With-profit funds
INVESTMENT PERFORMANCE AND STRATEGY
Helping insurers understand the drivers of performance
About
Outlook
Manager
Fund
Returns
Allocation
Data
Summary
Analysis as at 31 December 2024 | This is the 12th annual investigation we have conducted into the investment strategies of UK with-profits funds.
Shepherds Friendly
Wesleyan
Zurich
Royal London
Scottish Friendly
Sheffield Mutual
Original Holloway
PG Mutual
Phoenix Group
Metfriendly
National Friendly
NFU Mutual
Oddfellows
Healthy Investment
Lloyds Banking Group
LV=
M&G
AEGON
Dentists' Provident
DG Mutual
Forester Life
Participating firms
About the survey
This report is written for persons involved in the management of UK with-profits funds. Our aim is to help UK life insurers determine whether their with-profits asset allocations remain appropriate for them, and whether their asset manager has performed well compared to peers.
The data* used in our report is private information that is not in the public domain. We approached the majority of firms which have with-profits funds in the UK, asking for information on asset allocations and investment returns. Our analysis this year covers approximately £185bn of assets spread over 82 funds from 21 insurers.
The information in this report should not be considered sufficient for making decisions, nor should it be used in place of professional advice. This report (and the work carried out to produce it) is subject to and, in our opinion, complies with the Financial Reporting Council’s technical actuarial standard (TAS) 100: General Actuarial Standards. This report has been written by Josie Booth, with Amit Lad taking overall responsibility for the report. This report has been peer-reviewed by Craig Turnbull.
*We have used the information provided without any independent verification, although we have queried responses where these looked to be outliers. Where a small amount of data has been missing from our data request, we have populated it to be internally consistent with other data provided. Where this has not been possible, or where there have been large amounts of data missing, we have asked the survey respondent for clarification.
Executive summary
We hope you find the report informative.
Please get in touch with any questions and comments you may have.
The data we’re reporting on
This investigation covers 82 funds across 21 insurers, who provided information on their with-profits funds to us privately. This report primarily reports on the asset allocation and investment returns of these 82 funds.
We have split the analysis in this investigation by fund, as different funds within an insurer can have materially different risk characteristics.
Looking back
at 2024
1
Investment returns
on the funds
2
Asset
mixes
3
Manager
approach
4
Looking back at 2024
Numerous events took place during 2024 that contributed to a strong performance from global equity markets, but also to rising bond yields. The key events include:
Inflation continued to fall from its 2022 peak allowing central banks to cut interest rates. The Bank of England cut rates by 0.5% to 4.75% over 2024.
Geopolitical tensions remained elevated due to the ongoing Russian invasion of Ukraine and the Israel-Hamas war. However, the economic impact of the conflicts has remained limited compared to the impact of sanctions and commodity disruption in 2022.
The 2024 US presidential election resulted in a victory for Donald Trump and Republican majorities in the Senate and House of Representatives. US equities rallied due to expected corporate tax cuts. However, policies such as trade tariffs also raised inflation expectations, leading bond yields to rise globally.
Investor excitement over artificial intelligence (AI) helped US equities to rise 25% over 2024 led by large technology stocks. Nvidia, which designs computer chips, rose by 171% over 2024, becoming the world’s largest company for the first time.
UK equities performed well, riding the wider wave of positivity in equity markets and delivering close to double digit returns. However, returns continue to lag behind overseas markets.
Investment returns on the funds
Most (77 of the survey’s 82) with-profits funds experienced a positive total asset return. The average return across all funds for 2024 was 5.6%, which is higher than the fixed savings rates that were available on the high street. Performance of the with-profits funds’ asset classes compared to our benchmarks has been mixed over the year. On average, with-profits funds outperformed our benchmarks for government and corporate bond asset classes, were close to our benchmark for UK equities and underperformed our benchmarks for each of overseas equities, property and cash.
was the average return across all funds in 2024.
5.6%
Asset mixes
Most individual funds have a balanced asset mix backing their asset shares, and the average asset mix has remained relatively stable for many years, demonstrating a long-term investment view. There has been a switch within equity investments, with fund managers increasing their allocation to overseas equities and reducing their allocation to UK equities over 2024. Similarly, fixed interest holdings have shifted over 2024 with increased corporate bond allocations and decreased allocations to government bonds. There has also been a slight shift towards cash over 2024.
We note that larger funds have a higher equity (including property) backing ratio (49%) compared to smaller funds (35%). The difference in the equity backing ratio between larger and smaller funds is larger for open funds and is smaller for closed funds. There continues to be a very strong UK bias in equities for the average fund of all sizes that significantly deviates from the market cap weighting. One of the strongest differentiators between overall fund performance has been overseas equity allocations.
Manager approach
External fund manager turnover has been low, with only two funds changing manager over 2024 and more than 25% of firms having a manager in place for eight years or more. Manager performance is reviewed regularly, with the majority of firms conducting an external review over the last 12 months. We view this as a positive and encourage all with-profits funds to regularly review the performance of their fund managers. However, the survey does highlight that there is scope for the level of service and value for money provided by fund managers to improve. Forty percent of firms reported the quality of data provided by their manager as below average or poor.
We advocate for regular manager reviews that go beyond just fund performance to ensure firms are getting best-in-class service (such as data and reporting) as well as asset performance from their managers.
Additionally, fee arrangements are renegotiated less frequently than general service reviews are carried out, with more than 40% of firms last renegotiating their fee arrangements over five years ago. We would encourage firms to engage with their managers as there may be scope for material savings.
Table 1
Figure 1
Figure 1
Table 1
Total with-profits assets by fund (ranked)
The distribution of funds by size of total with-profits assets as at 31 December 2024 is illustrated on a logarithmic scale in Figure 1.
Fund classifications used in this investigation
We have grouped funds by fund size and whether the fund is open to new business as set out in Table 1.
Other information provided
A subset of funds provided additional information. The number of funds providing each piece of additional information is summarised below:
provided information on the fund’s investment returns by asset class.
Table 2
Figure 2
Figure 2
LACTP of funds, as a percentage of the fund value
The loss absorbing capacity of technical provisions (LACTP) is illustrated, as a percentage of the fund value, in Figure 2 to the right.
Table 2
Split of funds according to SCR coverage
We have set out summary information about the data we have collected in Table 2 to the right.
Grouping of funds
Asset allocation
The asset allocation for the with-profits funds includes data from all 82 funds surveyed. Two funds did not provide the split between government bonds and corporate bonds. For these two funds, we have assumed all fixed interest investments are corporate bonds.
All 82 funds reported actual asset allocation, and 77 of these also supplied their strategic asset allocation (SAA). Within the 82 funds, eight had no equity holdings, so the analysis of equity exposure is based on the remaining 74 funds. Of these, 60 provided a geographic split of equities and seven provided a sector split. Credit quality information was provided by 61 funds for government bonds and 46 funds for corporate bonds.
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 3
Asset allocation for assets backing asset shares as at 31 December 2024
The average asset allocation for assets backing asset shares, split by size classification, is shown to the right in Figure 3.
Figure 4
Figure 5
Aggregate changes in asset allocations from 31 December 2023 to 31 December 2024
How the average asset allocation across the funds changed over the year, from 31 December 2023 to 31 December 2024, is illustrated to the right in Figure 4.
Strategic asset allocation, split by fund size, for 31 December 2024
The average strategic asset allocation, split by size classification, is illustrated to the right in Figure 5.
Most of the analysis in this report will focus on the split by fund size.
However, we have considered the other information provided.
Most funds have a reasonable level of duration matching with their fixed interest assets. There did not appear to be any identifiable trends in investment strategy or performance by duration mismatch, the SCR coverage of the fund, or the level of LACTP in the fund.
77
provided information on the fund’s strategic asset allocation.
76
provided information on the fund’s asset and liability duration.
52
provided information on the credit ratings of the bonds within the fund.
61
provided information on the geography mix of the equity investments within the fund.
60
provided information on the funds’ solvency capital requirement (SCR) coverage.
42
provided information on the funds’ loss absorbing capacity of technical provisions (LACTP).
26
provided information on the sector split of equity investments.
6
provided information on their fund managers.
58
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 7
Actual asset allocation vs strategic asset allocation, split by size classification, as at 31 December 2024
Figure 7 to the right then breaks this down further between the different fund size classifications.
Figure 6
Actual asset allocation vs strategic asset allocation, as at 31 December 2024
Figure 6 to the right shows how the actual average asset allocation of the with-profits funds compares to the average strategic allocation.
Equity sector split, as at 31 December 2024
The combined average split of equity funds by sector is illustrated to the right, Figure 9. Note that this is only representative of seven funds, totalling a value of just under £5bn. We have shown the weightings of each sector in the FTSE All-World index as a comparison.
Equity geographic region split, as at 31 December 2024
The average proportion of equity investments by geographic region, split by size classification, is shown to the right in Figure 8. We have shown the weighting of each region in the FTSE All-World index as an additional column.
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 11
Figure 10
Government bond credit rating split as at 31 December 2024
Figures 10 and 11 display the average proportions of government and corporate bonds respectively by crediting rating, split
by size classification.
Our insight
Investment returns by asset class
Seventy-seven funds provided information on investment returns by asset class. Of these, 62 funds submitted complete data for all asset classes in which they were invested. The remaining 15 funds reported returns for some, but not all, of their invested asset classes. For three funds, the cash returns appeared to reflect outflows, instead of investment returns. In these cases, we have set the cash return to nil.
Figure 12
Table 3
Table 3
Indices used by asset class
Table 3 outlines the indices used in our benchmark analysis, referred to as the ‘BW Index’. No return is shown for ‘other’ due to its diverse nature. This year, 11 firms disclosed the benchmarks they use for assessing with-profits fund performance. These benchmarks varied, and our analysis uses a composite that reflects the most common ones. However, many firms did not provide benchmark data, and differences in fund performance may be due to valid reasons beyond those benchmarks.
Figure 12
Investment returns by asset class compared with index returns over 2024
Figure 12 shows the average return on each asset class across all funds in the survey over 2024, in comparison to an appropriate index.
Our insight
Fund-level investment returns
This section presents data from all 82 surveyed funds; each fund reported the overall return of its with-profits fund over the past five years.
Most asset allocations are broadly in line with the strategic allocations, with only a handful of firms having an actual allocation that is more than 5% different from the strategic allocation. In total, the strategic allocation for fixed interest and cash is higher for closed funds compared to open funds and is higher for smaller funds compared to larger funds. Surprisingly there does not appear to be a strong correlation between the strategic asset allocation and fund strength.
We note that there has been a clear bias for UK equities over overseas equities for a number of years. The average fund in our analysis has
Different funds have a wide range of different asset allocations, although most could be described as balanced funds with a mix of all the major asset classes. A wide variety of different types of assets were included under ‘other'. This did not appear to differ by fund size and ranged from private equity to derivatives to holdings in collective investments that cannot easily be split into their component asset classes.
At an aggregate level, the observed change in asset allocation is an overall increase in overseas equities, cash and corporate bonds, and an overall decrease in government bonds, UK equities and property.
However, underlying this, we have seen that many individual funds have the opposite changes. For example, while total actual amounts invested in UK equities decreased, more funds actually increased their allocation to UK equities than decreased their allocation. There is no clear correlation between the change in allocations and the fund size and open/closed status.
approximately 39% of its equity investments in UK equities, whereas UK equities make up approximately 3.4% of the global equity index. There is also a sectoral bias towards financials, and an underweight position to technology stocks which is unsurprising given the bias towards UK equities. However, we note that the data analysed only covers £5bn assets over seven funds. Read more about our commentary on the potential drag on investment performance from these biases.
The strategic asset allocations illustrate a high UK equity allocation, suggesting that this bias is not a short-term tactical decision. Government bond credit ratings reflect that most funds are likely predominantly holding UK gilts, which are AA rated.
Larger funds typically had higher holdings of unrated corporate bonds. The credit rating distribution for funds’ corporate bond portfolios has a higher weighting to better quality credit than the distribution of ratings of bonds available in the market. We see this as a positive as, at time of writing, credit spreads are at their lowest levels since 2007, and we view a widening of spreads as more likely than a narrowing of spreads.
Credit spreads narrowed over 2024, leading to corporate bonds generating a positive return. This has been driven by positive market sentiment and investor demand. The causes for this market sentiment and demand can be partially attributed to AI-related productivity gains, and market perceptions of stronger corporate fundamentals.
Returns on property were modest in 2024, largely because interest rates remained high. This led to higher borrowing costs, which held back property performance.
Regardless of size, and open/closed status, most funds achieved a positive return on all but the government bond asset class. Similarly, the benchmarks used achieved a positive return on all asset classes, except for government bonds. This is not surprising given 2024 was a generally buoyant year for investment markets.
Generally, with-profits assets have out-performed the benchmark for government and corporate bonds, kept pace for UK equity and under-performed the benchmark for overseas equities and property.
The key driver for the equity markets over 2024 was the continued boom in AI and other tech innovations. This was assisted by global inflation easing, hence improving equity sentiment.
Nearly all 77 funds that invested in government bonds generated a loss on this asset class over the year, except for 11 funds that reported a gain. The key driver for the loss in government bonds is UK government bond yields rising, with investors expecting the Bank of England to hold interest rates higher for longer over the long-term. The term premium on longer-dated government bonds has also widened, reflecting nervousness from investors around government fiscal policy and debt levels.
Figure 13
Investment returns in 2024 by fund (ranked)
The fund-level investment returns achieved in 2024 on assets backing asset shares for each fund are illustrated to the right in Figure 13.
The graph shows the investment returns ranked from highest to lowest. It also shows the size classification of the funds.
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 15
Annualised investment returns over 1, 3 and 5 years by size classification
Figure 15 below shows how this translates into average performance over a one-, three- and five-year period.
Figure 14
Investment returns by year and fund size classification
The average investment return achieved by the funds in each of the past five years is shown to the right in Figure 14. These are separated out by fund size classification – the category ‘All’ shows the combined average across all fund sizes for that year.
All but four funds achieved a positive return over a one-year period. The spread in returns over one year was 17.3%, with the highest return being 13.6% and the lowest return being -3.7%. For the most part, investment returns across the funds appear to be evenly distributed, with returns greater than 12% and less than 2% having a more dispersed distribution. The small number of funds with negative returns were closed funds that had approximately 80%-100% of assets invested in government bonds and corporate bonds.
On average, larger funds have outperformed smaller funds. This has held true over each of the previous one-, three- and five-year periods.
Our insight
Manager selection
Decisions about manager selection are typically made at a firm level as opposed to fund level. Fourteen out of 21 participants provided information on the external managers that they use. Between these firms, a total of 50 investment managers were used.
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 17
When managers were first appointed, when appointments were last reviewed, and when fees were last renegotiated
Figure 17 summarises when firms first appointed their external managers, when firms last reviewed manager appointments, and when firms last negotiated fees with external managers.
Figure 16
Distribution of number of external managers used by firms
Figure 16 shows the distribution of the number of managers used by firms.
Figure 18
Quality of data provided by external managers
Figure 18 shows how firms have rated the quality of data provided to them by their external managers.
Most firms that supplied data for this part of the survey used a single external manager. Using a single manager to manage investments can require less governance (once set up) and will typically have more efficient downstream processes as there is a single data source for investments. However, the range of possible funds and exposure to asset classes will be limited to what that manager is able to provide.
Generally, firms appear to have good relationships with their external managers, and the external managers appear to be meeting their needs. All but one fund has carried out a review of manager performance within the last two years, and over 75% of external managers have been appointed for at least three years. The longest running appointment is over 25 years.
Our insight
Our investment outlook
Geopolitical uncertainty remains the dominant theme in global markets. The US has imposed large import tariffs on goods from most of the world and the final tariff rates are still uncertain for several large trading partners like China and Mexico. The full impact of the tariffs on growth and inflation is yet to come and therefore continues to pose a significant downside risk. However, the passage of substantial US tax cuts is a positive for global markets.
This extra stimulus, combined with the impact of tariffs, means that the path of US inflation and interest rates remains highly uncertain. This has contributed to rising global bond yields and volatility in the value of the US dollar, which has weakened substantially relative to other major currencies. Therefore, while there are some positives, including strong corporate and consumer balance sheets, we retain our overall cautious outlook for risky assets and expect ongoing volatility.
0000
000
0000
000
We received sufficient information to provide analysis on the following:
The amount of time since the manager was last appointed.
49
managers
47
managers
managers
27
managers
50
The amount of time since the last independent review of the fund manager.
The amount of time since the fee was negotiated.
The quality of data being provided by the fund manager.
With a team of more than 1,700 people across 10 offices, we work to deliver exceptional service through a commitment to trust, integrity, and quality. We build strong, trusted relationships with a wide range of clients, across the public and private sectors – including 24% of FTSE 100 and more than 15% of FTSE 350 companies. We leverage deep expertise to bring innovative solutions, ensuring long-term value for our clients through strategic insights and dedicated partnership.
Barnett Waddingham (BW) is a leading UK professional services consultancy with expertise across risk, pensions, investment and insurance.
Our team of experienced practitioners is on hand to provide all your actuarial outsourcing or peer
review needs.
Our areas of expertise are:
Our insurance and longevity consulting team provides the expert support and commitment to client delivery to enable insurers to deliver and adapt to changing requirements. From efficient outsourcing or technological solutions, through flexible project support, or traditional advisory and assurance engagements.
Our growing client base covers a broad range of life and general insurance firms, from captive insurers and friendly societies to FTSE 100 companies and Lloyd’s syndicates.
Our services for insurers
Return to top
Copyright © Barnett Waddingham 2025
Manage preferences
SIGN UP NOW
Stay ahead with our latest comment, expert insight and event notifications
SIGN UP FOR EMAIL UPDATES
FOLLOW US
Accessibility
Consumer duty
Data management
Diversity, equity and inclusion
Legal notices
Privacy
Sitemap
Slavery and human trafficking
FURTHER READING
We help you to set the right governance framework so you can make investment decisions quickly and efficiently with the right level of delegation to your investment manager.
An independent review of your investment manager will give you peace of mind that your policyholders are getting best-in-class performance.
Investment
manager reviews
Investment
governance reviews
Actuarial function services
Getting your investment strategy right will be the biggest driver of investment outcomes – using our deep expertise, we add value at all stages of the process.
Strategic asset allocation support
Whether you are looking to outsource your chief risk officer (CRO) function or design and implement your risk framework and own risk and solvency assessment (ORSA), our experts can assist you.
Risk
management
From mergers and acquisitions, and product development to transformations and capital optimisation, we work alongside you to develop a strategy that enables you to achieve your goals.
Strategy and transactional support
We provide a comprehensive and practical analytics and visualisation service – using data management, modelling and communication expertise to reach solutions that are tailored to your business.
Data and analytics
Our team has wide experience of acting as With-Profits Actuary and advising on with-profits issues such as bonus policy, investment strategy, capital management and the fair treatment of customers.
With-profits
Our specialist knowledge covers all aspects of unit-linked insurance: unit-pricing governance and methodology reviews; advice on discretionary practice; error investigation and rectification; and product and policyholder disclosures.
Unit-linked services
Working with our pensions and longevity consulting teams, we provide pricing, new entrant strategy, modelling and investment advice to existing and prospective market participants.
Bulk annuities
We provide actuarial expertise to support internal and external audit teams.
Audit support
Chris Pritchard
Principal and Co-Head of Insurance Investment
Amit Lad
Principal, Insurance and Longevity Consulting
Amit Lad
amit.lad@barnett-waddingham.co.uk
020 7776 3876
Chris Pritchard
chris.pritchard@barnett-waddingham.co.uk
0117 374 6957
Corporate bond credit rating split as
at 31 December 2024
Figures 10 and 11 display the average proportions of government and corporate bonds respectively by crediting rating, split
by size classification.
Despite firms undertaking recent reviews of managers in recent years, it has been some length of time since the fees with some managers were negotiated. There could be some valid reasons for this, for example, existing arrangement may be providing good value, or they may be fixed for a period of time. We would encourage firms to engage with their managers as there may be scope for material savings.
There is clear scope for fund managers to improve the quality of data they provide to firms. While quality of data is not correlated with fund performance, better data can lead to more effective risk management, reporting processes, and business decision-making. We advocate for regular manager reviews that go beyond just fund performance to ensure firms are getting best-in-class service (such as data and reporting) as well as asset performance from their managers.
UK equities
Global equities
Corporate bonds
Sterling has strengthened relative to the US dollar in recent months and, as UK equities earn most of their revenue outside the UK, this will hold back short-term earnings growth. However, the lower US trade tariffs on imports from the UK in comparison to other developed countries should cushion this impact. Valuations are cheap relative to the US but have been for many years and while the UK may do well for a period, the historical trend of underperforming the US, and therefore global equities, is likely to continue.
UK equities
Global equities
Corporate bonds
Government bonds
Broad economic uncertainty remains elevated, and the impact of US tariffs is yet to be fully reflected in markets. While these downside risks
are likely to lead to volatility in the short term, we believe that over a
12–24-month period these risks are balanced by favourable tax policies in the US and significant potential earnings growth from AI-linked technology companies.
Property
While the UK property market, and offices in particular, still face structural headwinds, such as the need to meet energy efficiency standards,
falling interest rates and more attractive current yields provide some support to the market. This view is reinforced by the reduced weight
of offices, which are now only 20% of UK core property index, making
it the third largest sector.
Global credit spreads remain close to their 21st century low points
and the risk of widening spreads is still a concern. However, corporate balance sheets remain strong, so we are not expecting a large pick-up
in downgrades or defaults.
Property
UK yields remain above our view of ’neutral’ levels based on underlying trends in inflation and sluggish growth. However, the uncertainty priced into longer term gilts has increased, as UK yields react to heightened geopolitical uncertainty and movements in US yields.
Government bonds
Please get in touch with your Barnett Waddingham consultant if you would like to discuss any of the
topics in more detail.
This report has been prepared by Barnett Waddingham LLP, which is wholly owned by Howden UK&I Jersey Limited. Barnett Waddingham LLP (OC307678) is registered in England and Wales with its registered office at 2 London Wall Place, London, EC2Y 5AU. Barnett Waddingham LLP is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.
DOWNLOAD PDF VERSION
Amit Lad
Principal, Insurance and Longevity Consulting
Amit Lad
amit.lad@barnett-waddingham.co.uk
020 7776 3876
Classification
Fund size (£m)
Number of open funds
Number of closed funds
Total number of funds
L
> 1,500
5
10
15
M
250 - 1,500
5
13
18
XS
< 70
10
22
32
S
70 - 250
5
12
17
SCR Coverage ratio (%)
Total number of funds
> 350
11
250 – 350
6
150 – 250
22
100 – 150
3
Asset class
BW Index
UK equity
Property
Corporate bonds
Other
FTSE All Share
IPD UK All Property
iBoxx Non-Gilts All Stocks
-
Overseas equity
FTSE All World (ex UK) (Sterling TRI)
Government bonds
FTSE Gilts All stocks Fixed Interest
Cash
Bank of England Base Rate
Kim Durniat
Partner and Head of Insurance
& Longevity Consulting
Analysis as at 31 December 2024 | This is the 12th annual investigation we have conducted into the investment strategies of UK with-profits funds.
This report is written for persons involved in the management of UK with-profits funds. Our aim is to help UK life insurers determine whether their with-profits asset allocations remain appropriate for them, and whether their asset manager has performed well compared to peers.
The data* used in our report is private information that is not in the public domain. We approached the majority of firms which have with-profits funds in the UK, asking for information on asset allocations and investment returns. Our analysis this year covers approximately £185bn of assets spread over 82 funds from 21 insurers.
The information in this report should not be considered sufficient for making decisions, nor should it be used in place of professional advice. This report (and the work carried out to produce it) is subject to and, in our opinion, complies with the Financial Reporting Council’s technical actuarial standard (TAS) 100: General Actuarial Standards. This report has been written by Josie Booth, with Amit Lad taking overall responsibility for the report. This report has been peer-reviewed by Craig Turnbull.
*We have used the information provided without any independent verification, although we have queried responses where these looked to be outliers. Where a small amount of data has been missing from our data request, we have populated it to be internally consistent with other data provided. Where this has not been possible, or where there have been large amounts of data missing, we have asked the survey respondent for clarification.
AEGON
Dentists' Provident
DG Mutual
Forester Life
Healthy Investment
Lloyds Banking Group
LV=
M&G
Metfriendly
National Friendly
NFU Mutual
Amit Lad
Principal, Insurance and Longevity Consulting
Amit Lad
Principal, Insurance and Longevity Consulting
Chris Pritchard
Principal and Co-Head of Insurance Investment
Section 4
Section 3
Section 2
Section 1
Table 2
Figure 2
Figure 2
Table 2
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 9
Figure 8
Amit Lad
Principal, Insurance and Longevity Consulting
Amit Lad
amit.lad@barnett-waddingham.co.uk
020 7776 3876
Return to top
Copyright © Barnett Waddingham 2025
Manage preferences
SIGN UP NOW
Stay ahead with our latest comment, expert insight and event notifications
SIGN UP FOR EMAIL UPDATES
FOLLOW US
Accessibility
Consumer duty
Data management
Diversity, equity and inclusion
Legal notices
Privacy
Sitemap
Slavery and human trafficking
FURTHER READING
Section 4
Section 4
Manager
Outlook