logo
   Web Issue 3203 July 19 2008   
spacer




Resolution backing for £5bn Pearl offer
TIM SHARPNovember 17 2007

Clive Cowdery's fifth and final deal at the helm of Resolution has seen him sell the business to closed-book rival Pearl for close to £5bn and walk away with the brand name plus £149m in cash.

Resolution's board has agreed to the sale without getting Pearl, which was acting in conjunction with Royal London, to up its offer of 720p per share.

The deal comes after a hectic period in which Cowdery, who has a 3% stake in Resolution, first recommended a merger with Friends Provident back in July, then a takeover by Standard Life, before plumping for the Pearl deal.

This final arrangement still depends on the backing of three-quarters of Resolution's shareholders at an extraordinary general meeting in January. But Pearl already owns 25.93% of Resolution and Resolution's directors, who between them own 3.7%, have agreed to back the takeover.

The transaction will create a combined group with assets under management of £85bn, making it a top 10 life insurer.

The deal should also keep the Scottish Provident brand alive. Royal London, which is behind Edinburgh-based pension provider Scottish Life, offshore provider Scottish Life International and protection brand Bright Grey, is to contribute upwards of £1.25bn to the deal. It return it will be handed Scottish Provident and Scottish Provident International, as well as a portion of Resolution's back book of business, much of which was formerly run by Abbey and is administered out of Glasgow. But it has pledged not to merge these businesses with its existing operations.

The sale is Resolution's fifth transaction in the closed life fund sector. Since 2004 Resolution has acquired RSA Life UK, Swiss Life UK, Britannic Group and Abbey's UK life businesses.

Cowdery, who founded and is now chairman of Resolution, said: "Resolution's success has been achieved by combining a committed board, management and staff with supportive shareholders and constructive regulators."


© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Posted by: W Stevens, Stirling on 8:21am Sat 17 Nov 07
£5Bn and someone walks away with £150M - good for some.

What about the man in the street? I have a policy that is worth some £15K but the bonus for the last 5-7 years has been next to ZERO and I cannot exit it without incurring PENALTIES - again money for the boys!

Likewise, the only people that made money out my Personal Pension were the Ins Co & the Bank intermediary - I got back virtually what I paid in in the last 12 years (This was not a Resolution Ins Co but one owned/tied to a large Scottish Bank)
Posted by: Ian, West Lothian on 2:07pm Sat 17 Nov 07
The man in the street gets screwed everyway, everytime. I think that all the hullabaloo regarding making us all provided for our pensions is just to keep the rich richer when it comes to our retirement. If we didn't have pensions what would the government do - let us eat cake? It's this that is getting the guy's in the pension companies (and the treasury) slavering at the mouth over the prospect of Aussie-like legally obliged personal pension provision.

Like Mr Steven's above, my endowment policy isn't worth spit. I am encouraged to pay even more into an under-performing fund. What's the point in throwing good money after bad?

We kill ourselves on tobacco, alcohol, sugary drinks, and junk food. Every billboard and supermarket encourages us to do so. But whilst the average man is spending money killing himself, the big shareholders who own British Imperial Tobacco, Diageo, and Tesco et al, are laughing all the way to the bank. Time for a change in political philosophy methinks.
Posted by: Roland Baker, Luton, England on 8:44pm Sat 17 Nov 07
Royal London is a mutual. Unless you are a member, you have no say in how they participate in any re-organisation of Resolution. This could be a step too far for them as they do not have access to outside capital should they need it and are not obliged to follow the Combined Code. They are itaking over 90/10 funds which is unusual for a mutual and not a task for which they are naturally skilled.

Osmond's vehicle is not currently quoted on the London Stock Exchange so he works outwith the requirements of the Combined Code. He built up his stake in Resolution, backed by venture capitalists, in secret to maximise his own profits. He has no interest whatsoever in treating customers fairly.

His performance on my NPI policy inspires me with no confidence and he has now got his hands on my Royal Life policy as well. Osmond has already had to be restrained by Mr Justice Briggs from re-organising Pearl so as to impose retrospective policy amendments to take away existing benefits from policyholders. Mr Justice Briggs also commented that the FSA didn't seem to mind too much, whereas he thought they should have done.

To the Courts comrades - fight for people's justice. Raise every objection you can to any plan Osmond puts forward to rip you off and go there in person to defend your savings. Write letters of objection to the OFT. Complain to the FSA. Write directly to the Treasury Select Committee and copy your MP. Your endowment and pension depend on it. If we want a savings culture in this country, Osmond has to be restrained.

Add your comment
Please note: to publish your comment you must be registered on this site. If you are already registered, please enter your details below.
Email:
Password:




spacer
 IN YOUR AREA
 
Herald Appointments - Every Friday
Travel Shop
Airport Parking
Travel Insurance
Copyright © 2008 Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights Reserved   
Sitemap :: Circulation :: Syndication :: Advertising :: About Us :: Terms of Use