Monday, January 30, 2017

My Question On Risk to Full Council before it was Cut

This is the question that I submitted to the Newham Council Chief Executive for tonight's Full Council meeting as an elected Councillor complying fully under its constitution and rules yet my questions ended up being cut.

Dear Kim

Please submit the following question

Question to Cllr Lester Hudson

"I refer to Agenda Item 12 “Annual Treasury Management Report 2015/2016 page 51 of the Yellow Book item 3.8.

While I would agree with the aspiration in 3.8.1 for the Councils investments to mirror that achieved by the LBN Pension fund (and other Pensions schemes) would not Councillor Hudson agree that consistent outperformance of investment return is not just down to good fund management but also depends on the taking of risk. The more risk you take the more return you may achieve. However, equally the more risk you take then the more money you can lose.  With Pension funds the risk of things going wrong are shared. Employers and employees may have to pay more and benefits may be cut. Most importantly for pensions that is also guarantors in the private sector the Pension protection fund and in the public sector (in theory) the British State. 

While I am not against the taking of appropriate long term financial risks if the Council invests in “alternative” investments such as solar farms or toll tunnels, takes risks and it all goes horribly wrong then who will be our guarantor?"

Regards

John Gray
Councillor

This is the question below that was actually read out at Council by the monitoring officer without my agreement to these "changes". 

I refer to Agenda Item 12 “Annual Treasury Management Report 2015/2016 page 51 of the Yellow Book item 3.8.  If the Council invests in “alternative” investments such as solar farms or toll tunnels, takes risks and it all goes horribly wrong then who will be our guarantor?

Needless to say that I didn't get an answer to either. 

Anyone see anything wrong with my original question? 



No comments: