Member Info for Guitarsolo

No Nicktims, you're still not getting it. There is no policy that says a black person should get a job over a white person. None. It is a complete misrepresentation to claim there is. It is a policy that strives to ensure that a white (male) didn't get the role because they are white (male). It is removing a positive bias that has been there before. If you don't believe there was such a bias, you're naive. What, you think in the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s etc white men were always the best choice?!

It's not about changing the past, it's about ensuring the future is better for everyone. Simple as that.

Rooba, Aviva are not "aiming to actively reduce the proportion of white men in senior roles". They are looking to increase the representation of women and non-white people in senior roles. As Meconopsis has tried to point out, this is designed to represent the proportions of women and non-white people in financial services.

Mecon is also correct to say that all financial services companies are signed up to this. I sit/have sat on the boards of three financial services companies in the City. We realised decades ago that senior roles were not representative of the workforce, which they need to be. Financial services at a mid to upper level is near 50/50 in my experience since it is not a role in which gender makes a jot of difference. This is slowly moving to senior executive roles.

Having a "target" is not a "quota". I note you can't defend your previous misrepresentation. It makes perfect sense for companies to have a "target" of a certain mixed representation. The 13% of ethnic minorities is similar to the proportion nationally. It's not about reducing the proportion of white men, it's about increasing the proportion of others. Simple as.

"People looking for 50/50 gender splits are fools who don't understand human behaviour, and don't apply that logic to cr_appy jobs where men make up the majority of the workforce."

So social care, cleaning, caring, catering, retail, childcare etc....all crppy jobs where WOMEN make up the majority of the workforce. Financial services has no reason not the be a balanced representation.

I appreciate that the majority of people on here are going to be probably retired, probably white, probably middle-class, probably male. If you have daughters/ granddaughters of so 20+ years of age, go and talk to them about the world as they see it. You'll find they think very differently to you.

You see Rooba, you're again incorrectly summarising things. You say "quota", the document doesn't. A quota is a FIXED share that must be fulfilled. The Charter is a commitment towards certain target. That is not a quota.

There is no reason why in a business like insurance you shouldn't have a near 50/50 split.

Rooba, can you direct me please to Aviva's quota for women and non-white people. I'll skip over St. Mary Axe to check it out.

Please also show us where the "extra check" is for white men. That isn't what AB said.

You (and many others) have chosen to read a headline without listening to/ reading the whole exchange and certainly wihout considering the context of it (which Trotsky has tried to explain).

I suspect there's a number of mediocre, white men on here!

"Fragrant" Amanda? Were you one of the sexist questioners at the AGM saying she "wasn't the man for the job" or suggesting she "wear trousers"? With attitudes like that you wonder why there is a need to ensure that the selection process considers everyone?

No one will be black-balled for anything Ace. If someone is the best candidate for the role, they will get it whatever their colour or gender. AB's only intervention is to ensure that the selection process has been open to everyone. There is not a single thing that is discrminatory about it. If understanding that is beyond you, I can't help!

As someone who works in the London Market, literally a tennis ball hit away from Aviva's HQ, I can say for certain that in the past many a role went to a white man, usually schooled at the right place, irrespective of their ability. I work with some of them! But fortunately things have been changing. There are certainly many more women in senior roles and workplaces are benefitting from that.

AB is seen as a champion in the market and an inspiration to many. The only people with anything to fear are the mediocre.

Seriously Daneth! You would go to the inconvenience and cost of moving a pension because you can't be bothered to actually listen to or read what Amanda Blanc actually said? That's hilarious!

All she said was that SENIOR hires of white men are signed off by her OR the head of HR because she "wants to make sure that the process followed for that recruitment has been diverse, has been properly done". So that means ensuring that the job was open to everyone and not just the old, white men who went to the right school.

I work in the Lloyd's of London market and it has most definitely been a jobs for the boys world. All AB is doing is ensuring that everyone gets consideration. No one is chosen because of their colour, gender, background etc. They're just not not chosen (which has been the case before).

What? Do all the old, white, retired men on this board think that they were always chosen on merit throughout their careers?! I have a feeling you wouldn't last long in the modern world.

FWIW, a former client of mine has just been appointed to a senior role (just below main board) at Aviva. He's white and male. Must be the best person for the job then.

But hey Daneth and Lordeh, it's your money, your choice.

Honestly, the state of some people on here (and social media in general). Try reading or listening to what AB actually said and then understanding it in the context she said it!

TheTrotsky and Meconopsis are both absolutely correct. AB is ensuring that the selection criteria is indeed as wide as it should be and not being limited to white men who went to the right school! Or do all those retired white men on here think they were always the best choice back along?!

joncl....AB doesn't "filter out" white men, she ensures that the filter wasn't set to only be them.

Learn to read between the lines when press like the Telegraph are pitching something, or when GB News provides their opinion! Actually spend some time reading what was actually said.

As someone who counts Aviva as a client and have friends there, I can say they are a fantastic company. AB has done an amazing job since taking over.

What did folk think of the recent commentary on last year's results (12 months to 30 June 2023)? I read Franco's report with interest and, on the whole, it seemed a bit more upbeat.

- Called and maturing bonds being replaced at higher coupons (due to higher interest rate environment).

- EPS boosted by late payment of REA from year before.

- 4.51pps slightly above dividend (4.49pps) but includes above late REA payment.

- Matalan and Credit Suisse bonds written to zero after they hit trouble (combined 1.5% hit to NAV).

- More opportunities to invest at better coupons now that the ULIR environment is behind us (for now at least).

- But falling interest rates should raise bond prices over the next few years. Share price should improve but more pressure on the dividend cover I guess.

- Frequent mention of the increasing dividend history and the 3pps reserve. So I'd imagine we should expect more of the same (i.e. 3 x 1.00p, then 1.50p for the final payment).

- Yield is around 9.5% currently even if the dividend barely changes.

Did anyone attend the webinar? Any feedback on it and overall level of confidence?

Guitarsolo

Previously my only tabacco share has been Imperial Brands but I've wanted to diversify into something with a stronger smokeless business. Today has been that opportunity and I have sold half my IMB (dragged down ~2% today because of BATS) but bought BATS at just under 2300 plus costs. The yield works out slightly better after today as well.

Happy to have spread the risk and put feet in two camps with slightly better overall yield and hopefully a chance of a BATS rebound once today's non-cash adjustment has passed.

Previously my only tabacco share has been Imperial Brands but I've wanted to diversify into something with a stronger smokeless business. Today has been that opportunity and I have sold half my IMB (dragged down ~2% today because of BATS) but bought BATS at just under 2300 plus costs. The yield works out slightly better after today as well.

Happy to have spread the risk and put feet in two camps with slightly better overall yield and hopefully a chance of a BATS rebound once today's non-cash adjustment has passed.

Previously my only tabacco share has been Imperial Brands but I've wanted to diversify into something with a stronger smokeless business. Today has been that opportunity and I have sold half my IMB (dragged down ~2% today because of BATS) but bought BATS at just under 2300 plus costs. The yield works out slightly better after today as well.

Happy to have spread the risk and put feet in two camps with slightly better overall yield and hopefully a chance of a BATS rebound once today's non-cash adjustment has passed.

Thanks CasaP,

Would you treat that similar to the c.£9bn of deferred profits? In other words, profit that is likely to be earned (not guaranteed though) over the course of the contract. In this case that would be the lifetime of the pension liabilities or the bulk of them (no pun intended).

Would these funds be released like reserve releases are as the assets are deemed unnnecessarily large for the liabilities? I would presume they would take a cautious approach.

Guitarsolo

Dear All, thank you for your messages about PRTs. As such a large component of LGEN (and others now like AV., MNG etc) it is something that needs to be watched closely. I am presently unconcerned as LGEN is my largest holding. What sparked my interest was an asset manager in the City considering PRTs as a systemic threat alongside China and Russia! Personally, I think this is an actuarial matter. Are there any actuaries amongst us? Basically, what margin of error does LGEN have with the assets it has taken on to manage the pension liabilities? As Casapinos has stated, the situation with gilts is quite straightforward as we can largely forget their values and concentrate on their income. But the risk of a sovereign debt crisis and defaults is quite high with the usual players (Argentina etc) but debt levels are extraordinarily high in more stable nations too. And then there is the issue of what will come of the proposed plans to allow pension providers to extend the range of assets owned to generate funds for the pension liabilities.

I guess it's a case of "in LGEN we trust"!

Does anyone else invest through HSBC Invest Direct? I received correspondence from them to the effect that I can take up my 1/12 shares but there is no option (through HSBC) to buy more in the open offer. Is this because they can't be ars*d to put up the facility?

I also invest through HL and AJ Bell and both of those are allowing me to buy shares through the open offer.

Anyone else with HSBC got the same letter?

Well Bertram, on 6th November I tried to open a discussion about the due diligence and systemic risk (bearing in mind I work in the reinsurance sector and was quoting directly from a senior person on the asset management side of insurance) but the response I got was "YAWN".....!

I dare say you are correct Licancabur. I don't know the maturity dates or coupons on IMB's bonds which would affect the decision. Likewise a comparison of the cost of the debt compared to the "cost" of equity (i.e. dividends). I'd be happy to see both some level of buyback and some debt repayment since both will long-term lead to higher EPS and therefore justify a higher dividend, which is why I am invested.

I've been here for quite a while (2013 I think) and wasn't ever comfortable with Alison Cooper's debt pile of £12.x billion whilst increasing the dividend 10% every year. IMB is on a better path now but I would like to see a continued push towards lower debt because we know that stick volume will fall over time. At the moment they are squeezing as much out of the price of ciggies as possible but there could come a time when they are just so expensive (and heavily taxed) that volumes drop considerably. If that happens you don't want to have much debt on the books as all the company's earnings will be directed that way instead of my way! Control your debts before your debts control you etc.

I would add a slight reduction in reported net debt from 8.1bn to 8.0bn (or 8.5bn to 8.4bn adjusted net debt - not sure what the difference is there). Personally, I would like to see debt continue to come down so that eventually more of the retained profit can be paid out as dividends. But overall, a solid set of results.

And yes, the price drops!

Darcey, sorry but I don't understand what you expect SAV's management to do. They have been collateral damage to events completely outwith their control. They issued an immediate RNS which is as much as they can possibly do. The contents of that RNS made it clear that they have been approached but are not the subject of the investigation. Professionally, I sometimes get involved with directors who make false statements (not in Europe) and it can be a criminal offence leading to prison time. So you can take it that the RNS would be as honest as possible.

They can't make any comment about an ongoing investigation involving other parties.

We are all suffering here but shareholders do not "take their money and run, leaving them with an uncertain future". You can sell and someone else becomes the shareholder.

What the present situation does cause is uncertainty and probably delay and, if the share price stays this low, possibly hampers discussions with future partners who might see an opportunity to get more for less, and leaves the company more vulnerable to being taken out for a low-ball amount. But shareholders can influence that by staying the course.

Well it has been a tough few days and SAV has been collateral damage for alleged malfeasance elsewhere. However, the speed that the RNS was issued explaining that whilst SAV has been questioned it is NOT part of the corruption investigation is important. SAV's directors would be very aware of the need for complete honesty and intergrity about statements like that so I think we can take comfort from it. Also, having seen the diligence and slow progress of SAV over many years, they have done everything to tick every box along the way. That is not symptomatic of alleged corruption.

There is a danger of contagion of course. Company X is accused of something so everyone assumes Company Y must do it too. It will certainly provide motivation for those still trying to thwart MdB. In a wider context, the EU will be mightily disappointed in Portugal if the allegations are substantiated. The arguments of European countries being a cut above those in Africa gets eroded to some degree.

But if we're looking for silver linings, perhaps these developments will encourage Portugal/ the EU etc to really, fully get behind those miners who are doing it the right way, like SAV. Perhaps......

In the short term, we've got more uncertainty and possibly more delay. I've made a small top up but already have enough invested here. For the brave, paying 2.5p for a post-EIA approval, pre-DFS lithium mine where institutions paid c. 4.67p (?) just a few months ago is a huge opportunity.....for the brave!

Good luck all, we need some of it.