Complain Now
Research carried out by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) shows that over a million households feel they have a case for making a complaint for mis-selling, in relation to their useless and underperforming endowment policy.
However, they haven't yet done so.
Come on people, get off your backsides and take action!
Make the life assurance companies pay for their mismanagement of your money.
Monday, July 18, 2005
Monday, July 11, 2005
The Can of Worms
The Can of Worms
It seems that the "dear old" life assurance companies, who manage the underperforming and useless endowment polices that are held by over 8 million people, are not content with the damage that these products have done to their reputations.
As if to further dig the knife deeper into this self inflicted wound, some of them are not spelling out clearly enough the time bar deadline on their "red warning letters".
That is at least the view of solicitors Beresfords, from Doncaster, who say that many "red letters" are failing to give adequate warning to policy holders about the time deadline for complaining.
Beresfords is preparing a report on the time limit issue to send to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), and the insurers which sold endowments. They state that up to half of the red warning letters do not identify the deadline.
Martin Ryan, the firm's compliance and regulation officer, is quoted as saying:
"In 50 per cent of cases there don't appear to be valid time bars..There seem to have been a lot of incorrect red letters going out - specifically not drawing the attention of the client to take action or setting no date by which action had to be taken."
Some insurers, ever mindful of their obligations to themselves, are using time bars as a blanket reason not to examine complaints sent to them.
The FSA will hold a meeting of industry bodies, this Friday, to discuss proposals on endowment compensation. It is expected to present research on how claims have been handled, which is believed to cast financial advisers and insurers in a poor light.
It is very clear that the life assurance industry is "closing ranks" on this issue, and will do everything it can to avoid facing the unpalatable truth that it has sold a product that was not fit for purpose.
Endowment polices, that are meant to pay off mortgages, do not work.
It is as simple as that.
As such the life assurance companies should underwrite them.
The life assurance companies whilst trying to bury their heads, and the heads of their policy holders, in the sand over this disgrace will face rather rude shock.
Raymond Donn, senior partner of law firm Donns in Manchester, is quoted as saying:
"We intend to challenge the time bars when the insurance companies start invoking them next year. A lot of people who have mortgages don't know if there is going to be a shortfall."
Martin Ryan, of Beresfords, believes that the industry will try to avoid precedents being set in court.
"At the moment we are talking of industry-imposed time bars..But if a judge got into it, a can of worms could open up for the industry. It would be the first time a judge ran the rule over it. And the industry could find that, in some areas, they might not be able to use time bars at all."
The life assurance industry is learning, whether it likes it or not, that reputations are hard to earn, but easy to squander.
It seems that the "dear old" life assurance companies, who manage the underperforming and useless endowment polices that are held by over 8 million people, are not content with the damage that these products have done to their reputations.
As if to further dig the knife deeper into this self inflicted wound, some of them are not spelling out clearly enough the time bar deadline on their "red warning letters".
That is at least the view of solicitors Beresfords, from Doncaster, who say that many "red letters" are failing to give adequate warning to policy holders about the time deadline for complaining.
Beresfords is preparing a report on the time limit issue to send to the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), and the insurers which sold endowments. They state that up to half of the red warning letters do not identify the deadline.
Martin Ryan, the firm's compliance and regulation officer, is quoted as saying:
"In 50 per cent of cases there don't appear to be valid time bars..There seem to have been a lot of incorrect red letters going out - specifically not drawing the attention of the client to take action or setting no date by which action had to be taken."
Some insurers, ever mindful of their obligations to themselves, are using time bars as a blanket reason not to examine complaints sent to them.
The FSA will hold a meeting of industry bodies, this Friday, to discuss proposals on endowment compensation. It is expected to present research on how claims have been handled, which is believed to cast financial advisers and insurers in a poor light.
It is very clear that the life assurance industry is "closing ranks" on this issue, and will do everything it can to avoid facing the unpalatable truth that it has sold a product that was not fit for purpose.
Endowment polices, that are meant to pay off mortgages, do not work.
It is as simple as that.
As such the life assurance companies should underwrite them.
The life assurance companies whilst trying to bury their heads, and the heads of their policy holders, in the sand over this disgrace will face rather rude shock.
Raymond Donn, senior partner of law firm Donns in Manchester, is quoted as saying:
"We intend to challenge the time bars when the insurance companies start invoking them next year. A lot of people who have mortgages don't know if there is going to be a shortfall."
Martin Ryan, of Beresfords, believes that the industry will try to avoid precedents being set in court.
"At the moment we are talking of industry-imposed time bars..But if a judge got into it, a can of worms could open up for the industry. It would be the first time a judge ran the rule over it. And the industry could find that, in some areas, they might not be able to use time bars at all."
The life assurance industry is learning, whether it likes it or not, that reputations are hard to earn, but easy to squander.
Monday, July 04, 2005
Time To Sue
Time To Sue
It seems that the life assurance industry is guilty of a "being economical with the truth" in trying to persuade their hapless policy holders that once the time bar is down, they have no further rights to claim compensation.
The Observer reports that endowment policy holders still have the right to sue the life assurance companies in the courts.
Not surprisingly the life assurance industry, the same people who sold and mis-managed these useless products, is reluctant to remind people of their rights to sue.
Lawyer Adam Samuel, formerly the Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman, is quoted as saying:
"If anyone took one of these cases to court, the consumer would very probably win. The industry is terrified of this."
The life assurance industry is loath to allow a legal precedent to be set, that could cost billions.
As I have repeated many times on this site, what is actually needed is for there to be a class action taken by the 8 million holders of these useless, underperforming, products.
That will be the most efficient, and effective, method of ensuring that the life assurance industry addresses the failure and mismanagement of these products.
It seems that the life assurance industry is guilty of a "being economical with the truth" in trying to persuade their hapless policy holders that once the time bar is down, they have no further rights to claim compensation.
The Observer reports that endowment policy holders still have the right to sue the life assurance companies in the courts.
Not surprisingly the life assurance industry, the same people who sold and mis-managed these useless products, is reluctant to remind people of their rights to sue.
Lawyer Adam Samuel, formerly the Personal Investment Authority Ombudsman, is quoted as saying:
"If anyone took one of these cases to court, the consumer would very probably win. The industry is terrified of this."
The life assurance industry is loath to allow a legal precedent to be set, that could cost billions.
As I have repeated many times on this site, what is actually needed is for there to be a class action taken by the 8 million holders of these useless, underperforming, products.
That will be the most efficient, and effective, method of ensuring that the life assurance industry addresses the failure and mismanagement of these products.
Thursday, June 30, 2005
Endowment Complaints Quadruple
Endowment Complaints Quadruple
The number of claims being made by people who hold useless and underperforming endowment policies, has risen dramatically.
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has said that it received 70,000 new complaints about endowment mortgages last year.
That is four times as many as it received three years ago.
The FOS expect that the level of complaints will increase; as people received re-projection letters, which will warn them that their policies are going to fail.
Walter Merricks, chief ombudsman, is quoted as saying:
"The number [of disputes] we can expect to receive in the current year will largely be determined by how financial services firms meet the new regulatory requirements on so-called re-projection letters."
The FOS noted that the Financial Services Authority (FSA) had found evidence of serious shortcomings, by some firms, in the handling of endowment complaints.
As noted before, people should be going to jail for this.
The number of claims being made by people who hold useless and underperforming endowment policies, has risen dramatically.
The Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) has said that it received 70,000 new complaints about endowment mortgages last year.
That is four times as many as it received three years ago.
The FOS expect that the level of complaints will increase; as people received re-projection letters, which will warn them that their policies are going to fail.
Walter Merricks, chief ombudsman, is quoted as saying:
"The number [of disputes] we can expect to receive in the current year will largely be determined by how financial services firms meet the new regulatory requirements on so-called re-projection letters."
The FOS noted that the Financial Services Authority (FSA) had found evidence of serious shortcomings, by some firms, in the handling of endowment complaints.
As noted before, people should be going to jail for this.
Wednesday, June 29, 2005
Norwich Union Raises Bonuses
Norwich Union Raises Bonuses
In a rare piece of good news, for some of those holding endowment policies, Norwich Union has announced that it will be raising bonuses on some of its with profits endowment policies.
This will be the first increase since 1991, that fact alone shows just how badly endowment policies have been performing.
As noted many times before; why were these polices, when they were obviously failing, still sold by the life assurance companies?
Norwich Union said that it had decided to raise the rates paid on certain with profits policies in the CGNU (which includes General Accident) and CULAC (Commercial Union) funds, on those with profits policies taken out before October 1998.
The bonus rates will be increased from 1% to 2% in the CGNU fund, and people in the CULAC fund will be paid 1.5% compared with 0.5% previously.
Norwich said all other bonus rates would remain unchanged, and that there would be no changes to the value of maturity payouts or the current levels of "market value reduction".
In a rare piece of good news, for some of those holding endowment policies, Norwich Union has announced that it will be raising bonuses on some of its with profits endowment policies.
This will be the first increase since 1991, that fact alone shows just how badly endowment policies have been performing.
As noted many times before; why were these polices, when they were obviously failing, still sold by the life assurance companies?
Norwich Union said that it had decided to raise the rates paid on certain with profits policies in the CGNU (which includes General Accident) and CULAC (Commercial Union) funds, on those with profits policies taken out before October 1998.
The bonus rates will be increased from 1% to 2% in the CGNU fund, and people in the CULAC fund will be paid 1.5% compared with 0.5% previously.
Norwich said all other bonus rates would remain unchanged, and that there would be no changes to the value of maturity payouts or the current levels of "market value reduction".
Monday, June 27, 2005
Scottish Test Case
Scottish Test Case
The Herald reports that a Glasgow financial advisory firm is planning a legal test case, on behalf of nearly 100 clients allegedly mis-sold endowment policies by Scottish solicitors.
Macarthur Denton Asset Management accused lawyers of a "disgraceful" failure to fulfill their professional responsibilities, alleging that they have "collectively shrugged their shoulders" when pressed for compensation.
I personally believe that the best way forward, for the 8 million of us who hold these useless and underperforming policies, is for there to be a class action.
The Herald reports that a Glasgow financial advisory firm is planning a legal test case, on behalf of nearly 100 clients allegedly mis-sold endowment policies by Scottish solicitors.
Macarthur Denton Asset Management accused lawyers of a "disgraceful" failure to fulfill their professional responsibilities, alleging that they have "collectively shrugged their shoulders" when pressed for compensation.
I personally believe that the best way forward, for the 8 million of us who hold these useless and underperforming policies, is for there to be a class action.
Monday, June 20, 2005
Closed Funds
Closed Funds
Many endowment policy owners hold policies in closed funds, around £160BN is tied up in these funds.
Closed funds are funds that are closed to new business.
These funds, because they are closed, do not have the same incentive to try to show a good return on their funds and thus attract new investors.
Policy holders are faced with the dilemma of choosing between staying with the fund or exiting, and thus incurring exit penalties.
The Telegraph discussed these issues in a recent article. You can read it via this link Closed Funds.
Many endowment policy owners hold policies in closed funds, around £160BN is tied up in these funds.
Closed funds are funds that are closed to new business.
These funds, because they are closed, do not have the same incentive to try to show a good return on their funds and thus attract new investors.
Policy holders are faced with the dilemma of choosing between staying with the fund or exiting, and thus incurring exit penalties.
The Telegraph discussed these issues in a recent article. You can read it via this link Closed Funds.
Thursday, June 16, 2005
Tuesday, June 14, 2005
Standard Life "Merely Following Orders"
Standard Life "Merely Following Orders"
It seems that Standard Life is getting rather a rough press these days, over its endowment policies.
Standard Life is now facing calls to compensate up to 100,000 mortgage endowment holders, for failing to disclose the full extent of charges levied on their endowment policies.
The hapless holders of their Homeplan policies are now facing 12% shortfall on their policies, because of a charging discrepancy.
Which? is leading the calls to compensate victims of this debacle; other companies (Norwich Union, L&G, Scottish Widows and Axa) which sold policies, with similar charging structures, have topped up their own clients' investments.
Standard Life used "standard charge projections", specified by the regulator, to calculate its premiums. However, the actual charges were up to 10% higher.
Standard Life claim that they have done nothing wrong.
A spokesman said that they were merely following industry guidelines at the time.
Doesn't that, "merely following orders", have a familiar ring to it?
It seems that Standard Life is getting rather a rough press these days, over its endowment policies.
Standard Life is now facing calls to compensate up to 100,000 mortgage endowment holders, for failing to disclose the full extent of charges levied on their endowment policies.
The hapless holders of their Homeplan policies are now facing 12% shortfall on their policies, because of a charging discrepancy.
Which? is leading the calls to compensate victims of this debacle; other companies (Norwich Union, L&G, Scottish Widows and Axa) which sold policies, with similar charging structures, have topped up their own clients' investments.
Standard Life used "standard charge projections", specified by the regulator, to calculate its premiums. However, the actual charges were up to 10% higher.
Standard Life claim that they have done nothing wrong.
A spokesman said that they were merely following industry guidelines at the time.
Doesn't that, "merely following orders", have a familiar ring to it?
Friday, June 10, 2005
FT Article
FT Article
My thanks to Ben for forwarding me this article, that appeared in the FT on the 7th of May.
"The most successful blogs appear to be first and foremost exercises in 'personal branding'. One such blogger is self-styled 'living brand' Ken Frost, who has a huge personal blog and an equally lengthy one (some 205 pages) detailing every twist and turn of the mis-sold endowments debacle and his claim for compensation."
My thanks to Ben for forwarding me this article, that appeared in the FT on the 7th of May.
"The most successful blogs appear to be first and foremost exercises in 'personal branding'. One such blogger is self-styled 'living brand' Ken Frost, who has a huge personal blog and an equally lengthy one (some 205 pages) detailing every twist and turn of the mis-sold endowments debacle and his claim for compensation."
Monday, June 06, 2005
Standards Life's Endowment Debacle
Standard Life's Endowment Debacle
Further to my earlier article about Standard Life's failing Homeplan endowment policy, it seems that the shortfalls on this useless product will be more than previously thought.
It seems that the value of many of the company's Homeplan policies, sold in the early 1990s, could be as much as 12% lower than the amount originally estimated.
It is estimated that the losses could exceed £250M.
The reason?
Standard Life set its premiums at an artificially low level in order to attract new business.
Standard Life are continuing to reject demands that the company compensate those who face shortfalls.
Well they would, wouldn't they?
A Standard Life are quoted as saying:
"At the time it was launched, Homeplan was an innovative and popular product. The innovative flexibility offered by Homeplan meant it was an immediate success and helped tens of thousands of people onto the property ladder."
Not much comfort to those facing a shortfall now though is it?
As I have repeated, time and time again, what is the point of an endowment policy if it is not going to pay off the mortgage?
People would not have taken these useless policies out if they didn't think that they would work.
In other words, it is the duty of the life assurance companies to underwrite these policies.
Standard Life are keen to blame the independent financial advisers (IFAS) for their mess. They are reportedly saying that the way the product was designed meant that IFAS, who were responsible for selling Homeplan policies at the time, could themselves decide the level of premiums that their clients should pay.
Janet Walford, editor of Money Management, politely says that this is of course bollocks:
"This just does not seem logical to me. Life offices price their policies on complex actuarial assumptions, including underwriting risk, assumed performance and charges. How would an IFA know what to charge? It's madness."
Other life insurers, have realised the error of their ways and have quietly paid compensation to their policyholders in a similar position.
The list of recalcitrants includes; Scottish Widows, Axa, Clerical Medical, Legal & General, Norwich Union and Canada Life.
Further to my earlier article about Standard Life's failing Homeplan endowment policy, it seems that the shortfalls on this useless product will be more than previously thought.
It seems that the value of many of the company's Homeplan policies, sold in the early 1990s, could be as much as 12% lower than the amount originally estimated.
It is estimated that the losses could exceed £250M.
The reason?
Standard Life set its premiums at an artificially low level in order to attract new business.
Standard Life are continuing to reject demands that the company compensate those who face shortfalls.
Well they would, wouldn't they?
A Standard Life are quoted as saying:
"At the time it was launched, Homeplan was an innovative and popular product. The innovative flexibility offered by Homeplan meant it was an immediate success and helped tens of thousands of people onto the property ladder."
Not much comfort to those facing a shortfall now though is it?
As I have repeated, time and time again, what is the point of an endowment policy if it is not going to pay off the mortgage?
People would not have taken these useless policies out if they didn't think that they would work.
In other words, it is the duty of the life assurance companies to underwrite these policies.
Standard Life are keen to blame the independent financial advisers (IFAS) for their mess. They are reportedly saying that the way the product was designed meant that IFAS, who were responsible for selling Homeplan policies at the time, could themselves decide the level of premiums that their clients should pay.
Janet Walford, editor of Money Management, politely says that this is of course bollocks:
"This just does not seem logical to me. Life offices price their policies on complex actuarial assumptions, including underwriting risk, assumed performance and charges. How would an IFA know what to charge? It's madness."
Other life insurers, have realised the error of their ways and have quietly paid compensation to their policyholders in a similar position.
The list of recalcitrants includes; Scottish Widows, Axa, Clerical Medical, Legal & General, Norwich Union and Canada Life.
Tuesday, May 31, 2005
Standard Life Faces £50M Compensation Claims
Standard Life Faces £50M Compensation Claims
Standard Life is facing calls to compensate up to 100,000 mortgage endowment customers, whose charges are much higher than those they were quoted at the time and who are likely to face shortfalls when their policies mature.
The shortfall, for those who took out Homeplan endowments between 1991 and 1994, could be £50M.
Which? made the call for compensation. It seems that up to 11 other companies, which sold policies with similar charging structures to that of Standard Life have been topping up their own clients' investments.
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is reported to have carried out a review in 2001, that found that a number of companies had been engaged in "pre-contractual mis representation and in some a breach of contractual warranty".
The companies that have admitted they have paid redress to tens of thousands of their customers include Norwich Union and Legal & General.
Which? contend that Standard Life were doing the same thing, and as such should compensate their customers.
Standard Life, which intends to float on the FTSE in 2006/7, has 2.6M with-profits policyholders.
During 1988 and 1994 Lautro, the insurers' watchdog, required its members to give "standard charge projections" in their product literature; based on an industry-wide "average" of how much a product might cost and how much it might pay out, based on presumed level of growth.
The figures turned out to be garbage, in fact they were misleading, like everything else concerned with these endowment products.
The charges levied were higher than those set out, ie the customer was not being given the facts.
The insurers, like the Nazis, argue that they were simply following the regulator's orders!
Standard Life claim that the figures "in no way formed a part of the contract [and] charges could change over the term of the policy".
Pathetic!
So what on earth was the point of them then?
Insruance companies used the misleading figures to charge customers. Hence they could pretend to be more competitve than others.
Following talks with the FSA, L&G agreed to top up its policies. Norwich Union says it did the same with 10,000 policies it inherited, when it took over Provident Mutual.
Am I the only person to think that endowment policies were the biggest con trick perpetrated on the British public in the 20th cetury?
To my view, people should be going to jail over this scandal.
Standard Life is facing calls to compensate up to 100,000 mortgage endowment customers, whose charges are much higher than those they were quoted at the time and who are likely to face shortfalls when their policies mature.
The shortfall, for those who took out Homeplan endowments between 1991 and 1994, could be £50M.
Which? made the call for compensation. It seems that up to 11 other companies, which sold policies with similar charging structures to that of Standard Life have been topping up their own clients' investments.
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) is reported to have carried out a review in 2001, that found that a number of companies had been engaged in "pre-contractual mis representation and in some a breach of contractual warranty".
The companies that have admitted they have paid redress to tens of thousands of their customers include Norwich Union and Legal & General.
Which? contend that Standard Life were doing the same thing, and as such should compensate their customers.
Standard Life, which intends to float on the FTSE in 2006/7, has 2.6M with-profits policyholders.
During 1988 and 1994 Lautro, the insurers' watchdog, required its members to give "standard charge projections" in their product literature; based on an industry-wide "average" of how much a product might cost and how much it might pay out, based on presumed level of growth.
The figures turned out to be garbage, in fact they were misleading, like everything else concerned with these endowment products.
The charges levied were higher than those set out, ie the customer was not being given the facts.
The insurers, like the Nazis, argue that they were simply following the regulator's orders!
Standard Life claim that the figures "in no way formed a part of the contract [and] charges could change over the term of the policy".
Pathetic!
So what on earth was the point of them then?
Insruance companies used the misleading figures to charge customers. Hence they could pretend to be more competitve than others.
Following talks with the FSA, L&G agreed to top up its policies. Norwich Union says it did the same with 10,000 policies it inherited, when it took over Provident Mutual.
Am I the only person to think that endowment policies were the biggest con trick perpetrated on the British public in the 20th cetury?
To my view, people should be going to jail over this scandal.
Friday, May 27, 2005
Legal and General Have Fine Cut
Legal and General Have Fine Cut
Legal & General Group (L&G) have had their fine for misselling mortgage endowments cut in half in a ruling that criticised the FSA.
L&G will now pay a £575K, the Financial Services and Markets Tribunal said in a decision posted on its Web site.
The original fine was £1.1M.
The ruling said that the insurer was "justified in feeling aggrieved" about the FSA's probe. The watchdog used a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the basis of its case when it should have used its own evidence, the ruling said.
L&G was the first life assurance company to appeal against an FSA penalty, this may encourage other companies to challenge the regulator's decisions.
Abbey National was fined £800K by the regulator for mishandling complaints from endowment clients.
Maybe they could employ one of these endowment compensation firms to help them?
Legal & General Group (L&G) have had their fine for misselling mortgage endowments cut in half in a ruling that criticised the FSA.
L&G will now pay a £575K, the Financial Services and Markets Tribunal said in a decision posted on its Web site.
The original fine was £1.1M.
The ruling said that the insurer was "justified in feeling aggrieved" about the FSA's probe. The watchdog used a report from PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the basis of its case when it should have used its own evidence, the ruling said.
L&G was the first life assurance company to appeal against an FSA penalty, this may encourage other companies to challenge the regulator's decisions.
Abbey National was fined £800K by the regulator for mishandling complaints from endowment clients.
Maybe they could employ one of these endowment compensation firms to help them?
Thursday, May 26, 2005
The Shabby Habit
The Shabby Habit
Abbey, the mortgage lender, has been fined £800K by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) for mishandling complaints from its customers over endowment policies.
The FSA also accused Abbey of giving it inaccurate information, while failing to treat its customers fairly.
The FSA said Abbey mishandled about 5,000 complaints between October 2001 and September 2003.
Seemingly Abbey rejected 3,500 complaints that should have in fact been upheld.
The FSA are quoted as saying:
"By putting its own interests ahead of those of its customers with a mortgage endowment complaint, Abbey has singularly failed to treat its customers fairly,"
Abbey said it accepted that its complaint procedures for endowment products were inadequate, and said it was reviewing all complaints from the period and would pay compensation where appropriate.
Quote:
"Abbey takes this extremely seriously and continues to fully review its complaints handling policies and procedures,".
Abbey said it was re-evaluating about 50,000 complaints made over the past five years, and would be writing to the customers affected by 22 June.
So there you have a nice example of a leading brand name, not treating its customers fairly.
I wonder how many others have acted in the same way?
Abbey, the mortgage lender, has been fined £800K by the Financial Services Authority (FSA) for mishandling complaints from its customers over endowment policies.
The FSA also accused Abbey of giving it inaccurate information, while failing to treat its customers fairly.
The FSA said Abbey mishandled about 5,000 complaints between October 2001 and September 2003.
Seemingly Abbey rejected 3,500 complaints that should have in fact been upheld.
The FSA are quoted as saying:
"By putting its own interests ahead of those of its customers with a mortgage endowment complaint, Abbey has singularly failed to treat its customers fairly,"
Abbey said it accepted that its complaint procedures for endowment products were inadequate, and said it was reviewing all complaints from the period and would pay compensation where appropriate.
Quote:
"Abbey takes this extremely seriously and continues to fully review its complaints handling policies and procedures,".
Abbey said it was re-evaluating about 50,000 complaints made over the past five years, and would be writing to the customers affected by 22 June.
So there you have a nice example of a leading brand name, not treating its customers fairly.
I wonder how many others have acted in the same way?
Monday, May 23, 2005
Standard Life's Secrecy
Standard Life's Secrecy
It seems that some life assurance companies, despite happily trumpeting their endowment payouts a few years ago, now try to keep their hapless policy holders in the dark.
Maybe it is something to do with the fact that these policies are useless?
One firm that has employed this "Orwellian" technique of information management is Standard Life.
Its with-profits policyholders have been receiving annual statements which do not disclose the policy's estimated terminal bonuses.
This information restriction was introduced in 2003. Seemingly, Standard Life believe that too much information will confuse policy holders.
Sorry, but what utter nonsense!
How stupid do they think we are to fall for that excuse?
However, after pressure from financial advisers, Standard Life finally relented; they are now "allowing" their policy holders the opportunity to find out how badly their policy is performing.
Unfortunately this "generous" release of information is not as "generous" as it may seem. The hapless policy holders will only be able to find out about the failings of their policies, if they ask an independent financial adviser.
Standard Life won't give the policy holders the information directly!
It seems that the life assurance industry is still treating us, the hapless policy holders, with contempt.
It seems that some life assurance companies, despite happily trumpeting their endowment payouts a few years ago, now try to keep their hapless policy holders in the dark.
Maybe it is something to do with the fact that these policies are useless?
One firm that has employed this "Orwellian" technique of information management is Standard Life.
Its with-profits policyholders have been receiving annual statements which do not disclose the policy's estimated terminal bonuses.
This information restriction was introduced in 2003. Seemingly, Standard Life believe that too much information will confuse policy holders.
Sorry, but what utter nonsense!
How stupid do they think we are to fall for that excuse?
However, after pressure from financial advisers, Standard Life finally relented; they are now "allowing" their policy holders the opportunity to find out how badly their policy is performing.
Unfortunately this "generous" release of information is not as "generous" as it may seem. The hapless policy holders will only be able to find out about the failings of their policies, if they ask an independent financial adviser.
Standard Life won't give the policy holders the information directly!
It seems that the life assurance industry is still treating us, the hapless policy holders, with contempt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)