Nest has recently updated its investment objectives and approach to strategic asset allocation. Within this is a new approach to better incorporate illiquids into our portfolio. We’ve evolved our investment glide pathway so younger savers have the highest percentage exposure, which then rebalances as they continue to save with Nest.
What does this look like in practice? That in the not-so-distant future, a Nest member 40 years from retirement could have up to 20pc of their pension pot invested in unlisted equities.
That’s not absurd.
Asset classes like private equity are still more expensive than their public market equivalents
That is absurd. The entire point of PE is that, absent the liqudity, they are cheaper. You buy the future earnings at a lower price that is.
Now, what they might mean is that managing PE is more expensive. But if they actually mean that PE is more expensive than publicly traded then they’re insane.
Well, there’s this https://www.nestpensions.org.uk/schemeweb/nest/nestcorporation/news-press-and-policy/news-views/they-cant-shellve-their-responsibilities.html, the usual wibble about DE&I, plus sustainability, and thus NEST can just fuck right off.
(The PE stuff came straight out of Hunt’s arse.)
investment glide pathway
Anyone hearing “Liverpool”?
You just have to look at the share prices of companies that are sold by private equity. It must be a coincidence that the shares of so many such companies tank in the year after IPO
I’m reminded of the comment by the racehorse trainer Mark Johnson (the archetypal frugal and canny Scot) which Tim linked to a couple of years back:
“We recently cashed in our pensions, despite everybody telling you how tax efficient they are. I don’t like it if the Government can move the goalposts and alter my wealth without my input. I prefer investments I can see.”
https://www.timworstall.com/2021/11/this-seems-reasonable-2/