Talk:Legal & General

LGFL

A few days ago the information on LGFL was removed without any reason given in the edit summary or on the talk page. I have put it back in.

If there is a reason for removing the information, could you please say what it is either in the summary or the talk page?

Looking at the number of brands / offices, LGFL is one of the largest Estate Agencies in the UK, so I feel it deserves a mention.

It may have just been a "clueless newbie" testing things out. --Merovingian (t) (c) (e) 08:35, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Legal & General's Strategic Partners

Barclays Bank still continue to sell Legal & General assurance and insurance products to their customers. Irrespective of the joint venture in Gresham. I believe Gresham deal with equity, not insurance products. Therefore I re-included Barclays in the list of partners, and moved the information about Gresham into the history section. --Phydaux 22:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Legal & General HQ

I'm not sure why Bucklersbury House was put as L&G's HQ however it isn't it's Temple Court, and it will be changing to One Coleman Street later this year. To check a company's addrs you can check the stock exchange they belong to e.g.: [1] --Phydaux 10:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

Should the revenue stat be million, not billion? Even so, it does not seem to match up well with BusinessWeek. Can someone please verify? Thanks. Wikiphile1603 (talk) 22:06, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

you are correct that it should be million not billion; for the actual figure see Annual Report Page 75 Dormskirk (talk) 12:24, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Client list

Is this long list of clients/partners really worthwhile? Wikiphile1603 (talk) 22:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

LOL what L&G doesn't own Met Life

L&G bought a business unit from Met in the 30's. At no point did they own the company itself, which continues to this day as an independent and rather larger corporation than L&G. Pretty bizarre error, even by wikipedia standards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.15.253.179 (talk) 04:38, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

History

"In 1999, Legal & General announced plans to merge its business with that of the National Westminster Bank to form the first 'bancassurance' company in the UK."

Would it really have been the first? Abbey National (as it then was) became the first with it's purchase of Scotish Mutual in 1992. We then had Halifax taking over Clerical Medical in 1997, and Lloyds TSB was already in the process of buying Scottish Widows at the time of the ultimately abortive takeover bid of L&G by Natwest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.110.65 (talk) 01:47, 30 January 2011 (UTC) There's more history to Banner Life- it took over William Penn Life and acquired a block of business from the insolvent Monarch Life141.156.48.37 (talk) 20:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Legal & General. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724080538/http://www.legalandgeneralgroup.com/about-us/milestones-1800-1950.cfm to http://www.legalandgeneralgroup.com/about-us/milestones-1800-1950.cfm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724080218/http://www.legalandgeneralgroup.com/about-us/milestones-1960-1980.cfm to http://www.legalandgeneralgroup.com/about-us/milestones-1960-1980.cfm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Legal & General. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170410050451/http://www.essentialsurrey.co.uk/theatre-arts/vera-brittain/ to http://www.essentialsurrey.co.uk/theatre-arts/vera-brittain/
• Added archive https://archive.is/20120802063104/http://www.financeweek.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=1295 to http://www.financeweek.co.uk/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=1295
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090730090725/http://www.legalandgeneralgroup.com/investors/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=154685 to http://www.legalandgeneralgroup.com/investors/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=154685
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120314160602/http://www.ifaonline.co.uk/ifaonline/news/1340356/l-g-agrees-gbp62m-deal-suffolk-life?page=ifa2006_articleimport&tempPageName=746283 to http://www.ifaonline.co.uk/ifaonline/news/1340356/l-g-agrees-gbp62m-deal-suffolk-life?page=ifa2006_articleimport&tempPageName=746283
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130127161734/http://www.legalandgeneralgroup.com/media-centre/press-releases/2012/group-news-release-directoratechangegroupchiefexecutive.html to http://www.legalandgeneralgroup.com/media-centre/press-releases/2012/group-news-release-directoratechangegroupchiefexecutive.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:51, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legal & General. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150918193022/http://www.surreymirror.co.uk/Legal-General-proposes-leave-Kingswood/story-26714863-detail/story.html to http://www.surreymirror.co.uk/Legal-General-proposes-leave-Kingswood/story-26714863-detail/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Clarification Request

Legal & General America is the U.S. insurance arm of Legal & General. They offer life insurance, retirement planning, and claim settlement services to customers in the United States. I believe there needs to be clarity on the US origins, structure of the company, and US history since there is no information on WIkipedia of subsidiary brands Banner Life Insurance Company and William Penn Life insurance Company of New York that are owned by the US arm. In fact there is not much information about the US arm and there are nearly 1,000 employees in the US. Here are some resources to cite a potential addition: .. . . Note COI.KHLGA (talk) 16:30, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Hi - We seek to give a global view of companies on wikipedia and while I appreciate that the company has nearly 1,000 employees in the US that may not be notable in the context of a company with nearly 9,000 employees globally. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• L&G Logo 4C Black.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:06, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Proposed updates to opening section

Good morning everyone.

There are some updates that I wanted to propose as potential edits to the introductory section of the page. Main edits that we are proposing are:

- Updated information based on recent financial results on customer numbers and products/services - Update to ranking of global asset managers, currently now at 11th not 10th based on figures from Investment Pensions Europe

Main references for the below are https://group.legalandgeneral.com/media/bg3c0tzs/hy23-press-release_analyst-pack.pdf https://www.ipe.com/reports/top-500-asset-managers

Suggested update listed below based on those sources. Let me know if this is acceptable to submit as an edit request.

Many thanks

Legal & General is a multinational financial services company headquartered in London and listed on the London Stock Exchange and is a constituent of the FTSE 100 Index with a market cap of £13bn. Established in 1836, Legal & General has over 11,000 employees based in over 10 countries around the world. The company is the 11th largest global investor ... <redacted> ... (*at August 2023).

Legal & General’s Retail division supports the savings, protection and retirement needs of about 13 million people through its portfolio of retail and workplace businesses. Its Retirement Institutional division looks after over 500,000 institutional customers. Legal & General ... <redacted> ... provides asset origination capabilities, specialising in private markets. Lubham13 (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi - please provide independent sources for each of your proposed changes and then use the "edit coi" template. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 11:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

For reference, would information released to the financial markets by the company such as results statements be acceptable as sources? These are required to be accurate by regulation, but are originating from the company.

Thanks for any further help on this. Lubham13 (talk) 08:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

When updating the financials in the infobox, the annual report is normally considered acceptable as these are audited figures. However, for the rest of the article independent sources are preferred (per WP:RS). Dormskirk (talk) 10:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The suggested new lead section seems to be a combination of promotional material (e.g.: ‘leading international player’, ‘support[ing] the savings, protection and retirement needs of about 13 million people’) and material that is unlikely to be readily understood by the general reader (e.g.: ‘provides asset origination capabilities’, ‘Pension Risk Transfer’ and ‘market cap of £13bn’). The overall impression seems similar to reading a press release. Also, the various big numbers that have been included in the suggested text give the impression that the purpose of the rewrite is primarily promotional (to give an impression of the subject’s scale, rather than providing clarity on what they actually do).

The current lead section of the article seems to be preferable. The most important part of the current lead is the sentence that says ‘[Legal & General’s] products and services include investment management, lifetime mortgages […], pensions, annuities, and life assurance’, which seems an excellent plain English description of this company’s main activities. No comparable description appears in the proposed replacement section, which omits reference to pensions, life assurance, etc., and instead describes those products obliquely using marketing speak (i.e. as ‘savings, protection and retirement needs’).

Re: the two specific elements of the current article that Lubham13 mentioned that they would like to update…

(1) looking at the articles for other comparable companies, the new figures quoted in the suggested revised text don’t seem to belong in the lead section and instead are normally included in the infobox (or further down in the article).

And (2) the switch from 10th place to 11th place only requires changing a 0 to a 1 (and the addition of a new source).

So, to be honest I’m not really seeing much need for a total rewrite of the lead section, especially given the apparent promo issues above. Axad12 (talk) 13:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Lubham13, I have removed some (fairly limited) copyright violation from your proposed text – you may not copy content from non-free external sources into any part of Wikipedia. I note that you have very properly disclosed your paid-editor status on your user-page, but failed to mention it when making this request: please understand that you are expected to disclose any paid interest every time you make any edit relating to the person paying you. Please also note, and note well, that Wikipedia does not tolerate promotion of any kind – so asking us to replace the lead of the article with stuff that reads like the worst kind of corporate press-release is a total waste of everybody's time, yours included. My thanks to Dormskirk and Axad12 for their comments here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

As a footnote to the discussion above, on 18/3/24 much of the material in the declined edit request above was introduced to the article for António Simões (executive), CEO of Legal & General [2] (and earlier today was reverted by myself).

The material was added by an IP address which only edits the pages for Legal & General and Antonio Simoes and is thus presumably linked to the various WP:COI/WP:SPA accounts which have a similar edit profile (usually also including edits to the article for Nigel Wilson (businessman), the previous CEO, which was the target of another round of COI editing by user JordanCox01 on 15/3/24). The other related accounts include Lubham13, NicoleReuthePunch, NicolePunch and other previous accounts.

The fact that the material was added by an IP address may be related to the fact that user JordanCox01 was recently instructed to make no further edits until disclosing a COI. Axad12 (talk) 05:36, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Indeed, Axad12! – please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NicolePunch, which I started a few days ago. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Well done. Is it also worth adding the two recent IP addresses to that investigation? (86.1.201.30 and 81.144.179.114)

Do you feel it would be worth raising the overall subject at WP:COIN? The incident I mentioned above seems like the most blatant abuse of COI in the whole long saga, given that your comments above could hardly have been misconstrued. Seems as though they have given up on using the declared COI route and have gone back to the previous pattern of editing pages directly and slowly edit warring. Axad12 (talk) 09:15, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course, I should have said 'raising it again at WP:COIN', as the matter was discussed there back in Nov 23 after being raised by user Tacyarg. [3] Axad12 (talk) 09:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Modular homes

In my opinion there should be something here on modular homes. The fact that the company incurred total losses over seven years of £295m on a non-insurance related activity is significant. Views welcome. Dormskirk (talk) 12:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

References

I think that until very recently it had been reduced (by you and I) to 1 or 2 sentences, sitting within the Operations section. Happy for that situation to be restored with the size of the loss altered to the apparently updated figure of £295m, plus new link to verify the amended figure.

For the story to have been expanded once again to its own titled section full of mostly trivial detail (and by a self-confessed PR operative working in the construction industry) was clearly WP:UNDUE. Axad12 (talk) 07:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

OK. I have restored some of the material, placing it in the history section, as the operation is now closed. Dormskirk (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Going back to my comment on 'mostly trivial detail'...

In what sense are the following points (recently reintroduced to the article) not trivial?

• Square footage of the factory.
• Location of the factory (not specified for any other division of the co).
• Number of homes in the first project.

The space allocated in the article to LGMH is currently larger than that dedicated to any other single news story in the history of the company, except for the 2019 sale of the general insurance division. I still think the space dedicated to LGMH is undue weight for a story on a short-lived and unsuccessful division which sat way outside of the company's core business.

I'd suggest removing everything from 'opening a [...]' to '[...] Selby'.

(However, I do agree that the 'History' section is the correct place for what remains.) Axad12 (talk) 12:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

OK. I have now removed the removed the square footage and the number of homes. I think the location of the factory is probably worth mention for historical interest. I know we want to get the balance right but I am a bit concerned that we have suppressed so much information on this disastrous project. Dormskirk (talk) 12:36, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Fai r point, but the original (extensive) material inserted into the article on this subject back in Nov 23 was of an undoubtedly promo nature and was put there by one of the suspected UPE accounts currently involved in the sockpuppet investigation. Axad12 (talk) 13:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware of that. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 13:18, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Axad12 I note you discussed me, but didn't ping me about this conversation. That would have been courteous and allowed me to contribute to the discussion. Paul W (talk) 09:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

As you can see above, you were mentioned very tangentially as part of a content discussion regarding what was WP:DUE coverage of an issue which had previously been significantly reduced within the article.

If I understand correctly, you had seen a story in the Construction Enquirer on the 20th March and added the story to this article, presumably without realising that much of the content that you were adding had previously been removed by two other users as WP:UNDUE.

I'm not sure that it was necessary to ping you simply for using the phrase 'a self-confessed PR operative working in the construction industry'. I derived the information from your extensive user page. Axad12 (talk) 10:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, User:Axad12. My addition to L&G page was part of a much wider range of edits covering modular building, Homes England, modern methods of construction, and also other players in the market including Ilke Homes and House by Urban Splash, among others. It was not just that I had "seen a story in the Construction Enquirer on the 20th March and added the story to this article", as you put it. I think it is a matter of courtesy to alert editors whose inputs you are discussing. Paul W (talk) 10:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

My response above was to the original form of your initial note. You added the bit about 'that would have been courteous [etc]' while I was writing my response, so I hadn't seen it at the time my response above was posted.

However, to give some background here, the form of the LGMH material which you added to the article very closely resembled the form in which it was originally added back in Nov 23 (i.e. undue weight and in a brand new titled section all to itself, rather than in the history).

This article (and other closely related articles) have been the subject of a great many edits by undisclosed paid COI editors, one of whom is believed to have made the original LGMH edits back in Nov 23. Those sort of edits are routinely reverted without discussion.

I would ask you to please view the discussion above against that background, rather than assuming that the failure to include you in the conversation was a simple discourtesy. The situation is rather more complex than that. I am of course more than happy to apologise but hopefully you will appreciate how this situation arose. Axad12 (talk) 10:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Axad12. Understood. Paul W (talk) 13:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Cala Homes

L&G is putting Cala Homes up for sale (Construction Enquirer source). Perhaps the mention of Cala should be included in the history (controlling stake acquired in 2018), and perhaps related to the failure of L&G Modular; it looks like a final exit from a shortlived entry into housebuilding. Paul W (talk) 09:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there was an amount of material that had previously sat (arguably incorrectly) within Operations which is now (probably more correctly) located within the history. Cala Homes is probably another example of that, and this looks like a good opportunity to move it out of Operations and into the history. However, as you say, this was a short-lived venture and also outside the company's main line of business, so please keep the mention relatively concise. Axad12 (talk) 10:12, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Added two lines to History, removing Cala from Operations. Paul W (talk) 13:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)