Equitable Life with profits pension / takeover.

Just noticed two updated documents posted yesterday - 15th Nov - in time for court hearings. See
https://www.equitable.co.uk/ProposalAug2019/pdf/Chief%20Actuary%E2%80%99s%20Supplementary%20Report.pdf
and
https://www.equitable.co.uk/ProposalAug2019/pdf/The%20Policyholder%20Independent%20Expert%20Supplementary%20Report.pdf

Just began to scan them - but pretty much in line with late Oct and Sep versions of above.

Chief report update does include new SCR numbers - stuck with PRA at 120% - but now reflecting management actions ? - and management adjusted one down to 137% in Sep - so again - suggesting deterioration in projected health - a bad sign for those who may have wanted to stay to lift GIR style returns in the medium term.


"4.5. SCR Coverage at 30 September 2019 reported to the PRA was 120%. The recognition of additional management actions in the 30 September results means there was no change in reported coverage. SCR Coverage used for internal management purposes reduced to 137%. This allows for full management actions. The main driver of the reduction in SCR Coverage has been the fall in yields over the period."


Uplift comments - remain - primary 72% based on June numbers, ( guide range 65-75), final figures could be higher etc. Secondarys now circa 10%, although some trade off - all individuals total uplift likely to be higher than illustration etc.

Voting numbers from Chief Report -

7.6.Turnout for the votes were as follows: 26.3% only slightly higher than the 24% from the 28th October versions of reports. Be interesting to see if the court is impressed - 94% of 26.3% - 24.7% - so less than a quarter - but 94% of 50.3% is a little more convincing.



KPMG IE report gives actual voting numbers - £1534 million (50.4%) by value, 32,499 votes (26.3%) by members and for EGM articles 197,176 votes 29.0% from 25,278 voters / 24.8%.

Strange that it would appear more (26.3 vs 24.8 ) voted in Vote 1 scheme than Vote 2 EGM artivles of transfer - but they use different discriptors - so maybe reading this wrong - don't fully understand how this was counted for group AVC scheme managers.

And advice / complaint numbers - only 144 complained - out of 100,000+ - surprised so low.

Also some breakdowns on so far chosen Utmost investements - Age and Multi asset moderate / cautious seem to cover about 50% of the 13000 or so filed by last week - but others going into individual equity areas - no big surprise I suspect.

Maffo65 wrote: »

Thanks for linking the new reports, but you seem to have overlooked this part:

7.8. The voting turnout is materially higher than the level generally seen for an AGM, where c7% of votes are usually cast. This suggests a reasonable level of policyholder engagement, particularly for those larger value Scheme Policies.

With turnout for the Proposal vote over three times larger than the average AGM turnout, High Court approval is a dead cert at this stage.

Didn't miss it - just didn't quote it - as my post was already getting quite long - and EL made similar comments in late October report updates - before the vote closed. The October 28th report by the "with profits" actuary also stated she was content with the 24% turnout at the time - against the 7% AGM levels. 26.3% final vote only a little higher.



But this Scheme is in some ways quite a different situation - this is a major change to the investment basis for all members - and so worried this turnout - only 26.3% of the 91% or so of members sent voting papers - might be seen by court as needing a more positive expression of support - despite the declared basis of the vote.


I think the vote was clearly presented as "statutory majorities"...."of Scheme policyholders who vote" (from booklet B 47.1 etc ) rather than "of total members" and I would guess this would reflect the rules of the scheme and have effectively been rubber stamped by the court in the initial hearing approving the single class voting basis etc.

But others above have speculated how the court might interpret members not voting.

As the hearing is now only a few days away - not worth speculating - can just wait.


Given the faultering finances of the scheme - not fatal yet - but certainly decaying quickly in the last 9 months - hardly encouraging for the medium / longer term if vote is not approved by the court - I would expect / hope the 94% / 96% of those who voted is enough.


But most longer term members here have been significantly negatively impacted by court decisions in the past - which whilst contractually correct - were definitely not in the interest of the majority of members.

pafpcg wrote: »

Hopefully, an announcement to signal the outcome of the final hurdle in this long-drawnout affair will appear on the Equitable website on Friday afternoon.

It looks as if we'll have to wait until Monday at least for the outcome of the hearing. The second day of the hearing is still scheduled for Monday 25th before Mr Justice Zacaroli - the Court's schedule is normally updated by 16:30 so it must still be underway.