Ritchie\’s insisting your pension be invested with the Venture Capitalists again

He gets very angry with me when I point this out to him but it is still true:

And then, thirdly, this process has to be continued into the future. We have to ensure that there is ongoing real investment, not in financial “innovation” but in real wealth creation and real infrastructure that underpins that wealth creation by the people of the UK. That can come from the type of reform of the UIK pension system I have recommended in ‚ ‘Making Pensions Work’. We must require that at least 25% of all the pension contributions made in the UK be invested – not saved – but invested in wealth creation opportunities in this country. If that is through that same national infrastructure bank, that’s fine with me. If it is direct in new share issues by UK companies seeking to create new employment opportunities – and can prove that this is the case – then that’s fine too. But in this way I am convinced a further £20 billion can be released for investment in the UK economy.

Investment in new firms, new projects, new activities, is just fine of course. But that is what we call Venture Capital. So that really is what Ritchie is calling for: 25% of your pension savings must be put into Venture Capital.

Maybe it\’s a good idea and maybe it\’s not but it certainly sounds rather different when it\’s explained using the correct terms, doesn\’t it?

10 thoughts on “Ritchie\’s insisting your pension be invested with the Venture Capitalists again”

  1. I’m all for investing a part of my pension pot in high risk ventures, that’s been part of my strategy for a few years now and I sit down with my IFS and review the investments every 6 months or so.

    What I won’t put up with a bureaucrat directed by politicians declining how may money is invested. Not because I think they are any worse than me at picking winners, but because when I’ve selected a dud I will cut my losses and I don’t care if its in a ruling party’s marginal constituency.

    There’s another point. My strategy is to now move away from higher risk as I’m getting within striking distance of needing the money and I won’t have time to recover from high risk investments that don’t perform.

  2. I’d love there to be more obvious opportunities to invest my pension in VC or PE funds… instead of having to buy in after all the decent money has been made and it’s all second-hand pieces of paper changing hands at 15x earnings.

    Murphy is flirting with a good idea.. and some of his criticisms of the current uses of pension money are spot on. Unfortunately, instead of just trying to create opportunities for pension money to be put into useful things.. he wants to set quotas and funnel it down state-approved paths because of how, presumably, that’s something that always works out really well.

  3. Not because I think they are any worse than me at picking winners, but because when I’ve selected a dud I will cut my losses and I don’t care if its in a ruling party’s marginal constituency.

    ^^^this this this this this.

    Venture Capital is about making money, politicos are about buying votes. This would mean all of the money getting invested in desolate shitholes for political reasons, or in projects that care more about diversity policies, eco-friendly practices and ‘fairness’ than they do about making money. And if my money is invested on my behalf, I want more to come back at the end.

  4. Can’t really add anything here. If only he DID mean giving it to venture capitalists. He doesn’t; he means “local” ventures for local people, all kept local by local politicians and all in the name of democracy. The Courageous State wants to steal your life savings.
    There you go Tim, I told you he didn’t really believe in savings – except his I bet.

  5. I think you’re misunderstanding Richie.

    You’re assuming that there is a risk in venture/investment capital. In central planning land this isn’t so.

    Ritchie is part of the central planning elite. They are capable of looking at any economy, singling out the ideas that are bound to succeed/give an acceptable return on their investment. They will never under any circumstances invest a single penny in anything that can fail.

    The central planning elite have a perfect record. Wherever they have achieved any power the economy has grown and prospered to unimaginable levels.

    This is why Richie, personally, is extraordinarily rich, as he has used this ability to pick stock market winners and is currently worth over two billion pounds.

  6. Hmm, so money can be “saved” or it an be “invested”.

    A bit of a turnaround from the loony Brown who told us when he was spending money on satchel holders in the NHS he was “investing”.

    Anyroadup, I am left wondering who the poor sod is who has everyones’ “savings” under his floorboards and is paying 2.5% out of the kindness of his heart.

  7. “If that is through that same national infrastructure bank”

    How do you get a return on investment through government built infrastructure?

  8. The inadvertent hilarity that one often finds is this:

    ‘If it is direct in new share issues by UK companies seeking to create new employment opportunities – and can prove that this is the case – then that’s fine too’

    Thus any Labour saving technology devices would theoretically be anathema to the man because they ‘failed to create new employment opportunities’ – he really is demanding a rehash of the old USSR – the only difference being he’s too historically ignorant to even be conscious of that fact….

  9. As has been pointed out to Ritchie many times, requiring pension funds invest in the UK is clearly contrary to EU law. His reaction amounts to “la la la I can’t hear you”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *