Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T15:54:27.653Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Corporate Diversity and the Provision of Financial Services

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 June 2011

P. Guijarro  and
D. J. P. Hare
P. Guijarro
Affiliation:
Scottish Widows plc, 69 Morrison Street, Edinburgh EH3 8YF, U.K., Tel: +44(0)131-655-6353, Fax: +44(0)131-655-3015, Email: [email protected]
D. J. P. Hare
Affiliation:
The Standard Life Assurance Company, 30 Lothian Road, Edinburgh EH1 2DH, U.K., Tel: +44(0)131-245-0632, Fax: +44(0)131-245-2953, Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The corporate landscape of United Kingdom financial services has changed considerably in the last fifteen years with virtually all the main players now shareholder-owned. The dominance of shareholder ownership may not last for ever and the pendulum could swing back to alternate structures. Should the actuarial profession look ahead and consider what, if anything, could be done to encourage diversity? This paper considers some of the issues involved and raises some questions for the profession to discuss.

Keywords

Building SocietiesCorporate OwnershipCredit UnionsFriendly SocietiesInternationalMicrofinanceMutualityProprietaryShareholders
Type
Sessional meetings: papers and abstracts of discussions
Information
British Actuarial Journal , Volume 8 , Issue 4 , 01 October 2002 , pp. 643 - 684
Copyright
Copyright © Institute and Faculty of Actuaries 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Brown-Humes, C. (1998). Our ex-mutual friends. Financial Times, 14 February 1998.Google Scholar
Building Society Statistics etc. Taken from the website of The Building Societies Association at www.bsa.org.ukGoogle Scholar
Cazalet Financial Consulting (2001). Life 2001. www.cazalet-financial.comGoogle Scholar
Cook, J., Deakin, S. & Hughes, A. (2001). Mutuality and corporate governance: the evolution of U.K. building societies following deregulation. Working paper 205, June 2001, Cambridge University, Centre for Business Research. www.econ.cam.ac.uk/cbrnewGoogle Scholar
Credit Union statistics, etc. Taken from the website of the Association of British Credit Unions Limited at www.abcul.org and that of the World Council of Credit Unions at www.woccu.orgGoogle Scholar
Druschel, K., Quigley, J. & Sanchez, C. (2001). State of the Microcredit Summit Campaign Report 2001. Available at www.microcreditsummit.orgGoogle Scholar
Felman, J.M. & Nembhard, J.G. (2001). The new paradigm project: a trans-Atlantic dialogue on democratic economic development. Issue 47 of GEO. Available on www.geonewsletter.orgGoogle Scholar
Friendly Societies statisitics, etc. Taken from The Association of Friendly Societies Yearbook 2000–2001, at www.afs.org.ukGoogle Scholar
Grameen Bank. Information taken from its website at www.grameen-info.orgGoogle Scholar
Granitas, A. & Sheehan, D. (2001). Microcredit — grassroots capitalism. The Far Eastern Economic Review, July 12, 2001, reproduced in Grameen Dialogue, Issue 48. Available on www.grameen-info.orgGoogle Scholar
Hairs, C.J., Arnold, M., Gustar, A.J., Hare, D.J.P., Needleman, P.D., Tuley, P.J. & Webber, J.M. (1999). The closed fund alternative, B.A.J. 5, 699–742.Google Scholar
Heriot-Watt University (Social Enterprise Institute) & Scottish Co-operative & Mutual Form (2001). Scottish Water — the case for a people's company with mutual ownership and management. Available at www.so.hw.ac.uk/socialenterprise/reportsGoogle Scholar
Jones, P.A. (1998). Towards sustainable credit union development. Available from the Association of British Credit Unions Ltd.Google Scholar
Kingston, T.D. (2000). Address by the President of the Faculty of Actuaries: ‘A learning profession’, 2 October 2000. B.A.J. 7, 51–73.Google Scholar
Leadbeater, C. & Christie, I. (1999). To our mutual advantage. Demos. www.demos.co.ukGoogle Scholar
Llewellyn, D.T. (1999). Mutuality: theory and practice. Presentation to the 1999 Life Convention of the U.K. actuarial profession.Google Scholar
Mills, C. (2001). A lawyer's perspective, article in ownership matters — new mutual business models. Edited by Hunt, P. & Whitehead, J.Mutuo Ltd. www.mutuo.co.ukGoogle Scholar
Outters, G. (2001). Basic research into mutual insurance. Presentation reproduced in the proceedings of the 21th General Meeting of Association Internationale des Societes d'Assurance Mutuelle (AISAM), 2000. Mutuality Magazine, Issue 52. www.aisam.orgGoogle Scholar
Ricketts, M. (1999). The many ways of governance — perspectives on the control of the firm. Research Report 31, The Social Affairs Unit. www.socialaffairsunit.org.ukGoogle Scholar
Simpson, D. (2001). Trust in life assurance. Economic Affairs, 21, 1, 23–28, Institute of Economic Affairs, www.iea.org.ukGoogle Scholar
Swiss Re (1999). Are mutual insurers an endangered species?. Sigma Number 4 — www.swissre.comGoogle Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, S.P. (1999). Demutualization in an international context. Presentation given at Maui I Spring Meeting June 15–17, 1998, and reproduced in Society of Actuaries Record, 24, 1, and available at www.soa.orgGoogle Scholar