duties in the way that the Trustees of a DB scheme would be if they "went long" on emerging market equities and suffered major losses. (You may incur the wrath of spouse or offspring though!)
In a DC scheme in your 30s, you can afford to take a few punts by being heavily exposed to equities (and other higher risk investments) as (assuming you stay put in the market for the longer term and are diversified) bad investments will be offset by good ones and you should benefit from the higher returns over time that equities typically generate over bonds.
The same logic applies to DB schemes open to new members where there is a "long time" for losses to be recouped by higher returns elsewhere. There aren't many (if any) in the UK though. The overseas examples you quote are public sector sponsored schemes that are funded, I think. (UK public sector schemes are pay as you go, so there's no fund to invest.)
I am talking about professional fund managers, running ideally $100bn+ AUM.
I am not talking about personal individual allocation. That's numpty sh!t.
USS, UK's biggest pension fund, does do some private equity, though not much VC (none AFAIK).
Obviously if you fund is in run off, you are much more constrained re liquidity etc.
What W&G is explaining is why the Govt's proposal is not appropriate for this country0
