As if the British pensions system wasn't stuffed already
then the TUC and a group of bien pensants want to complete the taxidermy.
"The TUC, MPs and leading figures from the pensions and investment industry (none of whom are exactly householf names, I might note) are today urging the Government, institutional investors and fund managers to back a series of proposals on responsible investment to help address the practices that contributed to the current financial crisis".
And how do they propose to do this?
"The statement calls for pension funds to insert a 'do no harm' clause into their statement of investment principles".
And
"The statement also calls on institutional investors to sign up to the United Nations- backed Principles of Responsible Investment (PRI). The principles set out commitments for investors on engagement around corporate governance, environmental and social performance".
This is part of the gloss at the PRI site: "We also recognise that applying these Principles may better align investors with broader objectives of society".
And who, I wonder, defines those? They could not possibly be modish left wing causes, could they? Signatories from these parts include the BBC pension fund, Haringey and Merseyside councils and Co-Op financial services. Draw your own conclusions, I know what mine are.
If memory serves, some time back a comparison was drawn between a theoretical 'unethical' portfolio of shares in arms manufacturers, alcohol and tobacco barons etc and a portfolio of 'ethical' companies - mung bean vendors, health food stores and so forth, and the former kicked backsides and took names.
I consider the duty of my pension provider to focus on maximising my retirement fund, and so long as what they do is legal, I do not care how they go about it.
"The TUC, MPs and leading figures from the pensions and investment industry (none of whom are exactly householf names, I might note) are today urging the Government, institutional investors and fund managers to back a series of proposals on responsible investment to help address the practices that contributed to the current financial crisis".
And how do they propose to do this?
"The statement calls for pension funds to insert a 'do no harm' clause into their statement of investment principles".
And
"The statement also calls on institutional investors to sign up to the United Nations- backed Principles of Responsible Investment (PRI). The principles set out commitments for investors on engagement around corporate governance, environmental and social performance".
This is part of the gloss at the PRI site: "We also recognise that applying these Principles may better align investors with broader objectives of society".
And who, I wonder, defines those? They could not possibly be modish left wing causes, could they? Signatories from these parts include the BBC pension fund, Haringey and Merseyside councils and Co-Op financial services. Draw your own conclusions, I know what mine are.
If memory serves, some time back a comparison was drawn between a theoretical 'unethical' portfolio of shares in arms manufacturers, alcohol and tobacco barons etc and a portfolio of 'ethical' companies - mung bean vendors, health food stores and so forth, and the former kicked backsides and took names.
I consider the duty of my pension provider to focus on maximising my retirement fund, and so long as what they do is legal, I do not care how they go about it.
This entry was posted
on Monday, January 19, 2009 at 10:56 am.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
I consider the duty of my pension provider to focus on maximising my retirement fund, and so long as what they do is legal, I do not care how they go about it.
Indeed. I put money into my pension because I want the most comfortable and earliest retirement possible. There is no other reason for saving.
Back door socialists are the worst, and I would not have expect the TUC to be so gutless.
Frankly I'd be delighted to invest in all of the "unethical" stuff - one because it provides the best return and two because its a couple of fingers up in the direction of the hand-wringers.
No Unfair Trade coffee in my house on principle.
Hopefully the Unslickster may stroll via this parish and comment on this one.
» Post a Comment