Roadshows

Full room at the Hilton Cardiff (250 according to VT). He stated that he felt the average age was lower than at the other roadshow venues - at 74yrs he couldn't have been looking at me! The meeting was orderly in the extreme with no violent outburst and since, at the end of formal question time, (2hrs) VT & CT received loud applause I can only think that most of those present will be voting YES for the Compromise. There was unanimous agreement that all those considered responsible for the ELAS situation - Former Boards and Officers, Auditors, Regulators (Treasury) be pursued vigorously for compensation. VT assured the Members that this was his intention provided that action against any party was considered cost effective.

Many of the questions from the floor were related to the individual policyholders who had failed to get answers to their queries due to slow response to their calls and letters to ELAS customer services - these were referred to the ELAS personnel at the rear. The questioners appeared to be equally split between Gar and Non Gar but at least 4 questions related to non pension plan policy holders.

London Roadshow 3 October 2001

(With many thanks to Tim Balkiwell for the Write-up)

The message came over to the board that the annuitants were not happy with the proposed offer outlined in the compromise proposal, it just didn't go far enough. We are trapped in there, no chance of getting out and probably having to take poor returns for the foreseeable future. Someone asked if we could be looked at as a separate class, instead of being roped in with the non-GAR's, but the reply came back that this wasn't going to achieve too much as there was only one pot from which it all came.

The board did acknowledge that in the last 5 road shows the annuitants were making it clear that things needed to be looked at further. The most they were prepared to concede was that they might have to do some 'fine tuning' but we could not expect that the 2.5% would be improved .

They re-iterated that the 1.5% reduction will apply for the life of the annuitant, but they might look at the possibility of letting W-PA's reduce their assumed rates of return if the compromise went through.

Charles Thomson said he had heard about 'this unitisation thing' but wasn't convinced it would offer anything better than what was in place and besides it would need to be voted on by all policyholders.

Sir Gordon Downey took the opportunity to make the point from the floor that our best plan of campaign is on the issue of regulatory failure. Prior to the FSA it would have been the responsibility of the DTI and the Treasury, whom he felt had a case to answer for maladministration, this would come into the area of the Parliamentary Ombudsman and we must press MP's to get the Ombudsman to reconsider his decision to put everything on hold until the Penrose report is published about 1 or 2 years down the line.

My final impressions walking around afterwards and taking a straw poll was that a good 60 percent were going to vote 'Yes' as frankly the alternative is just not worth considering.

Birmingham Roadshow 29th September 2001

(With many thanks to Brian Potter for the write-up)

Was it the paucity of attendees or was it the format which left me with a sense of disappointment? Probably something of both. Treves and Thomson came across well personally, but I felt that they missed an opportunity to really sell the deal and spell out the difficulties which a No vote would present. A straightforward re-iteration of the facts as in the compromise document was rather too obvious and though they answered the questions from the floor openly the format of taking individual questions meant that there was a lack of coherence in what was asked. I suppose though that it is difficult to be fair to everyone and still ensure that all the right questions are asked.

A couple of points that he did answer. The return on the fund is negative so far this year, but fortuitously the level of equities is down to 40%, property investments are 12% and the remainder is in cash, gilts, bonds, etc. Our performance is therefore likely to be less bad than most. I initially thought that this might be due to good luck and planning, but on second thoughts given the present level of equity valuations it is hardly to be unexpected that the percentage is now down to 40%. He did say, however, that investment in international equities is as low as £1bn, which means that our exposure has not been as great as it might have been.

The Herbert Smith report will be published for all to see, subject only to removing anything that might be detrimental to our case if it recommends action against anyone.

Thompson has also spoken to people in the Treasury on the Baird Report (on the FSA), who say that they will publish it when they have looked at it, but they have not yet seen it. His contacts in the FSA have told him that the Treasury does have it. So it is anyone's guess when it will appear.

In answer to my question before the meeting on the number of non-gars leaving and submitting mis-selling claims, he denied that this was a real problem. His explanation that the odds were against everyone's mis-selling claims succeeding and that each case might have to be considered separately (and would be resisted for the sake of the membership) was, I felt, not wholly convincing.

When I also brought up my concerns about the quality of the media response to the compromise, he shared my dismay, but felt that our new PR boys were doing an absolutely marvellous job - a fact which made me raise an eyebrow.

29th, September 2001