FSA Shortchanges Policyholders
The Financial Services Authority has shortchanged endowment policyholders who lodge a complaint for mis-selling against life assurance companies running closed funds.
New rules preventing life companies from using surpluses held in with-profits funds to meet compensation costs will only apply to policies sold after the rules come into force.
Under the FSA's original proposal, the rule change would have applied to all payments made after the regulations came into force, regardless of when the policies were sold or any mis-selling occurred.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Prudential Cuts Bonus
Prudential Cuts Bonus
Prudential has cut its annual bonuses by between 6% to 10% on its £65BN with-profits (such an ironic name) fund. Approximately 4.5 million policyholders are now facing cuts, some of which are up to 10%, in their payouts.
The Prudential says that it is acting in the best interests of the fund, and cushioning policyholders against potentially bigger blows.
Surely the purpose of the with profits fund was to smooth the returns in good and bad years, in order to avoid such massive swings?
This cut demonstrates that the concept of "with profits" smoothing has not been properly applied in past years.
Prudential has cut its annual bonuses by between 6% to 10% on its £65BN with-profits (such an ironic name) fund. Approximately 4.5 million policyholders are now facing cuts, some of which are up to 10%, in their payouts.
The Prudential says that it is acting in the best interests of the fund, and cushioning policyholders against potentially bigger blows.
Surely the purpose of the with profits fund was to smooth the returns in good and bad years, in order to avoid such massive swings?
This cut demonstrates that the concept of "with profits" smoothing has not been properly applied in past years.
Friday, February 13, 2009
Scottish Widows Cut Bonuses
Scottish Widows Cut Bonuses
Scottish Widows have cut the bonus rates on their with-profits (such an ironic name for a product that does not actually produce a profit for the hapless policy holder) policies. Scottish Widows claim that the £14BN with-profits fund fell by 17.5% in 2008.
The majority of the 775,000 policies will therefore pay out less than they did last year.
The concept of "with-profits", as told to hapless investors by the life assurance companies, was that the life assurance comapnies would smooth the bonuses during the life of the policy. The fact that companies are having to cut bonuses indicates that this smoothing clearly has not taken place, and the bonus payments in earlier years were too high.
Why would the companies pay out bonuses that were too high in earlier years?
Simple, so that they could attract more investors by showing that their policies were high profit yielding products (some cynics might argue that these policies were a scam).
Scottish Widows have cut the bonus rates on their with-profits (such an ironic name for a product that does not actually produce a profit for the hapless policy holder) policies. Scottish Widows claim that the £14BN with-profits fund fell by 17.5% in 2008.
The majority of the 775,000 policies will therefore pay out less than they did last year.
The concept of "with-profits", as told to hapless investors by the life assurance companies, was that the life assurance comapnies would smooth the bonuses during the life of the policy. The fact that companies are having to cut bonuses indicates that this smoothing clearly has not taken place, and the bonus payments in earlier years were too high.
Why would the companies pay out bonuses that were too high in earlier years?
Simple, so that they could attract more investors by showing that their policies were high profit yielding products (some cynics might argue that these policies were a scam).
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Norwich Union Renege on Deal
Norwich Union Renege on Deal
Aviva (aka Norwich Union) has announced that it is seeking to restructure its £1BN offer to policyholders for its inherited estate, which was agreed in July 2008.
It is a fair bet that any new offer will be lower, and that Norwich Union will seek ways to delay payment to their policyholders.
In a statement the company said:
"Since we agreed an offer with the policyholder advocate in July 2008, the estate has reduced significantly as a result of substantial reductions in the value of equity and property investments.
Continuing market volatility and uncertainty means that the original reattribution offer for the inherited estate no longer meets our critical test of being fair to both policyholders and shareholders. We are working closely with the policyholder advocate to see how we can restructure our offer.
While we realise this will be disappointing for our eligible policyholders, it does reflect the nature of the current exceptional investment market conditions. We expect to be able to update policyholders in the next few months."
Approximately 700,000 people were to have been offered between £400 and £1,000, and another 220,000 would have been offered a payout of between £1,000 and £3,500 if they accepted.
Who is there left in the UK who trusts in any shape, form or the slightest way the financial services industry in this country?
Aviva (aka Norwich Union) has announced that it is seeking to restructure its £1BN offer to policyholders for its inherited estate, which was agreed in July 2008.
It is a fair bet that any new offer will be lower, and that Norwich Union will seek ways to delay payment to their policyholders.
In a statement the company said:
"Since we agreed an offer with the policyholder advocate in July 2008, the estate has reduced significantly as a result of substantial reductions in the value of equity and property investments.
Continuing market volatility and uncertainty means that the original reattribution offer for the inherited estate no longer meets our critical test of being fair to both policyholders and shareholders. We are working closely with the policyholder advocate to see how we can restructure our offer.
While we realise this will be disappointing for our eligible policyholders, it does reflect the nature of the current exceptional investment market conditions. We expect to be able to update policyholders in the next few months."
Approximately 700,000 people were to have been offered between £400 and £1,000, and another 220,000 would have been offered a payout of between £1,000 and £3,500 if they accepted.
Who is there left in the UK who trusts in any shape, form or the slightest way the financial services industry in this country?
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
L&G Replaces Freshfields
Legal & General (L&G) has completed a review of its external legal advisers, and replaced Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer with Allen & Overy.
Freshfields advised L&G in 2005, when L&G was investigated by the Financial Services Authority for the alleged mis-selling of endowment mortgages.
Freshfields advised L&G in 2005, when L&G was investigated by the Financial Services Authority for the alleged mis-selling of endowment mortgages.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Norwich Union Cuts Bonuses
Norwich Union Cuts Bonuses
The annual bonus season is upon us again and, unsurprisingly, cuts are in the offing.
Norwich Union has announced a cut in bonus payments on its "with profits" (such an ironic name!) policies. The 2.3 million people who hold a Norwich "with profits" policy suffered a cut of up to 16%.
This means that the majority of Norwich's endowment mortgage customers are likely to face a shortfall when their policy matures.
David Barral, Norwich Union Director, is quoted in the Guardian:
"Our with-profits funds have continued to prove their worth by delivering attractive long-term returns for investors while protecting them from the ups and downs of the stockmarket."
Could someone from the financial services industry care to explain to the millions of hapless "with profits" policy holders why "with profits" smoothing, in poor years, is never applied (as evidenced by the sharp cuts in bonuses); yet in good years it is applied?
Other companies will be announcing their cuts in due course, and it is certain that they will be as bad or worse than Norwich Union.
The annual bonus season is upon us again and, unsurprisingly, cuts are in the offing.
Norwich Union has announced a cut in bonus payments on its "with profits" (such an ironic name!) policies. The 2.3 million people who hold a Norwich "with profits" policy suffered a cut of up to 16%.
This means that the majority of Norwich's endowment mortgage customers are likely to face a shortfall when their policy matures.
David Barral, Norwich Union Director, is quoted in the Guardian:
"Our with-profits funds have continued to prove their worth by delivering attractive long-term returns for investors while protecting them from the ups and downs of the stockmarket."
Could someone from the financial services industry care to explain to the millions of hapless "with profits" policy holders why "with profits" smoothing, in poor years, is never applied (as evidenced by the sharp cuts in bonuses); yet in good years it is applied?
Other companies will be announcing their cuts in due course, and it is certain that they will be as bad or worse than Norwich Union.
Wednesday, January 07, 2009
Bonus Cuts
Bonus Cuts
The Times warns that holders of with profits funds will find that their maturity values will be cut again this year, because of poor performance.
Friends Provident will announce bonuses this week, Norwich Union next week.
Standard Life will declare at the end of this month, with Prudential and Legal & General making their announcements in February.
Many "with profits" (a contradiction in terms) policy holders are of course relying on these policies to pay off their endowment mortgages. A fine example, among many (eg PPI, credit card charges, bank charges, commissions etc), of how the City has ripped off the ordinary British citizen.
The Times warns that holders of with profits funds will find that their maturity values will be cut again this year, because of poor performance.
Friends Provident will announce bonuses this week, Norwich Union next week.
Standard Life will declare at the end of this month, with Prudential and Legal & General making their announcements in February.
Many "with profits" (a contradiction in terms) policy holders are of course relying on these policies to pay off their endowment mortgages. A fine example, among many (eg PPI, credit card charges, bank charges, commissions etc), of how the City has ripped off the ordinary British citizen.
Saturday, November 29, 2008
FSA Taken To Task
FSA Taken To Task
Legal & General are taking the FSA to task over its annuity rate tables displayed on moneymadeclear.com. L&G want the FSA to display real-time annuity quotes, up-to-date rates and make a provision for postcode annuities.
However, the FSA have told the FT that the tables are up to date and are updated almost daily.
Legal & General are taking the FSA to task over its annuity rate tables displayed on moneymadeclear.com. L&G want the FSA to display real-time annuity quotes, up-to-date rates and make a provision for postcode annuities.
However, the FSA have told the FT that the tables are up to date and are updated almost daily.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Equitable Life Sale Pulled
Equitable Life Sale Pulled
Equitable Life has pulled the sale of its £7BN with-profits fund having failed to find a buyer. The reason cited being the current market turmoil.
Equitable Life will put the fund into "run-off", ie the policies will run until they mature.
Equitable Life has pulled the sale of its £7BN with-profits fund having failed to find a buyer. The reason cited being the current market turmoil.
Equitable Life will put the fund into "run-off", ie the policies will run until they mature.
Sunday, November 16, 2008
Court Case
Court Case
Simon Shaw, the England International Rugby player, is scheduled to appear at the Royal Courts of Justice as a witness in a case between two financial advisers and Zurich.
Other rugby stars (eg Rob Henderson, Phil Greening and Damian Hopley) are also mentioned. It is alleged that some were mis-sold thousands of pounds worth of endowment policies by Zurich. The allegations are being made by the executives Zurich had hired to sell policies to the rugby stars, but who claim they uncovered massive mis-selling instead.
In 1998 Zurich became the official sponsor of the Rugby Premiership, and Allied Dunbar approached Philip Matania and his partner Terence Pullen to sell its products to the rugby community.
Under the deal, Allied Dunbar lent Matania and Pullen £429K to help them build up the business. Nine months later Matania made an appointment to see Simon Shaw.
He had already signed up to an Allied Dunbar endowment policy and its Maximum Investment Plan through Allied Dunbar salesman Mike Skeele.
According to court documents, Matania thought Shaw had been wrongly advised to take out both policies. Matania and Pullen claim that others, eg Wasps players Henderson and Greening, had also been wrongly advised.
Zurich is suing Matania and Pullen for recovery of the loans plus interest, and Matania and Pullen are counter-suing, claiming Zurich sabotaged their business in revenge for them pointing out the mis-selling.
Simon Shaw, the England International Rugby player, is scheduled to appear at the Royal Courts of Justice as a witness in a case between two financial advisers and Zurich.
Other rugby stars (eg Rob Henderson, Phil Greening and Damian Hopley) are also mentioned. It is alleged that some were mis-sold thousands of pounds worth of endowment policies by Zurich. The allegations are being made by the executives Zurich had hired to sell policies to the rugby stars, but who claim they uncovered massive mis-selling instead.
In 1998 Zurich became the official sponsor of the Rugby Premiership, and Allied Dunbar approached Philip Matania and his partner Terence Pullen to sell its products to the rugby community.
Under the deal, Allied Dunbar lent Matania and Pullen £429K to help them build up the business. Nine months later Matania made an appointment to see Simon Shaw.
He had already signed up to an Allied Dunbar endowment policy and its Maximum Investment Plan through Allied Dunbar salesman Mike Skeele.
According to court documents, Matania thought Shaw had been wrongly advised to take out both policies. Matania and Pullen claim that others, eg Wasps players Henderson and Greening, had also been wrongly advised.
Zurich is suing Matania and Pullen for recovery of the loans plus interest, and Matania and Pullen are counter-suing, claiming Zurich sabotaged their business in revenge for them pointing out the mis-selling.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
140 A Week
140 A Week
Caroline Mitchell, lead ombudsman for the Financial Ombudsman Service, told an audience at MBE London 2008 that the level of mortgage endowment complaints has fallen as a result of time barring.
However, complaints are still coming in at 140 a week.
Caroline Mitchell, lead ombudsman for the Financial Ombudsman Service, told an audience at MBE London 2008 that the level of mortgage endowment complaints has fallen as a result of time barring.
However, complaints are still coming in at 140 a week.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
FSA Fights Lautro Ruling
FSA Fights Lautro Ruling
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has appealed to the High Court over the Information Tribunals' decision to make them name and shame the Lautro 19.
The FSA argues that the information provided to it by the "Lautro 19" was confidential, and that it can't be disclosed.
The "Lautro 19" are endowment mortgage providers who misused Lautro projections to set unrealistically high maturity figures when selling their useless products to the unsuspecting public.
It is estimated that the number of policies affected by this number in the hundreds of thousands.
The FSA, by opposing the naming and shaming of the "Lautro 19", are failing in their duty to maintain an orderly and honest financial system; in other words the FSA is not fit for purpose.
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has appealed to the High Court over the Information Tribunals' decision to make them name and shame the Lautro 19.
The FSA argues that the information provided to it by the "Lautro 19" was confidential, and that it can't be disclosed.
The "Lautro 19" are endowment mortgage providers who misused Lautro projections to set unrealistically high maturity figures when selling their useless products to the unsuspecting public.
It is estimated that the number of policies affected by this number in the hundreds of thousands.
The FSA, by opposing the naming and shaming of the "Lautro 19", are failing in their duty to maintain an orderly and honest financial system; in other words the FSA is not fit for purpose.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Norwich Union Imposes Penalties
Norwich Union Imposes Penalties
Norwich Union has imposed hefty exit penalties on customers' holding with-profits policies.
The market value reductions (MVRs) of between 13%-22% are a heavy blow to the already beleaguered with-profits (hardly an apt name given the ongoing diminution in value of these useless products) policy holders.
The MVRs will apply to about 1.2 million of Norwich Union's 2.4 million holders of with-profits pensions, bonds and endowments.
John Lister, Norwich Union's chief actuary, is quoted in the Times:
"Since the beginning of the year we have seen equity markets, commercial property and corporate bonds fall significantly in value.
MVRs are a mechanism to ensure that those policyholders leaving or wishing to take money out of the fund do not take more than their fair share of the fund at the expense of those policyholders who remain."
All very well but I wonder, if the with-profits funds had been better managed and profits/losses smoothed, whether such a drastic step would have been really necessary.
Norwich Union has imposed hefty exit penalties on customers' holding with-profits policies.
The market value reductions (MVRs) of between 13%-22% are a heavy blow to the already beleaguered with-profits (hardly an apt name given the ongoing diminution in value of these useless products) policy holders.
The MVRs will apply to about 1.2 million of Norwich Union's 2.4 million holders of with-profits pensions, bonds and endowments.
John Lister, Norwich Union's chief actuary, is quoted in the Times:
"Since the beginning of the year we have seen equity markets, commercial property and corporate bonds fall significantly in value.
MVRs are a mechanism to ensure that those policyholders leaving or wishing to take money out of the fund do not take more than their fair share of the fund at the expense of those policyholders who remain."
All very well but I wonder, if the with-profits funds had been better managed and profits/losses smoothed, whether such a drastic step would have been really necessary.
Monday, October 27, 2008
What Happened To Smoothing?
What Happened To Smoothing?
The Times reports that:
"Legal & General has become the latest insurer to cut terminal bonus rates on with profits funds. The FTSE 100 company is cutting rates by between 5 and 9 per cent in the wake of falling and turbulent stock markets.
The move means that a 25-year £50 a month mortgage endowment maturing will pay £38,565 compared to £41,293 before the reduction. A 20-year £200 a month pension maturing after this change will pay £90,999 compared to £98,511 before the change.
Mark Gregory, managing director of with profits at L&G, said the decision would affect 10,000 of the company's 800,000 policyholders. He added: “We have made the decision to reduce final bonus rates to take account of some of the negative movements in the investment markets.
'In making these changes, we are ensuring fairness between all of our customers, whether they are leaving or remaining in our with profits fund.'"
Am I alone in believing that the concept of a "with profits" (a somewhat ironic name under the circumstances) fund is that the "profits/losses" are smoothed over the period of the policy in order to minimise wild fluctuations in returns?
Surely, if these policies had been well managed by L&G, such a large reduction in one year would be unnecessary?
The Times reports that:
"Legal & General has become the latest insurer to cut terminal bonus rates on with profits funds. The FTSE 100 company is cutting rates by between 5 and 9 per cent in the wake of falling and turbulent stock markets.
The move means that a 25-year £50 a month mortgage endowment maturing will pay £38,565 compared to £41,293 before the reduction. A 20-year £200 a month pension maturing after this change will pay £90,999 compared to £98,511 before the change.
Mark Gregory, managing director of with profits at L&G, said the decision would affect 10,000 of the company's 800,000 policyholders. He added: “We have made the decision to reduce final bonus rates to take account of some of the negative movements in the investment markets.
'In making these changes, we are ensuring fairness between all of our customers, whether they are leaving or remaining in our with profits fund.'"
Am I alone in believing that the concept of a "with profits" (a somewhat ironic name under the circumstances) fund is that the "profits/losses" are smoothed over the period of the policy in order to minimise wild fluctuations in returns?
Surely, if these policies had been well managed by L&G, such a large reduction in one year would be unnecessary?
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Market Falls
Market Falls
It should come as no surprise to anyone with an endowment policy that the ongoing falls in the stock market will negatively impact the returns on the already poorly performing endowment policies.
However, another issue that may also affect returns is the level of involvement by the life assurance companies in complex financial instruments (eg credit default swaps).
Exactly how exposed are the life assurance companies to these instruments, and what effect will that exposure have on the stability of the endowment policies managed by these companies?
It should come as no surprise to anyone with an endowment policy that the ongoing falls in the stock market will negatively impact the returns on the already poorly performing endowment policies.
However, another issue that may also affect returns is the level of involvement by the life assurance companies in complex financial instruments (eg credit default swaps).
Exactly how exposed are the life assurance companies to these instruments, and what effect will that exposure have on the stability of the endowment policies managed by these companies?
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Adviser Claims Foul by Norwich Union
Adviser Claims Foul by Norwich Union
The FT reports that Dolly Pickering, of Heather, Moor & Edgecomb (an IFA), has claimed that Norwich Union's change in projection calculations has led to an endowment misselling claim being brought against it.
Ms Pickering was informed of a £6K drop in the value of a client's policy, caused by an improvement to the accuracy of estimated maturity value (EMV) calculations.
Ms Pickering stated that it was unfair that IFAs were being punished for selling endowment policies, whose initial projected values were inaccurate, and holds the providers responsible.
The FT reports that Dolly Pickering, of Heather, Moor & Edgecomb (an IFA), has claimed that Norwich Union's change in projection calculations has led to an endowment misselling claim being brought against it.
Ms Pickering was informed of a £6K drop in the value of a client's policy, caused by an improvement to the accuracy of estimated maturity value (EMV) calculations.
Ms Pickering stated that it was unfair that IFAs were being punished for selling endowment policies, whose initial projected values were inaccurate, and holds the providers responsible.
Monday, September 08, 2008
Norwich Union Cut Bonuses
Norwich Union Cut Bonuses
Norwich Union have delivered another blow to the tattered reputation of the life assurance industry, and its much derided and failed product of endowment policies.
Norwich have told their 2.4M with-profits policy fund holders that it will cut policies maturing this year by 11%, in comparison with those that matured last year.
The phrase "with-profits" sounds somewhat hollow does it not?
I wonder why it is that no one has tried to sue the life assurance industry for misrepresenting their product by using that phrase?
The theory of with-profits policies is that they are meant to smooth returns. However, given the ongoing cuts in these policies, that theory appears to be half baked. The life assuring companies have quite clearly mismanaged these policies.
The cuts made by Norwich Union are in line with the fall in the FTSE 100 index over the past 12 months, and that means that the "smoothing" has had no benefit or effect whatsoever.
The changes mean that payouts from Norwich's top-paying mortgage endowment fund dropped by 5%, or £2,144, overnight.
Those who hold these useless, mismanaged polices should take a class action against the life assurance industry for:
-misrepresentation
-mis-selling
-mismanagement
-overcharging
Norwich Union have delivered another blow to the tattered reputation of the life assurance industry, and its much derided and failed product of endowment policies.
Norwich have told their 2.4M with-profits policy fund holders that it will cut policies maturing this year by 11%, in comparison with those that matured last year.
The phrase "with-profits" sounds somewhat hollow does it not?
I wonder why it is that no one has tried to sue the life assurance industry for misrepresenting their product by using that phrase?
The theory of with-profits policies is that they are meant to smooth returns. However, given the ongoing cuts in these policies, that theory appears to be half baked. The life assuring companies have quite clearly mismanaged these policies.
The cuts made by Norwich Union are in line with the fall in the FTSE 100 index over the past 12 months, and that means that the "smoothing" has had no benefit or effect whatsoever.
The changes mean that payouts from Norwich's top-paying mortgage endowment fund dropped by 5%, or £2,144, overnight.
Those who hold these useless, mismanaged polices should take a class action against the life assurance industry for:
-misrepresentation
-mis-selling
-mismanagement
-overcharging
Thursday, August 28, 2008
The Great Swindle
The Great Swindle
Tony Hazell in The Daily Mail writes:
"With-profits policies must be the most widespread con ever perpetrated on British investors. Very few people over 30 will have completely avoided having some of their money mismanaged in these massive funds.
But aside from a few mis-selling fines, the insurance companies responsible have got away with this great swindle."
I couldn't agree with him more!
The life assurance companies should set this matter straight and underwrite these useless products that have been badly designed, and massively mismanaged.
They won't of course, because too many people in these companies have made far too much money by way of commissions and bonuses; ie greed, rather than integrity, is the overriding principle at play here.
Tony Hazell in The Daily Mail writes:
"With-profits policies must be the most widespread con ever perpetrated on British investors. Very few people over 30 will have completely avoided having some of their money mismanaged in these massive funds.
But aside from a few mis-selling fines, the insurance companies responsible have got away with this great swindle."
I couldn't agree with him more!
The life assurance companies should set this matter straight and underwrite these useless products that have been badly designed, and massively mismanaged.
They won't of course, because too many people in these companies have made far too much money by way of commissions and bonuses; ie greed, rather than integrity, is the overriding principle at play here.
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Greed
Greed
Mortgage advisers have blamed policyholder greed for the endowment policy disgrace.
Fairinvestment.co.uk conducted a study that showed that 87% of people believed that they were mis-sold policies by brokers, who failed to explain in sufficient detail the possible shortfalls.
However, some advisers have taken umbrage at this slur and claim that a combination of personal greed and changing market conditions have contributed to the failure of these policies.
Alan Townley, of Dave Alan Financial Services, is quoted:
"Let's make no mistake, people are greedy and although you can spell out that past performance does not equate to future performance it tends to fall on deaf ears when they can only see pound signs in front of them."
I believe that a more fundamental problem is to blame, quite simply many of the policies are not fit for purpose. They were designed to pay off the mortgage, yet are manifestly failing to do so.
When a newly purchased TV or car fails to function, the owner can claim redress; so it should be for the policy holders of these poorly designed and badly managed products.
Blaming market conditions and greed is an easy excuse, the real blame lies with a lousy design and excess management charges (for precious little quality management).
The costs for this scandal should be met by the companies that run these underperforming products.
Mortgage advisers have blamed policyholder greed for the endowment policy disgrace.
Fairinvestment.co.uk conducted a study that showed that 87% of people believed that they were mis-sold policies by brokers, who failed to explain in sufficient detail the possible shortfalls.
However, some advisers have taken umbrage at this slur and claim that a combination of personal greed and changing market conditions have contributed to the failure of these policies.
Alan Townley, of Dave Alan Financial Services, is quoted:
"Let's make no mistake, people are greedy and although you can spell out that past performance does not equate to future performance it tends to fall on deaf ears when they can only see pound signs in front of them."
I believe that a more fundamental problem is to blame, quite simply many of the policies are not fit for purpose. They were designed to pay off the mortgage, yet are manifestly failing to do so.
When a newly purchased TV or car fails to function, the owner can claim redress; so it should be for the policy holders of these poorly designed and badly managed products.
Blaming market conditions and greed is an easy excuse, the real blame lies with a lousy design and excess management charges (for precious little quality management).
The costs for this scandal should be met by the companies that run these underperforming products.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
The Endowment Rip Off
The Endowment Rip Off
Farininvestment.co.uk has published research that shows 90% of people who own a useless and underperforming endowment product believe that they were victims of mis-selling.
The research also showed that 86% of endowment policyholders were expecting their policy to suffer a shortfall.
Of those who felt their had bought their policy after receiving poor advice, 49% said they had been given a guarantee that the policy would cover the mortgage costs, while 27% say the risks involved were not made clear. A further 6% felt fees and charges had not been properly explained.
Something that our financial services industry can be proud of?
Farininvestment.co.uk has published research that shows 90% of people who own a useless and underperforming endowment product believe that they were victims of mis-selling.
The research also showed that 86% of endowment policyholders were expecting their policy to suffer a shortfall.
Of those who felt their had bought their policy after receiving poor advice, 49% said they had been given a guarantee that the policy would cover the mortgage costs, while 27% say the risks involved were not made clear. A further 6% felt fees and charges had not been properly explained.
Something that our financial services industry can be proud of?
Thursday, July 31, 2008
The £1BN Payoff
The Times reports that long suffering Norwich Union endowment policyholders have been offered £1BN of its with-profits fund.
Aviva, the owner of Norwich Union, will offer about 700,000 policyholders between £400 and £1,000 in exchange for foregoing their right to future bonus payments. A further 220,000 will receive up to about £3,500 and a handful of long-term investors will collect several thousand pounds more.
Clare Spottiswoode, the policyholder advocate, is well pleased and describes the result as a "triple-whammy winner" for the policyholders.
Aviva, the owner of Norwich Union, will offer about 700,000 policyholders between £400 and £1,000 in exchange for foregoing their right to future bonus payments. A further 220,000 will receive up to about £3,500 and a handful of long-term investors will collect several thousand pounds more.
Clare Spottiswoode, the policyholder advocate, is well pleased and describes the result as a "triple-whammy winner" for the policyholders.
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Public Censure
Public Censure
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has publicly censured Mandrake Associates Limited (MAL) for serious failings in the way it handled mortgage endowment complaints.
The FSA has also prohibited William John Pirie, the firm's sole director, from carrying out any customer functions in regulated financial services due to his mishandling of endowment mortgage complaints received by MAL.
The FSA claimed that as a result of MAL's failings, there was an enhanced risk that endowment mis-selling complaints were either wrongly rejected or delayed.
MAL was found to have failed to ensure its complaints handling procedures were operating effectively, failed to provide adequate resources for the handling of mortgage endowment complaints and failed to ensure that complaint handling personnel were trained to carry out fair investigations.
In addition it failed to finalise the complaints that were dealt with, within a reasonable time and failed to provide complainants with updates about the progress of investigation in a timely fashion, while it also failed to co-operate fully and promptly with the directions of the Financial Ombudsman Service.
Margaret Cole, director of enforcement at the FSA, said:
"Firms must have in place and operate an effective complaints handling system as a key part of treating customers fairly. MAL's endowment complaints handling failings were systemic, lasting for four years and meant consumers who had been mis-sold endowments were at risk of not receiving compensation at all or only after long delay.
Firms who fail their customers in this way will face enforcement action. MAL would have faced a fine of £400,000 if it had not been for its current financial position."
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has publicly censured Mandrake Associates Limited (MAL) for serious failings in the way it handled mortgage endowment complaints.
The FSA has also prohibited William John Pirie, the firm's sole director, from carrying out any customer functions in regulated financial services due to his mishandling of endowment mortgage complaints received by MAL.
The FSA claimed that as a result of MAL's failings, there was an enhanced risk that endowment mis-selling complaints were either wrongly rejected or delayed.
MAL was found to have failed to ensure its complaints handling procedures were operating effectively, failed to provide adequate resources for the handling of mortgage endowment complaints and failed to ensure that complaint handling personnel were trained to carry out fair investigations.
In addition it failed to finalise the complaints that were dealt with, within a reasonable time and failed to provide complainants with updates about the progress of investigation in a timely fashion, while it also failed to co-operate fully and promptly with the directions of the Financial Ombudsman Service.
Margaret Cole, director of enforcement at the FSA, said:
"Firms must have in place and operate an effective complaints handling system as a key part of treating customers fairly. MAL's endowment complaints handling failings were systemic, lasting for four years and meant consumers who had been mis-sold endowments were at risk of not receiving compensation at all or only after long delay.
Firms who fail their customers in this way will face enforcement action. MAL would have faced a fine of £400,000 if it had not been for its current financial position."
Monday, July 28, 2008
The £1BN Payout
The £1BN Payout
The Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) reported that over £1BN of compensation has been paid out to consumers who lost money due to the collapse of financial services firms over the past seven years.
The FSCS was set up in 2001, and has paid out £1.04BN since inception. However, out of the 16,490 new claims, the majority (7,410) still relate to mortgage endowments. The hapless claimants having bought the useless product from a firm that had collapsed before they received their compensation for mis-selling.
The average payout was £1,800 each.
The Financial Services Compensation Scheme (FSCS) reported that over £1BN of compensation has been paid out to consumers who lost money due to the collapse of financial services firms over the past seven years.
The FSCS was set up in 2001, and has paid out £1.04BN since inception. However, out of the 16,490 new claims, the majority (7,410) still relate to mortgage endowments. The hapless claimants having bought the useless product from a firm that had collapsed before they received their compensation for mis-selling.
The average payout was £1,800 each.
Monday, July 21, 2008
Friends Provident Cuts Bonuses
Friends Provident Cuts Bonuses
Those long suffering endowment policy holders who have polices managed by Friends Provident will have been disappointed to learn that it will be slashing the final bonuses it pays to long-term savers.
Friends Provident state that the value of its with-profits fund fell by more than 7% during the first half of the year.
Whilst annual bonuses are being maintained, the final bonuses are being cut. Those in the main with-profits fund are being more than halved.
A policyholder with a 15 year unitised pension plan in the main fund will receive a regular bonus of 4%, but their final bonus will be cut from 18.7% if the policy had matured in January to just 2.1% now.
Those with a 25 year policy will be paid a final bonus of 17.5%, a massive reduction from the original 40% in January.
The ongoing credit crisis and recent falls in the stock market are being blamed. All very well, but what about the previous years when the stock market was booming?
A lousy result for those who have spent years investing in these policies.
Those long suffering endowment policy holders who have polices managed by Friends Provident will have been disappointed to learn that it will be slashing the final bonuses it pays to long-term savers.
Friends Provident state that the value of its with-profits fund fell by more than 7% during the first half of the year.
Whilst annual bonuses are being maintained, the final bonuses are being cut. Those in the main with-profits fund are being more than halved.
A policyholder with a 15 year unitised pension plan in the main fund will receive a regular bonus of 4%, but their final bonus will be cut from 18.7% if the policy had matured in January to just 2.1% now.
Those with a 25 year policy will be paid a final bonus of 17.5%, a massive reduction from the original 40% in January.
The ongoing credit crisis and recent falls in the stock market are being blamed. All very well, but what about the previous years when the stock market was booming?
A lousy result for those who have spent years investing in these policies.
Monday, July 14, 2008
Equitable Life
Equitable Life
The long suffering, and shockingly mistreated, investors in Equitable Life may be slightly cheered by a report in today's Telegraph that says:
"Prudential, Legal & General and Swiss Re are among a pack of insurance giants circling Equitable Life, Britain's oldest mutual insurer.
Equitable has drawn up a shortlist of bidders for the remnants of the former insurance leader, which at its peak was worth £26bn and had 1.5m policyholders.
News of prospective bids for the business comes ahead of this week's publication of a damning report by Ann Abraham, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, who will criticise the Government for its failure to regulate the society properly in the lead-up to its near collapse."
The purchase, if it comes, will take some time. Therefore, whilst the investors are waiting for the outcome of that, they should mount a class action against the government for its maladministration of one of the biggest scandals to shake Britain's financial services industry.
The long suffering, and shockingly mistreated, investors in Equitable Life may be slightly cheered by a report in today's Telegraph that says:
"Prudential, Legal & General and Swiss Re are among a pack of insurance giants circling Equitable Life, Britain's oldest mutual insurer.
Equitable has drawn up a shortlist of bidders for the remnants of the former insurance leader, which at its peak was worth £26bn and had 1.5m policyholders.
News of prospective bids for the business comes ahead of this week's publication of a damning report by Ann Abraham, the Parliamentary Ombudsman, who will criticise the Government for its failure to regulate the society properly in the lead-up to its near collapse."
The purchase, if it comes, will take some time. Therefore, whilst the investors are waiting for the outcome of that, they should mount a class action against the government for its maladministration of one of the biggest scandals to shake Britain's financial services industry.
Monday, July 07, 2008
Without Profits
Without Profits
Those hapless with profits endowment policy holders have good reason to make a claim against the life assurance companies for false description of their products. The recent poor results from these companies show that these policies should be refereed to as "without profits".
Money Management magazine has identified a number of "stellar" under performers:
Those hapless with profits endowment policy holders have good reason to make a claim against the life assurance companies for false description of their products. The recent poor results from these companies show that these policies should be refereed to as "without profits".
Money Management magazine has identified a number of "stellar" under performers:
- Monthly premiums of £50 paid into a London Life with profits endowment for the past 10 years (ie £6000) would have a generated a payout of £5,544. Why not just set fire to your money instead?
Other 10 year policies paying out less than was paid in include Equitable Life, Pearl and Royal Life. - In 1998, the average 25 year endowment policy paid £105,540 on a £50 per month premium. In 2003, the average payout was £65,776. Now the average 25 year policy pays out £45,330.
- Thirty five insurers are paying lower payouts on 25 year policies compared with this time last year.
Monday, June 30, 2008
Which? Policy Holder Event Epilogue
Which? Policy Holder Event Epilogue
Last week Which? held a policy holder event in Westminster for Norwich Union and Prudential policyholders, the objective being to publicise the Which? campaign for a fair deal for with-profits policyholders.
The day started with a photo-call with "Dick Turpin", where they called on the Financial Services Authority to "stand and deliver" for policyholders.
They were then joined by John McFall MP, the Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee and Derek Wyatt MP, a supporter of the campaign.
After the photos, they went to a meeting in the House of Lords hosted by Lord Joffe, who has been campaigning on this issue since 2000. Vince Cable MP, the Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor, expressed support for the campaign and discussed his involvement.
This was followed by a roundtable discussion with Vince Cable MP, Derek Wyatt MP, policyholders, their constituency MPs and Which? policy expert Dominic Lindley.
Which? intend to continue the campaign.
Last week Which? held a policy holder event in Westminster for Norwich Union and Prudential policyholders, the objective being to publicise the Which? campaign for a fair deal for with-profits policyholders.
The day started with a photo-call with "Dick Turpin", where they called on the Financial Services Authority to "stand and deliver" for policyholders.
They were then joined by John McFall MP, the Chairman of the Treasury Select Committee and Derek Wyatt MP, a supporter of the campaign.
After the photos, they went to a meeting in the House of Lords hosted by Lord Joffe, who has been campaigning on this issue since 2000. Vince Cable MP, the Liberal Democrat Shadow Chancellor, expressed support for the campaign and discussed his involvement.
This was followed by a roundtable discussion with Vince Cable MP, Derek Wyatt MP, policyholders, their constituency MPs and Which? policy expert Dominic Lindley.
Which? intend to continue the campaign.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
Which? Policy Holder Event
Which? Policy Holder Event
Which? has confirmed that it will be holding an event for policyholders on 25th June tomorrow at Parliament. It will take place between 1-3pm.
The event will give policyholders a chance to take part in a photo opportunity, and attend a reception in Parliament with Which? and politicians involved in their campaign to secure a fair deal.
Which? has confirmed that it will be holding an event for policyholders on 25th June tomorrow at Parliament. It will take place between 1-3pm.
The event will give policyholders a chance to take part in a photo opportunity, and attend a reception in Parliament with Which? and politicians involved in their campaign to secure a fair deal.
Friday, June 20, 2008
Barmy FSA Regulation
Barmy FSA Regulation
The Treasury Select Committee has published their report based on their inquiry into inherited estates. The Committee is none too complimentary about the Financial Services Authority’s (FSA) regulation of the with-profits industry.
Quote:
"The Committee concludes that the Financial Services Authority (FSA) is not providing a robust enough framework to manage the conflicts of interest inherent in proprietary life funds."
I am hardly surprised, the FSA's "regulation" has been all but non existent.
Chairman of the Committee, the Rt Hon John McFall MP said:
"The approach taken by the FSA towards inherited estates seems a long way from the philosophy of 'principles-based regulation' to which it aspires. Policyholders need to have confidence that their interests are being protected, but the current oversight by the FSA gives no such assurance.
Policyholders deserve a regulatory framework based on a clear set of principles and unambiguous guidance on how inherited estate can be used by life firms’ management."
He refers to FSA regulation as "barmy":
"Shareholder tax is another example of the FSA's barmy regulation in this field."
He then goes on to put a well aimed boot into Prudential:
"I was astonished that the Prudential had taken £1.6 billion from their inherited estate to pay the costs of compensation arising from mis-selling."
Then Norwich Union:
"Tens of thousands of Norwich Union’s longest-standing policyholders do not stand to receive the whole value of the recently announced special distribution. The Committee was not convinced by the argument that such phasing of payments was necessary for the stability of the funds concerned.
In my view, phasing represents an unreasonable barrier for policyholders wishing to exit the fund."
The Committee calls on the FSA to take action in several areas to ensure that policyholders interests are protected, including the following:
It is clear that those with money stuck in these lousy endowment funds have been ill served by the FSA. It really is worth, in my view, considering mounting a class action against the FSA and the life assurance companies for this disgraceful situation.
The Treasury Select Committee has published their report based on their inquiry into inherited estates. The Committee is none too complimentary about the Financial Services Authority’s (FSA) regulation of the with-profits industry.
Quote:
"The Committee concludes that the Financial Services Authority (FSA) is not providing a robust enough framework to manage the conflicts of interest inherent in proprietary life funds."
I am hardly surprised, the FSA's "regulation" has been all but non existent.
Chairman of the Committee, the Rt Hon John McFall MP said:
"The approach taken by the FSA towards inherited estates seems a long way from the philosophy of 'principles-based regulation' to which it aspires. Policyholders need to have confidence that their interests are being protected, but the current oversight by the FSA gives no such assurance.
Policyholders deserve a regulatory framework based on a clear set of principles and unambiguous guidance on how inherited estate can be used by life firms’ management."
He refers to FSA regulation as "barmy":
"Shareholder tax is another example of the FSA's barmy regulation in this field."
He then goes on to put a well aimed boot into Prudential:
"I was astonished that the Prudential had taken £1.6 billion from their inherited estate to pay the costs of compensation arising from mis-selling."
Then Norwich Union:
"Tens of thousands of Norwich Union’s longest-standing policyholders do not stand to receive the whole value of the recently announced special distribution. The Committee was not convinced by the argument that such phasing of payments was necessary for the stability of the funds concerned.
In my view, phasing represents an unreasonable barrier for policyholders wishing to exit the fund."
The Committee calls on the FSA to take action in several areas to ensure that policyholders interests are protected, including the following:
- To ensure that a fair price is offered in a re attribution, not just an adequate price.
- To provide a very strong case about why the phasing of special distribution payouts should be permitted, noting that the FSA has yet to put forward an adequate case.
- To consult on a redesign of the overall regulatory system for with-profits funds during 2008. The Committee said that they are not satisfied that the FSA has done enough to provide a robust framework.
- To consult on the charging of shareholder tax to the inherited estate by the end of 2008, noting that their view is that it should not be permitted.
It is clear that those with money stuck in these lousy endowment funds have been ill served by the FSA. It really is worth, in my view, considering mounting a class action against the FSA and the life assurance companies for this disgraceful situation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)