|
Wealth
range |
Working
Members
|
Non-working
UK |
Non-working
US |
Non-working
EC |
Non-working
Others |
Row
total
Members |
%
of
all Names |
|
£0
- 0
|
2,229
|
54
|
1
|
0
|
0
|
2,284
|
7.9%
|
|
£1
- 49,999
|
597
|
492
|
0
|
1
|
7
|
1,097
|
3.8%
|
|
£50,000
- 99,999
|
948
|
2,424
|
7
|
44
|
52
|
3475
|
12.1%
|
|
£100,000
- 149,999
|
680
|
7,898
|
816
|
343
|
845
|
10,582
|
36.7%
|
|
£150,000
- 199,999
|
337
|
3,159
|
484
|
116
|
336
|
4,432
|
15.4%
|
|
£200,000
- 249,999
|
190
|
1,749
|
288
|
60
|
219
|
2,506
|
8.7%
|
|
£250,000
- 299,999
|
112
|
904
|
195
|
31
|
92
|
1,334
|
4.6%
|
|
£300,000
- 349,999
|
98
|
691
|
167
|
33
|
130
|
1,119
|
3.9%
|
|
£350,000
- 399,999
|
40
|
337
|
94
|
14
|
34
|
519
|
1.8%
|
|
£400,000
- 449,999
|
36
|
241
|
63
|
11
|
21
|
372
|
1.3%
|
|
£450,000
- 499,999
|
17
|
128
|
48
|
1
|
8
|
202
|
0.7%
|
|
£500,000
- 549,999
|
48
|
203
|
61
|
4
|
23
|
339
|
1.2%
|
|
£550,000
- 599,999
|
11
|
76
|
26
|
3
|
9
|
125
|
0.4%
|
|
£600,000
- 649,999
|
4
|
35
|
23
|
1
|
8
|
71
|
0.2%
|
|
£650,000
- 699,999
|
2
|
34
|
15
|
2
|
2
|
55
|
0.2%
|
|
£700,000
- 749,999
|
1
|
20
|
11
|
1
|
4
|
37
|
0.1%
|
|
£750,000
- 799,999
|
2
|
18
|
14
|
0
|
0
|
34
|
0.1%
|
|
£800,000
- 849,999
|
2
|
25
|
14
|
1
|
0
|
42
|
0.1%
|
|
£850,000
- 899,999
|
0
|
7
|
10
|
2
|
1
|
20
|
0.1%
|
|
£900,000
- 949,000
|
3
|
5
|
9
|
0
|
0
|
17
|
0.06%
|
|
£950,000
- 999,999
|
2
|
8
|
2
|
1
|
2
|
15
|
0.05%
|
|
£1,000,000
and over
|
3
|
63
|
46
|
2
|
13
|
127
|
0.4%
|
|
Totals
|
5,362
|
18,571
|
2,394
|
671
|
1,806
|
28,804
|
100%
|
Analysis of 1986 Neill Report figures:
- Working names were not necessarily required to show means
- 3381 Names showed means of less than £50,000 (12%)
- 6856 Names showed means of less than £100,000 (24%)
- 17438 Names showed means of less than £150,000 (60%)
- 21870 Names showed means of less than £200,000 (76%)
- 24376 Names showed means of less than £250,000 (86%)
- 25710 Names showed means of less than £300,000 (89%)
- 26329 Names showed means of less than £350,000 (93%)
Converting to dollars at £1 = $1.6, approximately 90% of all Names
had resources of less than $500,000-- barely a decent retirement fund-- and
60% had less than $250,000 (£150,000). Lloyd's nonetheless characterized
dissident Names as "wealthy people who didn't want to pay their bills."
Approximate net worth of Lloyd's Names
Assuming the Names' net worth averaged to the middle of the £50,000 increments in the above table (except for the £0-50,000 range-- Lloyd's "mini-names" had to show at least £35,000), the approximate total known means, or worth, of the Names in the above table is £4,734,270,000. In other words, once Lloyd's ran through their premium reserves in hand, the unlimited liablility of the Names only provided known additional reserves of £4.7 billion. Of that:
- £1,621,770,000 (34%) was the means of Names with less than £150,000
- £2,397,370,000 (50.6%) was the known means of people with less than £200,000
- £2,961,220,000 (62.5%) was the known means of people with less than £250,000
- £3,327,895,000 (70.3%) was the known means of people with less than £300,000
- £3,691,570,000 (78.0%) was the known means of people with less than £350,000
If we start from the top down:
- £127,000,000 (2.7%) was the known means of people with more than £1,000,000
- £604,325,000 (12.8%) was the known means of people with more than £500,000
The bulk of Lloyd's Names were not "wealthy"! They were people who had equity in holdings (often inherited) or had set aside enough for a reasonably comfortable retirement, and were looking for a safe investment with conservative returns.
Extrapolation to 1988:
Assuming the same demographic/statistical spread, since Lloyd's recruiting
practices did not significantly change, and extrapolating forward to 1988
(when Lloyd's membership peaked at 32,433), the known means of Lloyd's Names
in 1988 was approximately £5,330,788,020.
For the syndicate years1988-1991, Lloyd's reported losses of £6,939,000,000-- or, 130% of the known net worth of all the Names at Lloyd's peak membership in 1988. Ever since then, Lloyd's has been ruthlessly and/or desperately pursuing collection of every possible penny from the Names to cover its losses and gloss over its tainted image in the worldwide insurance community.
