Report comment

Hi Anon 17.04,

"I'm sorry, but the picture you paint is wildly inaccurate. I have posed the following question on several discussion threads relating to the DR;

Pease identify current, sustainable investment products, which are both low risk and can consistently deliver net (after tax, inflation and charges) returns of anything like 2.5%. "

I am not talking about low risk investments. I am specifically talking about the cohort of damages recipients whose estates are professionally managed by a deputy, and who benefit from financial and investment advice arranged by the deputy. That cohort are used to seeing rates of return of around 10%.

I am not talking about a single product. Nor am I talking about this applying to all cases, which is why I prefaced my post with the point that you have deliberately overlooked, being a recognition that there is not one class of damages recipient. What I describe applies only to those high value matters where the award is professionally managed by a deputy.

You ask Irwin Mitchell what the average annual return on investments is on any of the hundreds of such matters they administer, and I'll go out on a limb and wager that they'll find many imaginative ways not to answer the question. The reason why? Because the returns will never be anywhere near as low as 2.5%.

I do not propose that the discount rate should be increased in any other case that those. But in those cases, the discount rate amounts to unjust enrichment.