Stay informed with free updates

Simply sign up to the Life & Arts myFT Digest — delivered directly to your inbox.

You will have noticed this seems a rather specific question, unrelatable perhaps, if your name is Dennis or Susan. But you will also grasp that this is just a way of expressing the real question, which is “Can I shorten your name from the one you actually use?” 

The answer is no, you bloody can’t. Well, technically you can. There’s nothing I can do to stop you. But I won’t like it, so if it is an attempt to be matey, it will in fact have the opposite effect. 

At least asking allows me an opportunity to say no. Those who ask are not really the problem, though they should still know better. I have, after all, had many more years to consider my options. But people rarely ask. Americans — or Amers, as I like to think of them — are especially committed to shortening other people’s names, seeing it as a sign of chummy informality, rather than an outrageous presumption. 

Few weeks go by without someone chummily shortening my name. They don’t ask if I’m a Rob. They just decide I should be. This shows a basic misjudgment because Rob, in general, seems an easy-going, karaoke-nights, one-more-for-the-road type of guy. Whereas I am an uptight, grumpy, no-thanks-I’m-driving, don’t-call-me-Rob type.

This issue has acquired new urgency, because one of the final two candidates to be Conservative leader has suddenly become a Rob. Robert Jenrick was always a Robert, until this contest. Now, he has come out as a Rob. Perhaps he was always a Rob to his most intimate circle, or alternatively it is just one more policy shift from a man of no fixed ideological moorings. When we first met Robert, he was a liberal-conservative Remainer. Rob, on the other hand, turns out to be obsessed with immigration, ending net-zero targets and ordering the removal of Disney murals at asylum reception centres. These don’t seem like Rob moves? Maybe it’s more a Bert thing.

Anyway, this isn’t a column about Bert Jenrick. He is embracing the name change, either because he thinks it makes him seem more likeable or to distance himself from the more liberal-elitist Robert. (There are rightwingers who worry that, having won as Rob, he might then revert to being Robert.) 

But it’s his choice. The issue is how to deal with others changing our name for us. You could just relax about it. But if I could be relaxed about it, I’d already be a Rob, wouldn’t I? 

The second strategy is to correct people. If it happens over email, you could sign off with your version of “Robert (not Rob)”, followed with a smiley face to show no offence has yet been taken. That could make you look a tad priggish, which is annoying since a) you are being priggish and no one likes to be told that, and b) you are not the one in the wrong here. But you need to nip it in the bud early. Procrastination robs you.

The third approach is to refuse to answer to the short name. In person, don’t respond. On a phone call, you suggest the person must have the wrong number. I did once work closely with a Rob, so I always told people they were obviously looking for him. But this is just a more aggressive version of the second strategy and an unnecessary escalation best saved for repeat offenders. 

We all have those we permit to Rob us. My oldest friend uses it but he’s been doing so since primary school, and five decades seems too long to have let it lie. Also, if I told him it annoyed me, he’d only double-down on it and probably switch to Robbie (a name acceptable only for Scots and toddlers). In any case, it is born of life-long friendship, and I’ve definitely called him worse. Relatives of my wife have also started doing it under the mistaken impression that association with her gives them renaming rights. Nicknames and variations on your surname are less of a problem, especially if they too were picked up in your youth, seem affectionate and aren’t rhyming slang for genitalia.

It’s not that I mind the name. It’s not unpleasant. I just associate it with people who don’t realise they are too old to be skateboarding. (I exempt my colleague Rob Armstrong, who is a top bloke in spite of his affliction.) Naturally, in revealing this I have opened myself up to years of Rob abuse. Then again, if Rob Jenrick wins, perhaps I’ll change my own name.

Email Robert at magazineletters@ft.com

Follow @FTMag to find out about our latest stories first and subscribe to our podcast Life and Art wherever you listen

Pro-Russia parties are gaining ground in Bulgaria ahead of a parliamentary vote on Sunday, as Moscow capitalises on continued political instability in the EU and Nato’s south-eastern member.

Heading into the seventh parliamentary election in just four years, politicians who adopt pro-Kremlin messaging have become increasingly popular with voters disillusioned with mainstream politics.

“Parties with some level of Russian influence may attract about a quarter of the vote or more, depending on mobilisation and turnout,” said Daniel Smilov, a political scientist at the Centre for Liberal Strategies in Sofia.

“People who see themselves as left behind seem more motivated to vote, which might create unpleasant surprises for pro-European forces.”

Most analysts project yet another inconclusive election, followed by an eighth vote in spring. Several insiders told the Financial Times that major parties and government officials are already planning for that snap poll next year.

The uncertainty benefits Moscow as it showcases Bulgaria’s dysfunction as systemic EU and Nato weaknesses.

“In the three years since I’ve been here, this is already the sixth election. It is sad,” Russia’s ambassador Eleonora Mitrofanova said in June, when Bulgaria held its last parliamentary vote. She pledged to work with any government that is formed, given that “our relationship is now at zero”.

Russia has mounted multiple influence campaigns on the continent this year, including in the run-up to the European parliament elections in June when a network run by a Moscow-based oligarch was uncovered as paying for politicians to peddle Kremlin lines and get more like-minded MEPs elected into the EU assembly.

The leadership of Moldova on Sunday only narrowly secured a Yes vote in a referendum on EU membership after what officials in Chișinău described as a massive vote-buying operation orchestrated by Moscow to back the No campaign.

Although Bulgaria has investigated Russian infiltration and expelled more than 100 diplomats since the start of the Kremlin’s full-scale war against Ukraine, political parties have so far escaped scrutiny of how susceptible they are to influence from Moscow.

Bulgarian mainstream parties are mostly pro-western and the country has supported Ukraine in its defence against Russian aggression, including with weapons shipments.

But several upstart, pro-Russia outfits have seen their support growing among Bulgarian voters, Smilov said.

The far-right Revival party has grown into a mid-size force with about 15 per cent of electoral support. Its leader Kostadin Kostadinov is banned from Ukraine on suspicions of being a Russian agent. He headed a delegation to a Brics forum in Moscow in late August, and has often criticised Bulgaria’s support for Ukraine.

“If you want war, choose [other parties], they support Zelenskyy’s criminal regime in Ukraine,” Kostadinov wrote on Facebook this week. “If you want peace, choose Revival. The choice is yours. Me and my comrades have already chosen.”

The Bulgarian Socialist party, which has shrunk below 10 per cent, is also ambiguous on Russia, with its deputies regularly criticising Bulgaria’s support for Ukraine, including its arms shipments.

Two upstart parties founded this year are also highly ambivalent on Ukraine, “overlapping with pro-Russia lines”, Smilov said.

Mech (Morality, Unity, Honour) is a Eurosceptic conservative group that claims neutrality over Ukraine, while Velichie (Greatness) has said it would prevent Bulgaria from participating in the war effort — although denied it was pro-Russia. They each poll just below 4 per cent, the parliamentary threshold in Bulgaria.

Causing more fragmentation, the second-largest party, the Turkish Movement for Rights and Freedoms (MRF) split this year over a leadership struggle.

Tycoon Delyan Peevski, who took over the party, was banned from the US for corruption, with the UK last year also placing him on its sanctions list for “attempts to exert control over key institutions and sectors in Bulgarian society through bribery and use of his media empire”.

The split of the ethnic Turkish vote — representing more than 10 per cent of the Bulgarian population — had “dramatic consequences”, said Goran Georgiev, an analyst with the Sofia-based Center for the Study of Democracy. “The low trust in democratic institutions makes the elections wholly unpredictable.”

Voter apathy is further complicating the outcome.

Turnout was just below 33 per cent in June and may fall further, boosting the chances of fringe parties, Georgiev said.

On the streets of Sliven in central Bulgaria, passers-by were largely ignoring party activists who were campaigning for APS, the Turkish party that split from the Peevski-ran outfit.

“I couldn’t care less, honestly,” said Arzu, a mother of two. “One is just like the other.”

A local candidate running for APS, Vladimir Martinov, admitted: “It’s partly our fault that there was no stable coalition in recent years.” He said the liberals “offered us a coalition provided we got rid of Peevski. We said no. It’s our fault.”

Accurate risk profiling is the “foundation of good advice”, the Financial Conduct Authority’s head of investment platforms Kate Tuckley has insisted.

She said moving from accumulation to decumulation is likely to change a customer’s attitude to risk, so this should be reassessed.

“Advisers should not assume that a risk profile remains the same, either when moving into decumulation or from previous advice meetings,” she added.

She made the comments during a keynote speech at Money Marketing Interactive in Leeds yesterday (24 October).

“A key risk is capacity for loss – the ability to absorb losses in retirement, which is critical given the lower future earning potential.

“Many customers may have been able to recover losses during their working years, but this changes in retirement.”

She cited the FCA’s thematic review of retirement income advice, which found that some advisers’ files did not show that capacity for loss had been assessed, or where it had been assessed.

“Clear consideration of this is crucial to demonstrate the suitability of advice,” she said.

“Cash flow modelling (CFM) tools can be used for capacity for loss assessments. However, firms need to assess both attitude to risk and capacity for loss consistently.

“Tools such as standard questionnaires can be useful, but you should be aware of their limitations, especially when the language or questions are not tailored to decumulation, which can lead to incorrect profiling.

“Whatever approach is used, firms must demonstrate that their methods are suitable for retirement income advice.”

Pension freedoms came into effect in 2015, giving consumers more choice and less prescription in how they meet their retirement income needs.

“They can take as much or as little as they like, or even fully cash out if they choose,” said Tuckley.

“As you know, there’s no longer a requirement to buy an annuity, and drawdown is no longer just for the wealthy.

“However,” she warned, “more choice brings more complexity, not just for consumers but also for advisers.

“Most consumers have moved away from guaranteed income for life and keep their pension savings invested, which presents a big challenge for advisers.”

She said advisers need to help consumers manage ongoing risks and make complex decisions about meeting their income needs sustainably.

The FCA is following up on the thematic review and is “completing further work” on retirement income advice, which Tuckley said will continue to be a “priority” in its strategy.

“We want to explore this in more depth to understand how firms are responding to our report,” she said.

The regulator aims to publish further findings in the first quarter of 2025.

Unlock the Editor’s Digest for free

Roula Khalaf, Editor of the FT, selects her favourite stories in this weekly newsletter.

Boohoo has hit back at Mike Ashley’s retail empire over demands to install the sportswear tycoon as chief executive, saying it needed to “protect its commercial position”.

The online fast-fashion retailer said on Friday that while it was willing to discuss board representation with Frasers Group, which owns about 27 per cent of Boohoo, it would require governance assurances to protect its interests because of Frasers’ stake in rival online retailer Asos. The company added it was given a 48-hour deadline to decide whether to appoint Ashley as CEO.

Boohoo also called Frasers’ characterisation of its recent £222mn debt refinancing “inaccurate and unfair” after Frasers raised concerns over its terms in an open letter published on Thursday.

Ashley’s Frasers, formerly Sports Direct, built a stake in Boohoo last year and is its largest shareholder. The FTSE 100 company also owns a 23.6 per cent stake in Asos, which Boohoo said needed to be “carefully considered”, noting that both Frasers and Asos compete in similar markets to it.

“Before any appointment can be made, appropriate governance will be required to protect [Boohoo]’s commercial position and the interests of other shareholders,” the retailer said, adding it had received no such assurances from Frasers so far.

It comes after Boohoo said last week that chief executive John Lyttle would step down as it announced a strategic review of its operations that could lead to it being broken up, and the £222mn debt refinancing.

Frasers accused Boohoo of mismanagement in the open letter, following a more than 90 per cent fall in the fast-fashion group’s shares since their peak in mid-2020, when it was buoyed by a pandemic-era online shopping boom.

Since then, Boohoo has grappled with more subdued demand and higher day-to-day costs from factors including returns, as well as increased competition from rivals such as Shein and Temu.

Frasers said Boohoo’s debt refinancing was “severely short-dated, seemingly more expensive than the previous financing arrangement and almost unquestionably leaves the company in a position of needing to undertake drastic corporate actions in order to repay the term loan due in 10 months”, which Boohoo rejected.

It described the criticism as “inaccurate and unfair” and said it provided certainty for the company.

Boohoo is still considering a fuller response after Frasers called for an extraordinary general meeting with shareholders.