I see that EL have pulled the plug on the case against Ernst & Young so not only have EL pissed my pension up against the wall but that f*ck-wit Vanni Treves has pissed even more against the wall pusueing this pointless case. When is the Regulator going to call for these bastards to be sacked. Kevin
wrote
The current directors aren't those that were there in the 1990's - in fact, the current ones tried to sue the old ones!
Did you seriously believe they were able to support the sort of yields they promised on with profits? What happened was deplorable, especially the marketing and bringing new people into a collapsing company, but did anyone stop and ask whether they considered the sort of returns as sustainable? Seems like nothing more than an Albanian pyramid scheme.
But if I am taking the responsibility for assessing the returns then I might aswell play the stock market. I and others go with pension company because they are the so called experts. What is the Regulator doing while all this is going on? Why did all these "I told you so" experts materialise after the event?
Kevin
In message , snipped-for-privacy@mwfree.net writes
Welcome to the world of gentlemans clubs, and big payouts for big business people, even when they fail.
I wouldnt be surprised if there has been a bit of negotiation behind the scenes, and maybe a bit of money changing hands.
Because there's a move afoot to have a go at the regulator for allowing EL to operate as it did. The FSA has a lot to answer for in many ways, not least because it compounded the problem faced by with-profits companies when stockmarkets went down by forcing them to sell a lot of their shares. This pushed the markets down further and they had to sell even more shares. EL had extra problems because it had promised very high annuity rates and didn't have the reserves to meet the costs of them. The question many people want to know is why the regulator didn't spot that this was going to be a problem.
Rob Graham
They openly stated that they were expecting yields in the order of 15% on bonds, guilt edged at that. It's like putting your money in a pyramid scheme, getting ripped off then claiming ignorance by saying "I'm no expert (clearly), how am I meant to asses the workings of the company, the chap had an Aston Martin and a lovely suit, they seemed to be doing well", nevermind the whacking great warning signs or figures that don't add up. They knew for over a decade that these commitments can never be met.
<Well indeed, they should have prevented them from advertising at the very least, but I think they were all too busy hammering out their own pensions with the First Division Association.
In message , snipped-for-privacy@mwfree.net writes
They didnt. They were just ignored beforehand as being 'commission hungry salesmen'.
Since the collapse there has been plenty of comment in the media from financial pundits that of course the EL situation pre the collapse was not sustainable but I never heard or read a single report prior to the collapse of this. That smacks of 20/20 hindsight or none of these so called experts having the guts to challenge EL. I see that each side has picked up their own costs which dispite EY saying that they were completely vindicated smacked of a degree of guilt. Stil it doesn't answer the question as to why EY didn't see through the accounts. Isn't that what they are supposed to do (and got paid very handsomely for)?
Kevin
BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.