Comments on: GUEST BLOG: The missing reform in the Kay Review http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/2012/07/26/guest-blog-the-missing-reform-in-the-kay-review/ Insights behind the investment headlines Wed, 16 Nov 2016 21:43:49 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.5 By: RajThamotheram http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/2012/07/26/guest-blog-the-missing-reform-in-the-kay-review/comment-page-1/#comment-18694 Thu, 26 Jul 2012 16:13:07 +0000 http://blogs.reuters.com/globalinvesting/?p=7135#comment-18694 I agree Simon. The very good thing about the Kay Review is that it puts a nail in the coffin of the debate about short-termism. You really have to intend to be a part of the problem if you continue to say “but is there really evidence of a problem” or “do investors really contribute to it”!

I also agree that this is one of the important missing dimensions. There is good corroborating evidence for your argument from a senior exec from Mercers who has compared the effectiveness of pension schemes in different countries. Australian, Netherlands and Canada come out ahead of UK & USA.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?a bstract_id=2061680

This leads to the question who would suffer if the UK did what has been done by e.g. the Australians and “too small to be safe” funds were merged? Some players will object to change because it means a contraction of income and being held to higher standards. Others may still be amendable to taking action even though Kay didn’t mention it. The trade unions SHOULD be one such group. A lot depends on how seriously they take their stated mission, to look after their members’ best interests and how willing they are to challenge immunity to change in their own ranks.

]]>