ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

Value of Thames Water investment ¡®minimal¡¯, admits USS

<ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ class="standfirst">University pension scheme effectively writes off stake in ailing company that was worth ?956 million two years ago
July 25, 2024
Source: iStock/VV Shots

UK higher education¡¯s largest pension scheme has expressed ¡°deep regret¡± after suffering heavy losses when the value of?its stake in?Thames Water plunged to?¡°minimal¡± levels.

In annual accounts published on 25?July, Simon Pilcher, the chief executive officer of?the investment arm of?the Universities Superannuation Scheme (USS), said the outcome had led to?¡°serious reflection¡± within the company about its approach to?future investments.

USS, which manages the pensions of more than 500,000 university staff members, was one of the major investors in the ailing company, with its 20?per cent stake valued at ?956?million two years ago.

It admitted that it had in effect written off this money as Thames Water struggles to recover from amassing large debts.

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

ADVERTISEMENT

¡°Despite our very best efforts, it is clear this has not been a successful investment,¡± said Mr Pilcher. ¡°While poor performance of a single asset should be considered in terms of our overall performance¡­this has been deeply disappointing, and we recognise the concern it will have caused our members.¡±

He said USS remained a shareholder in Thames Water, ¡°but the future outlook for the company is unclear and the value of our holding at 31?March 2024 was minimal¡±, adding: ¡°We deeply regret having arrived at such a position.¡±

ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ

ADVERTISEMENT

Despite the challenges, the accounts said that USS had a ?9.2?billion surplus in the defined-benefit part of the scheme.

This improving financial picture allowed for member contributions to be reduced from 9.8?per cent to 6.1?per cent in January, which it said was ¡°one of the lowest member contribution rates in the 50-year history of the scheme¡±.

The University and College Union ended its long-running dispute over cuts to the benefits of the scheme last year, having secured a commitment to?reduce contributions.

tom.williams@timeshighereducation.com

Register to continue

Why register?

  • Registration is free and only takes a moment
  • Once registered, you can read 3 articles a month
  • Sign up for our newsletter
Register
Please Login or Register to read this article.
<ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ class="pane-title"> Related articles
<ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ class="pane-title"> Reader's comments (3)
¡°serious reflection¡± is not enough. A full independent inquiry is required to rule out cronyism or even corruption in this massive failed investment. Accountability is required to prevent this sort of disaster from happening again. There would be a group of people who did very nicely out of this investment, and it wasn't members.
Pension scheme loss of ?1b! Too many eggs in one fragile basket - why?
Sounds like there should be a cap on the level of investment in individual organisations - if there is one already it should be set to a lower level to a more acceptable level of risk appetite (which should also be clearly expressed). Review of investment strategy and risk appetite statement are clearly needed. Although water should have been a safe investment the way this particular company has been faring has been a known issue for some time.
<ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ class="pane-title"> Sponsored
<ÁñÁ«ÊÓƵ class="pane-title"> Featured jobs
ADVERTISEMENT