The private equity barons gambling with your retirement

Italy is no stranger to financial crises. During the mid-2000s when its economy ground to a halt, some of the country's most prestigious banks were quickly overwhelmed by bad loans.
Tens of billions of euros that had been lent to struggling businesses had to be written off, forcing a string of venerable names to raise emergency capital. Banca Monte dei Paschi di Siena, the world's oldest bank and an institution set up to provide charitable loans to the 'poor or miserable', eventually had to be nationalised.
Yet it is private equity-backed life insurer Eurovita that occupies a particularly unique place among the wreckage. In 2023, the company, at the time under the control of UK-based private equity house Cinven, became the first ever Italian insurer to crash into administration.
The authorities quickly assembled an industry-led rescue deal involving five rival insurers and 25 banks that protected the payouts of thousands of policyholders and around €10bn (£8.7bn) of assets. Cinven declined to comment.
Two years later and the shadow of that dark day still looms large over a sector that has become rich pickings for private equity bosses on the hunt for untapped pools of capital to fund their empire building.
Concerns are mounting over whether aggressive, profit-hungry private equity financiers are suitable custodians of organisations that typically invest over many decades.
Life insurers sell annuities – a type of insurance policy that provides a guaranteed income stream, typically for retirees – and invest the premiums collected from customers in order to make a return beyond what they pay out to policyholders.
Some critics are now asking whether the risk-taking private equity barons that have piled into a sector renowned for its conservative approach, are effectively gambling with the retirement savings of millions of unsuspecting people.
Regulators meanwhile have warned that this gigantic bet could trigger a credit crunch with potentially grave consequences for the financial system.
The industry rejects such concerns. 'Private equity firms are long-term investors, with a view to creating value for all stakeholders involved. These firms are highly regulated in the UK by the FCA and subject to various frameworks,' a spokesman for the British Venture Capital Association says.
However, economist Eileen Appelbaum, of the Centre for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, claims that the private equity industry's track record as owners of businesses, as well as their poor fund performance raises serious questions about whether they can be trusted to protect the retirement savings of millions.
She points to a study conducted by the California Polytechnic State University in 2019. Researchers found that one in five private equity-owned companies bought with debt financing go bust within 10 years of being bought – a rate 10 times higher than that of publicly owned companies.
Nevertheless, the buyout industry 'has been trying to get its hands on retirement savings for years', Appelbaum, a longstanding critic of private equity, says.
It was the era of ultra-low interest rates that ultimately opened the floodgates. Insurers were 'plagued by policies' written before the crash when interest rates and the stock market looked very different, a recent report from consultancy giant McKinsey found. As life insurers struggled to keep pace with what the IMF calls 'guaranteed rates of return on their products', many owners wanted to get out.
Private equity bosses have rushed to fill the gap with a promise of boosting profits and ultimately returns for customers, while charging fees for managing the assets. In 2020, KKR bought a majority stake in the insurer Global Atlantic, a move that the firm estimated would boost fee income by $200m (£153m).
Over the last decade, the industry has hoovered up more than $900bn of insurance liabilities across the globe, according to McKinsey.
The land grab leaves 13pc of the US insurance market in the hands of an industry that is notoriously secretive and willing to take greater risks with investors' money – up from just 1pc in 2012, its study showed.
City bankers say the suppressed share prices of UK insurers has left them in the cross-hairs of deal-hungry private equity firms. 'All the ingredients are there,' one says.
The world's financial police have been queueing round the block to express their growing disquiet at the foray. A series of industry mini-crises such as allegations of fraud running into the hundreds of millions of dollars at Miami-based private equity firm 777 Partners have added to the unease. 777 has said it 'vehemently refutes' the claims.
The firm has been on an investment spree in sports teams and airlines across the world, backed by a reinsurance business it owned in Bermuda. It tried but failed to buy Premier League football team Everton.
A chief concern of regulators is that in the hands of hard-charging private equity executives hunting higher returns, unsuspecting policyholders are exposed to riskier assets.
European insurers were sitting on almost €1.4 trillion of so-called alternative assets as of June last year, the IAIS cautioned in a new consultation paper published earlier this month.
Where historically life insurers would invest overwhelmingly in traditional assets such as stocks, bonds, and cash, in the hands of private equity, portfolios are tilted towards more opaque private investments that are trickier to value and to trade.
Reinsurance giant Swiss Re estimates that European insurers' allocations to 'illiquid and potentially risky assets' almost doubled from 8pc in 2017 to about 15pc in 2023.
The Bank of England points out that this has happened at the same time as private equity's control of life insurance assets has jumped by more than $1 trillion from very low levels since the end of the global banking meltdown in 2009.
Figures from the National Association of Insurance Commissioners in the US, show that nearly a third of all the bond investments held by private equity-owned life insurers at the end of 2023 were in asset-backed securities compared with just 12pc for all other life insurers.
These can be anything from car loans and credit card debt to plane leases and restaurant franchise fees that have been packaged together into one investment.
Firms with a higher proportion of more illiquid assets are 'more vulnerable' to a credit downturn, the IMF warned in its 2023 stability report. This could be 'aggravated' by the inherent volatility found in more speculative investments, it said.
Bank of England officials are concerned about the potential for 'asset fire sales' if these investments suddenly tumble in value, sparking panic among policyholders. Such an event could disrupt the functioning of financial markets, the Bank has warned.
As the proportion of riskier investments gets bigger, the likelihood of bankruptcy also increases, according to a Bank of France study.
Policymakers are also nervous about the growing inter-connectedness between life insurers and their private equity owners. Faced with what the IMF has called a 'growing reluctance' among traditional banks to fund big debt-fuelled private equity deals, buyout firms have swept into the private credit arena to become lenders in their own right.
Much of the capital for this push has come from life insurance annuities, and increasingly, the same pool of money is even being used to support other companies under the same private equity firm's control.
KKR's $190bn insurance behemoth Global Atlantic has helped arrange billions of dollars in financing for companies it owns including Cyrus One, a Dallas-based data centre operator it bought for $11.5bn in 2021.
The Bank for International Settlements has warned about the potential for 'additional risks' from 'conflicts of interests ... where asset managers, including private equity firms, have an incentive to allocate insurers' funds to assets they originate'.
At Eldridge Industries, the investment firm of Chelsea FC owner Todd Boehly, a quarter – $12bn – of the invested assets held by its insurance arm Security Benefit are reportedly loans made to other Eldridge affiliates. Eldridge responded to The Telegraph's questions via lawyers and declined to comment.
Boehly, whose fortune is estimated at between $7bn and $8bn, has been at the vanguard of the private equity-insurance tie-up model. The American investor founded Eldridge in 2015 with a handful of companies, including Security Benefit, he had bought from his employer, the investment bank Guggenheim Partners.
Today, it is a sprawling collection of more than 100 businesses ranging from the LA Dodgers baseball team and Cirque Du Soleil to the bakery chain Le Pain Quotidien and grocery delivery start-up Gopuff. In 2021, it financed Sony's purchase of the publishing rights to Bruce Springsteen's back catalogue.
The Bank of England is concerned that the use of insurance liabilities to fund 'lending activities' could pose 'systemic risks'.
At Apollo, one of the world's biggest private equity managers, insurance arm Athene Holding has become so large that it dwarfs the rest of the firm put together. In 2021, the pair unveiled a full-blown merger that created a financial conglomerate worth $30bn. Athene now accounts for just under half Apollo's $750bn of assets under management and about two-thirds of its earnings.
In most cases, policyholders will be unaware that their insurance provider is taking increasingly risky bets, pensions consultant Chris Tobe thinks.
'They have no idea of what the insurance company does with their money and many of the people who sell these investments don't know either. They just care about whatever commission they make.'
Appelbaum fears regulation is too lax and too disparate. Federal banking regulations require US banks to hold high amounts of capital. Insurers are monitored by 50 different state regulators, and aren't subject to the same capital requirements. Insurers with riskier investments should be required to hold higher reserves, she said.
Questions are also being asked about the growing use of reinsurance deals, which offload assets often offshore, making them harder to monitor, and liquidate if there is a burst of customer redemptions.
But the biggest problem of all with private equity's life insurance grab, according to Appelbaum, is that it is partly based on something of an illusion.
With much of its firepower coming from pension funds and university endowments, the private equity industry has tried to entice would-be investors with the promise of 'extra high returns that are only available to pension funds and endowments,' she said.
However, a recent study by the data provider Pitchbook, shows the reality is a long way from matching the hype.
The 50 largest university endowments, which have a combined $800bn tied up in private equity assets, posted an annual return of 8.3pc over the last decade, its tracker found.
Meanwhile, a plain vanilla 60-40 (60pc stocks, 40pc bonds) Vanguard mutual fund returned 8.38pc over the same period.
'Let that sink in. Endowment funds got no extra payoff for investing in private equity funds or other private assets,' Appelbaum wrote in a recent blog post.
'They could have made the same return by joining with millions of ordinary people and investing in a plain vanilla mutual fund.'

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Telegraph

30 minutes ago

• Telegraph

How Rachel Reeves prioritised growth over Britain's pension savers

When Labour swept to power last year, around half a million pensioners held their breath. Members of the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) and the Financial Assistance Scheme (FAS) had spent years fighting for their full pension entitlement. Months earlier, the Tories had indicated they might finally be restored. The PPF and the FAS step in to pay people's pensions when their defined benefit schemes can no longer afford to, often because a firm has gone bust and cannot afford to keep it running. The increasing costs of such schemes, partly due to increased life expectancy, have also put them under pressure. Over the past 20 years, more than 2,000 schemes have been bailed out. However, the payments members receive are rarely the same as the entitlements they had built up – for some, it isn't even close. Strict rules mean that when a scheme goes bust, anyone who is not already drawing their pension will only be entitled to 90pc of it when they retire. Crucially, payments for any years built up before 1997 also won't rise with inflation, while any after that are capped at just 2.5pc. As a result, some members' pensions never increase, while others fall as low as 50pc of what they should have been. Savers were hoping a Tory intervention would rescue them from retirement poverty while others could have seen six-figure losses reversed as they finally received the full pensions they'd worked decades for. In July 2024, the power to change lives fell into the hands of the Labour party, bringing fresh hope that a battle stretching across two decades could finally be won. Yet 12 months on, Chancellor Rachel Reeves continues to ignore their plight, instead choosing to hand a major financial boost to pension providers in her relentless pursuit of growth. A fortnight ago, she announced plans to tweak rules that would mean they no longer have to pay a multi-million pound levy to sustain the scheme, which has raised £10bn over two decades. Those whose pensions rely on the PPF and FAS called the decision 'shameful', 'morally corrupt' and 'pandering to the industry' as they continue fighting for their full payments. After years of lobbying, campaign groups are animatedly pointing to the £13.7bn in reserves that the PPF now holds. It would cost just £10.1bn to restore the pensions of its 293,000 members, including awarding inflationary increases of up to 5pc and repaying arrears. However, the fund is powerless without a change in legislation. After the election, with hopes growing that Labour would make that change, eyes were keenly trained on the Pension Schemes Bill. When it was published earlier this month, it did contain a major legislative change – but for pension schemes, not members. The Bill gives the PPF greater powers, but only to reduce the levy that pension schemes pay to sustain it. First collected in 2006-07, it has already fallen significantly since its record level of £720m in 2010-11. It now sits at just £45m, and the PPF will soon be able to reduce it to zero. The levy can be reintroduced again if needed. The move will give schemes extra cash at a time when they are being pushed into increasing their UK investment by the Chancellor's recent Mansion House reforms. Saving wealthy pension schemes money when individuals are struggling doesn't sit well with Maurice Alphandary, 70, from Abingdon, near Oxfordshire. He worked as a chemical engineer for AEA Technology, the commercial arm of the UK Atomic Energy Authority, which was privatised before going bust. He now runs the AEA Technology Pensions Campaign, which has spent 13 years fighting to restore pensions. The current PPF rules will cost him around £100,000. He said: 'It just shows how toothless the PPF is in protecting the interests of its members against the Government. The Government can just ride roughshod over them. 'On the one hand, the Government says, 'We really care about our pensioners', but they don't. They're just pandering to the industry and it's a way of just running down the surplus instead of giving to the people who have suffered. There's enough money to compensate us.' His former colleague, 73-year-old Andrew Turner from Abingdon, receives just £18,000 per year from a pension that should pay £29,000. He said: 'For a Labour government who are supposedly focused on those who are less well off, this seems to be exactly the opposite of what they should be doing. 'The question is why should pension companies be rewarded when we're being penalised. If the Government or the PPF had any moral responsibility, it's those who are in greatest need should have first call on this surplus.' The Bill contained no news for the 140,000 FAS members either. With no levy, any changes would be funded by the public purse. David Page, 73, lives in Chelmsford and worked for Bradstock Group, a commercial insurer that went bust in 2003. He only receives around half of the pension he paid for, and is not confident of any progress. He said: 'It still hurts. It's typical of governments. They don't want to spend money. This one will be the world's worst. It's morally corrupt, but morals don't count do they?' Terry Monk, 81, from Camberley in Surrey, also worked for Bradstock. He said the Government's decision to pursue growth with members' money was 'shameful'. He said: 'What they're forgetting, or choosing to ignore, is how that surplus has arisen in the first place and it was a combination of schemes' assets and members' contributions. 'They're trying to get money that they don't own to fund projects. I'm suspicious of the people we have in power at the moment.' For its part, the Government is expected to address retirement poverty in part two of its pensions review. It has already given £1.5bn back to retired miners and is considering handing over £2.3bn more. Ministers have also met with PPF and FAS members to hear their concerns, and accepted it was an 'important issue'. A Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) spokesman said: 'The Government is continuing to consider what we have heard from the PPF and FAS members on this issue.' A PPF spokesman said it welcomed the fresh consideration that the DWP was giving to compensation levels. They added: 'Given our financial strength, we think it's the right time to reduce costs for levy paying schemes and their employers and to consider the levels of indexation we pay our members.'

The Independent

37 minutes ago

• The Independent

Whitehall isn't working – here's how the PM can fix it

It never rains but it pours for Keir Starmer. He is fighting to stop the Iran crisis wrecking his one success as prime minister – a solid performance on foreign affairs in which he somehow maintains a productive relationship with Donald Trump. Insiders tell me Starmer's efforts are aimed at persuading Iran to enter meaningful talks on its nuclear programme and then convincing a highly sceptical US president that Iran is serious about negotiations. But if Trump goes ahead with his threat to bomb Iran, Starmer's special relationship with him could conceivably be stretched to breaking point. The prime minister can't escape his woes on domestic matters. His intense diplomacy was interrupted on Thursday by the unwelcome news that Vicky Foxcroft had resigned as a whip in protest at the government's cuts to disability benefits. She might not be the last to quit a government post before the crunch vote on £5bn of welfare cuts on 1 July, when Starmer faces the biggest Labour revolt of his premiership. Some parliamentary aides to ministers are on resignation watch. The government's robotic response to Foxcroft's departure, which failed to acknowledge her respected work as shadow disabilities minister before last year's election, angered some Labour MPs. Many will rebel with a heavy heart. They accept the need to reduce the ballooning welfare budget, but think the panicky cuts ahead of Rachel Reeves's spring statement symbolise how the government repeatedly reacts to events – in this case, living from hand to mouth to stick within the chancellor's fiscal rules – instead of having a long-term reform strategy. For some Whitehall-watchers, Starmer will not improve matters unless he reforms the centre of government. Critics think the relationship between No 10 and the Cabinet Office isn't working, leaving the other side of the triangle, the Treasury, to call the shots. The result: the winter fuel allowance catastrophe and now the welfare rebellion. Even some in Downing Street admit privately a shake-up is needed. Sam Freedman, a former special adviser and author of an excellent book, Failed State, suggests loosening the Treasury's grip by forming an Office of Budget Management, run jointly by the Treasury and Downing Street, which would oversee future spending reviews to ensure they reflect the PM's priorities. Freedman believes Starmer should consider a change Tony Blair introduced in his second term, which improved public service delivery. To prevent the whole operation being sucked into reacting to events, three units focused on different timescales: a policy unit on day-to-day oversight of Whitehall departments; a delivery unit on a small number of the PM's priorities (in Starmer's case, that would be his five missions); and a strategy unit on difficult long-term challenges. This ensured a more strategic state. One problem today is that the 'missions delivery unit' is based in the Cabinet Office rather than No 10. The Institute for Government (IFG) think tank has made a sensible proposal to abolish the Cabinet Office and set up an expanded 'Office of the Prime Minister', which would then take charge of the missions. Do such structures really matter? Yes. They are even more important when a PM makes a virtue out of his pragmatism and lack of ideology, as Starmer does. Like many predecessors, Starmer complains the Whitehall machine is slow to crank into life when he demands action. Often fair – but civil servants also have a point when they grumble that this government does not give them clear enough marching orders. For example, the government's own commitment to Starmer's missions – later relaunched as six milestones in his 'plan for change' – is now being questioned in Whitehall. Ministers promised the missions would be the 'guiding star' of the government-wide spending review unveiled by Reeves last week, and that cabinet ministers would collaborate on cross-departmental working and budgets. Only one problem: there was little money to go round. So the review again became a trial of strength between the Treasury and individual ministers trying to protect their departments. Starmer's 'mission-driven government' was caught in the crossfire and some Whitehall officials think the idea suffered serious damage. The IFG calculates that two of the missions – on economic growth and clean energy – did well out of the spending review, but the other three – on health, safer streets and opportunity – look difficult to achieve. Another reason why the missions matter is that this government doesn't have the option of pumping in extra cash to secure the improvements to public services voters want, as Blair and Gordon Brown enjoyed. Although Reeves won headlines for her big boost to building projects, her squeeze on day-to-day budgets is viewed in Whitehall as a 'standstill settlement'. So reform and efficiency savings will be needed to secure tangible improvements – not least in the NHS. The missions can play a part in prioritising these goals. With many public services still struggling in the voters' eyes, standing still will not win Labour a second term.

Daily Mirror

2 hours ago

• Daily Mirror

Alexander Isak update emerges as Viktor Gyokeres rejects £11m-a-year offer

Arsenal are expected to be amongst the Premier League's top spenders this summer as Mikel Arteta and Co look for a new striker and further signings to help them in their latest title bid Arsenal are still on the hunt for a new No.9. And with the transfer window starting to heat up, the Gunners could soon be making a play for their top target. It still remains unclear exactly who that is; Viktor Gyokeres and Benjamin Sesko are seen as the two most likely options to spearhead Arsenal 's attack in the upcoming 2025-26 season and both are expected to leave their respective clubs this summer. ‌ Arsenal and Liverpool also hold an interest in Alexander Isak, although it is expected the Newcastle star will stay put for now. ‌ With Mikel Arteta also keen on adding a new wide forward to his attacking ranks plenty of activity is expected in north London over the coming weeks. Here, Mirror Football rounds up all the latest transfer news from in and around The Emirates... Isak staying put All parties believe that it's a 'certainty' that Alexander Isak will remain with Newcastle this summer despite interest in the Sweden international's services from Arsenal and Liverpool. Both Arsenal and newly minted Premier League champions are in the market for a new No.9 this summer and Isak - the top-flight's second highest scorer last term with 23 goals - is a signing both clubs would love to make. However, Newcastle are in a position of strength after qualifying for the Champions League and, as per The Telegraph, it's expected they will keep hold of their star striker this summer. ‌ Gyokeres rejects huge offer Viktor Gyokeres is said to have rejected a significant approach from Juventus which would have seen the sought-after Sporting Lisbon star land a lucrative contract worth £11million-a-year. It emerged earlier this week that the Italian giants had tabled the huge offer in a bid to land Gyokeres ahead of Arsenal and Manchester United. ‌ But with Arsenal being Gyokeres' preferred destination, Corriere dello Sport report that Juventus have been informed the Swede will not be joining them. Zubimendi in London Martin Zubimendi flew into London Friday to finalise his summer transfer from Real Sociedad, according to The Athletic. ‌ Zubimendi, 26, came close to joining Liverpool last year before a change of heart at the eleventh hour, but it emerged back in the spring that a move to Arsenal was as good as done. And official confirmation of said deal could now be imminent with Zubimendi in the UK to put pen to paper.