Aviva looks set to let down around 71,000 of their endowment policy holders this year, as it has cut its bonuses thus "gifting" 70,000 policy holders whose General Accident and Norwich Union policies (both part of Aviva) mature this year with a shortfall.
Friday, February 24, 2012
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Irony
IFAonline reports that John Spence, the newly-appointed non-executive director of the Money Advice Service (MAS), was in charge of managing risk at Lloyds TSB during the height of its endowment mis-selling scandal.
This is somewhat ironic, as per the MAS site:
"A wealth of information and advice If you’re looking for free, clear, unbiased money advice, you’re in the right place.
The Money Advice Service is here to help everyone manage their money better. We do this by giving clear, unbiased money advice to help people make informed choices.
We believe that the right money advice can make a difference to people’s lives. And when people take steps to manage their money better, they can live better too.
The Money Advice Service is a free, independent service. We were set up by government and are funded by a levy on the financial services industry.
Because we’re not selling anything ourselves, or for anyone else, you can trust our advice."
Lloyds was found to have sold the products inappropriately over the ten years preceding 2003.
Monday, November 07, 2011
Delaying Tactics?
My thanks to the loyal reader who dropped me a note (see below) about possible delaying tactics used by some endowment companies.
Has anyone experienced delays in receiving payments from endowment companies for policies that have matured?
I have redacted the names of the companies to which he has referred.
"I took out a £30K endowment with **** in 1987 and after 25 years it matured on August the 1st just under £32k not the promised - hinted at- confident 40-50k but at least its over 30k.
My issue is getting them to pay me - are you aware of a delaying tactic or policy on holding off on paying people?
They claim its the *** (another company) but I feel like I am just getting the run around?"
Has anyone experienced delays in receiving payments from endowment companies for policies that have matured?
I have redacted the names of the companies to which he has referred.
"I took out a £30K endowment with **** in 1987 and after 25 years it matured on August the 1st just under £32k not the promised - hinted at- confident 40-50k but at least its over 30k.
My issue is getting them to pay me - are you aware of a delaying tactic or policy on holding off on paying people?
They claim its the *** (another company) but I feel like I am just getting the run around?"
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
A Crock of Shite
How "nice", Legal & General (L&G) wrote to me yesterday advising me that one of my "with profits" (a misnomer if ever there was one) endowment polices that I have with them will experience a shortfall.
The policy, which was taken out in 1991, will mature next year.
Its target was £39,700.
The expected shortfall, depending on whether the investment return is between 4%-8% (fat chance in today's markets!), is expected to be between £13K and £14K.
That's a shortfall of between 32%-35%!
Given that the whole point of these rip off policies was to pay off a mortgage debt, I am less than "impressed" with the performance of this product.
The good news is that L&G make a nice little earner from management charges for "manging" this crock of shite.
They even suggest, as one possible solution for making up the shortfall, that I extend the term or top it up!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let us not forget that the purpose of these shite products was to pay off mortgage debts, they have failed.
Therefore the products are faulty.
I am amazed that no one has yet brought a class action against the companies who "manage" these failed products.
If there are any law companies out there who want to try a class action, feel free to contact me.
The policy, which was taken out in 1991, will mature next year.
Its target was £39,700.
The expected shortfall, depending on whether the investment return is between 4%-8% (fat chance in today's markets!), is expected to be between £13K and £14K.
That's a shortfall of between 32%-35%!
Given that the whole point of these rip off policies was to pay off a mortgage debt, I am less than "impressed" with the performance of this product.
The good news is that L&G make a nice little earner from management charges for "manging" this crock of shite.
They even suggest, as one possible solution for making up the shortfall, that I extend the term or top it up!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Let us not forget that the purpose of these shite products was to pay off mortgage debts, they have failed.
Therefore the products are faulty.
I am amazed that no one has yet brought a class action against the companies who "manage" these failed products.
If there are any law companies out there who want to try a class action, feel free to contact me.
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
The £300BN With Profits Scandal
The Telegraph reports that there is over £330BN sitting in the now discredited with profits (a misnomer if ever there was one) investment funds.
Investors were duped into putting money into these funds on the false promise of high returns that would pay pensions, cover mortgages and provide a nest egg.
Money Management claim that these useless funds have grown by an average of 1.7% per annum over the last 10 years. Higher returns would have been achievable simply by putting the money into a savings account.
Those with money in these useless and underperforming funds are, in effect, trapped as the exit fees are extortionate.
Investors were duped into putting money into these funds on the false promise of high returns that would pay pensions, cover mortgages and provide a nest egg.
Money Management claim that these useless funds have grown by an average of 1.7% per annum over the last 10 years. Higher returns would have been achievable simply by putting the money into a savings account.
Those with money in these useless and underperforming funds are, in effect, trapped as the exit fees are extortionate.
Friday, May 27, 2011
Off Air
Apologies for being off air for a couple of weeks. However, there were technical problems at Blogger which caused the temporary closure of this site.
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
Shortfalls For Royal London and Scottish Life
This Is Money reports that with-profits (a misleading description if ever there was one) mortgage endowments with Royal London Mutual and Scottish Life will face a shortfall when their policies mature.
Hapless holders of 25 year £50 per month with-profits policies from Royal London Mutual will face a fall on policies maturing this year of 3.3%, compared with the previous year.
Scottish Life, which is part of Royal London Mutual, offers a worse return (4% down).
95% of all mortgage endowment policyholders at Scottish Life will face a shortfall, 53% of those with Royal London.
Lousy results from a lousy product.
Hapless holders of 25 year £50 per month with-profits policies from Royal London Mutual will face a fall on policies maturing this year of 3.3%, compared with the previous year.
Scottish Life, which is part of Royal London Mutual, offers a worse return (4% down).
95% of all mortgage endowment policyholders at Scottish Life will face a shortfall, 53% of those with Royal London.
Lousy results from a lousy product.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
Legal and General Increase Dividend
The FT reports that L&G are rewarding its shareholders:
"Legal and General has increased its full-year dividend by almost a quarter in spite of the life and pensions group missing profit estimates.
The UK’s fourth-biggest insurer by market value blamed the 9.6 per cent decline in IFRS operating profit to £1bn – worse than the 5 per cent fall expected by the City – on December’s cold weather, poor trading in the Netherlands and rising annuity reserves.
But Tim Breedon, chief executive, said the figures released on Thursday “demonstrate that we’ve been able to grow the business in 2010 and at the same time generate more cash with which to pay increasing dividends”.
He added: “All L&G’s businesses – risk, savings, LGIM and international – have contributed to today’s strong numbers by writing more new business at lower cost, growing assets under management and expanding distribution.”
L&G increased its dividend by 24 per cent to 4.75p a share, beating analyst estimates of 4.5p, and following the example set by Prudential last week when it boosted its pay-out by 20 per cent."
That's nice for the shareholders, let us trust that L&G's largess is also reflected in its with profits bonuses this year on its endowment policies.
"Legal and General has increased its full-year dividend by almost a quarter in spite of the life and pensions group missing profit estimates.
The UK’s fourth-biggest insurer by market value blamed the 9.6 per cent decline in IFRS operating profit to £1bn – worse than the 5 per cent fall expected by the City – on December’s cold weather, poor trading in the Netherlands and rising annuity reserves.
But Tim Breedon, chief executive, said the figures released on Thursday “demonstrate that we’ve been able to grow the business in 2010 and at the same time generate more cash with which to pay increasing dividends”.
He added: “All L&G’s businesses – risk, savings, LGIM and international – have contributed to today’s strong numbers by writing more new business at lower cost, growing assets under management and expanding distribution.”
L&G increased its dividend by 24 per cent to 4.75p a share, beating analyst estimates of 4.5p, and following the example set by Prudential last week when it boosted its pay-out by 20 per cent."
That's nice for the shareholders, let us trust that L&G's largess is also reflected in its with profits bonuses this year on its endowment policies.
Monday, March 07, 2011
L&G Endowments Above Target?
Legal & General recently announced that mortgage endowment policies maturing this year will pay out more than was originally predicted when the policies were taken out 25 years ago.
Seemingly, if L&G's projections are correct, someone who paid £50 a month into one of the policies for 25 years will receive £34,750 (£372 above the target amount).
This optimistic announcement contrasts somewhat sharply with the September client mailing carried out by L&G, in which 81% of its mortgage endowment customers received red letters.
Don't crack open the champagne, until you receive your payout.
Seemingly, if L&G's projections are correct, someone who paid £50 a month into one of the policies for 25 years will receive £34,750 (£372 above the target amount).
This optimistic announcement contrasts somewhat sharply with the September client mailing carried out by L&G, in which 81% of its mortgage endowment customers received red letters.
Don't crack open the champagne, until you receive your payout.
Friday, February 25, 2011
FSA Finally Acts - Maybe
The Financial Services Authority (FSA) has finally published its review into rules on with-profits investments, and announced its intention to toughen up its rules.
The FSA has finally admitted that with-profits policyholders "are not always getting the fair treatment they deserve".
Really?!
The FSA has warned insurers that they "will continue to supervise the sector in an intensive way".
The new proposals, which will now be consulted on, cover:
MVRs: Firms will be restricted in their ability to impose "market value reductions"
(MVRs) - the exit penalties you face when you cash in your policy early or move your money to a different company. Companies will not be able to arbitrarily impose penalties because they want to stop policyholders leaving, and will only be allowed to impose penalties to ensure policyholders receive a fair reflection of the value of their policy.
New business: The company will need to demonstrate that writing new business into the fund does not have an adverse effect on existing policyholders. This will tighten up the rules so firms will not be able to offer 'loss leaders' which erode the amount in the with-profits fund for existing policyholders.
Charges: Firms will not be allowed to use servicing companies to extract extra money in charges from with-profits policyholders by including a profit margin on top of the actual cost.
Excess surplus: Firms will be required to have a plan to distribute any excess surplus cash fairly to policyholders, particularly if a company suffers a big fall in the amount of new business it is doing.
With-profits Committees: Firms must provide a clear distinction between the recommendations of the with-profits committee and what action the firm intends to take in response, and will be required to notify the regulator when it overrules the advice of the with-profits committee.
All very nice, but too little too late for those hapless house owners ripped off by the endowment mortgage scandal of the 80's and 90's.
The FSA has finally admitted that with-profits policyholders "are not always getting the fair treatment they deserve".
Really?!
The FSA has warned insurers that they "will continue to supervise the sector in an intensive way".
The new proposals, which will now be consulted on, cover:
MVRs: Firms will be restricted in their ability to impose "market value reductions"
(MVRs) - the exit penalties you face when you cash in your policy early or move your money to a different company. Companies will not be able to arbitrarily impose penalties because they want to stop policyholders leaving, and will only be allowed to impose penalties to ensure policyholders receive a fair reflection of the value of their policy.
New business: The company will need to demonstrate that writing new business into the fund does not have an adverse effect on existing policyholders. This will tighten up the rules so firms will not be able to offer 'loss leaders' which erode the amount in the with-profits fund for existing policyholders.
Charges: Firms will not be allowed to use servicing companies to extract extra money in charges from with-profits policyholders by including a profit margin on top of the actual cost.
Excess surplus: Firms will be required to have a plan to distribute any excess surplus cash fairly to policyholders, particularly if a company suffers a big fall in the amount of new business it is doing.
With-profits Committees: Firms must provide a clear distinction between the recommendations of the with-profits committee and what action the firm intends to take in response, and will be required to notify the regulator when it overrules the advice of the with-profits committee.
All very nice, but too little too late for those hapless house owners ripped off by the endowment mortgage scandal of the 80's and 90's.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Advert
UK EXPATS: Reduce tax on UK Pensions
HMRC QROPS provider. Unlock your UK pension and access a 25% lump sum today.
Quote ID code "ABC" when contacting a QROPS specialist.
HMRC QROPS provider. Unlock your UK pension and access a 25% lump sum today.
Quote ID code "ABC" when contacting a QROPS specialist.
Thursday, January 27, 2011
A Surplus!
A Surplus!
Ian Cowie, of the Telegraph, writes about his Legal and General endowment policy:
"..my 25-year with-profits endowment matured last month and paid out 33pc more than the target value.
Since you ask, the maturity forecast was £45,000 but the actual payout was a bit above £60,000..."
How nice for him!
My L&G policies both mature next year, and are forecast to make large losses.
How can there be such a difference between his L&G policy and mine, given that the maturity date is less than two years apart?
Ian Cowie, of the Telegraph, writes about his Legal and General endowment policy:
"..my 25-year with-profits endowment matured last month and paid out 33pc more than the target value.
Since you ask, the maturity forecast was £45,000 but the actual payout was a bit above £60,000..."
How nice for him!
My L&G policies both mature next year, and are forecast to make large losses.
How can there be such a difference between his L&G policy and mine, given that the maturity date is less than two years apart?
Friday, November 27, 2009
ABI Displays Empathy
ABI Displays Empathy
In a rare display of public empathy, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) says that life companies must do more to design products with consumer needs in mind.
ABI head of distribution policy, Peter Jolly, said that life companies have failed to properly engage with consumers.
"I guess the evidence of that is we need to sell them. If we had products that people really wanted they would come and buy them and most of the products in our industry are designed to be sold, rather than bought.
And the industry's failure to develop a new regular premium savings product is probably evidence of that. As the endowment market tailed off we don't really have a replacement."
LOL!
The endowment market "tailed off" because it was a lousy product, not fit for purpose and badly managed.
In a rare display of public empathy, the Association of British Insurers (ABI) says that life companies must do more to design products with consumer needs in mind.
ABI head of distribution policy, Peter Jolly, said that life companies have failed to properly engage with consumers.
"I guess the evidence of that is we need to sell them. If we had products that people really wanted they would come and buy them and most of the products in our industry are designed to be sold, rather than bought.
And the industry's failure to develop a new regular premium savings product is probably evidence of that. As the endowment market tailed off we don't really have a replacement."
LOL!
The endowment market "tailed off" because it was a lousy product, not fit for purpose and badly managed.
Thursday, November 19, 2009
Class Actions
Class Actions
This week's Queen's Speech has raised the possibility of hapless endowment policy holders being able to mount class actions against the life assurance industry.
The government proposes to give consumers the right, for the first time, to take "class action" suits through the courts in cases of large-scale wrongdoing such as endowment mis-selling or personal pensions.
This is something that I have been calling for over many years. Not only has the financial services industry mis-sold these flawed and badly designed products, but they have mismanagement them (despite awarding themselves very generous "management" fees and commissions).
The consumer will not only has grounds for suing wrt mis-selling, but also has grounds based on the fact that the products are not fit for purpose (ie they did not pay off the mortgage, which is what they were meant to do).
Why buy the product if it wasn't going to work?
Unfortunately, there is little chance of this becoming law this side of the election.
This week's Queen's Speech has raised the possibility of hapless endowment policy holders being able to mount class actions against the life assurance industry.
The government proposes to give consumers the right, for the first time, to take "class action" suits through the courts in cases of large-scale wrongdoing such as endowment mis-selling or personal pensions.
This is something that I have been calling for over many years. Not only has the financial services industry mis-sold these flawed and badly designed products, but they have mismanagement them (despite awarding themselves very generous "management" fees and commissions).
The consumer will not only has grounds for suing wrt mis-selling, but also has grounds based on the fact that the products are not fit for purpose (ie they did not pay off the mortgage, which is what they were meant to do).
Why buy the product if it wasn't going to work?
Unfortunately, there is little chance of this becoming law this side of the election.
Friday, October 02, 2009
Fit For Purpose?
Fit For Purpose?
Legal and General informed me today that the shortfall on my "with profits" endowment mortgage of £39K will range between £13K - £16K.
So much for the concept of "smoothing", allegedly one of the main components of a "with profits" policy.
Maybe they could also explain to me why they sold and "managed" a product that clearly was not fit for purpose?
Legal and General informed me today that the shortfall on my "with profits" endowment mortgage of £39K will range between £13K - £16K.
So much for the concept of "smoothing", allegedly one of the main components of a "with profits" policy.
Maybe they could also explain to me why they sold and "managed" a product that clearly was not fit for purpose?
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Aviva Policyholders Lose
Aviva Policyholders Lose
The Times reports:
"800,000 policyholders of with-profits funds run by Aviva, Britain’s largest insurer, will share less than half of the billion-pound windfall promised just over 18 months ago.
The investors had been pledged £1 billion in February last year when the funds were valued at £4.2 billion, but were told this March that the payout would be £500 million because falling gilt, bond and property prices had reduced the funds to £1.2 billion.
The High Court yesterday upheld Aviva’s decision to pay the £500 million because the fund had shrunk in value. Aviva will keep £700 million for its own use.
Eligible policyholders — those with Commercial Union Life, CGNU Life and Norwich Union Life with-profits funds — will receive between £200 and £1,150. Aviva said it would put the scheme into effect on October 1, with the majority of payments being made before the end of the year."
Why has the FSA sat on its hands and allowed Aviva to take (Which? uses the word "plunder") £700M of policyholders' money?
Some also argue that Aviva have deliberately dragged this out; so as to not to have to pay out so much money, as the markets continued to fall.
Policyholders, yet again, have been ill served by a life assurance company.
The Times reports:
"800,000 policyholders of with-profits funds run by Aviva, Britain’s largest insurer, will share less than half of the billion-pound windfall promised just over 18 months ago.
The investors had been pledged £1 billion in February last year when the funds were valued at £4.2 billion, but were told this March that the payout would be £500 million because falling gilt, bond and property prices had reduced the funds to £1.2 billion.
The High Court yesterday upheld Aviva’s decision to pay the £500 million because the fund had shrunk in value. Aviva will keep £700 million for its own use.
Eligible policyholders — those with Commercial Union Life, CGNU Life and Norwich Union Life with-profits funds — will receive between £200 and £1,150. Aviva said it would put the scheme into effect on October 1, with the majority of payments being made before the end of the year."
Why has the FSA sat on its hands and allowed Aviva to take (Which? uses the word "plunder") £700M of policyholders' money?
Some also argue that Aviva have deliberately dragged this out; so as to not to have to pay out so much money, as the markets continued to fall.
Policyholders, yet again, have been ill served by a life assurance company.
Friday, August 21, 2009
Reality Dawns
Reality Dawns
As I have noted many times on this site, at some stage the hapless millions who were conned into buying useless, underperforming endowment mortgages will have to cover the shortfall when the policy matures.
The penny may finally be dropping, wrt paying off uncovered debt, as The Times reports that people are waking up to the problems of paying off interest only deals (an offshoot of endowments).
"Figures from the Financial Services Authority, which has regulated mortgages since 2004, show that 38 per cent of Britain's 11.1 million mortgage borrowers — or more than one in three — may have made inadequate provision to pay off their capital sum.
Many are in negative equity and the savings products taken out to cover the capital repayments have fallen short. That 38 per cent figure does not include those with endowments or buy-to-let investors who took out interest-only mortgages to keep the cost down."
These policies are beginning ot mature at the very time the property market/economy is struggling to pull itself out of the mire.
As I have noted many times on this site, at some stage the hapless millions who were conned into buying useless, underperforming endowment mortgages will have to cover the shortfall when the policy matures.
The penny may finally be dropping, wrt paying off uncovered debt, as The Times reports that people are waking up to the problems of paying off interest only deals (an offshoot of endowments).
"Figures from the Financial Services Authority, which has regulated mortgages since 2004, show that 38 per cent of Britain's 11.1 million mortgage borrowers — or more than one in three — may have made inadequate provision to pay off their capital sum.
Many are in negative equity and the savings products taken out to cover the capital repayments have fallen short. That 38 per cent figure does not include those with endowments or buy-to-let investors who took out interest-only mortgages to keep the cost down."
These policies are beginning ot mature at the very time the property market/economy is struggling to pull itself out of the mire.
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Unbelievable Betrayal
Unbelievable Betrayal
The hopeless and hapless FSA has now published its final decision on its endowment mis-selling consultation, and has ignored consumer concerns about the proposals.
Which? describe this as "an unbelievable betrayal of consumers".
Which? goes on to note that the FSA had 234 responses to their consultation. Only 10 responses were from firms and industry bodies. Despite this, the FSA only addressed the concerns of firms who felt that the proposals go too far.
Which? quite rightly states that the FSA is allowing the financial services industry to dictate policy once again; get away with ripping off the consumer.
The FSA will not be missed when it is abolished after the next election. It has been worse than worthless in its role as consumer "champion", and serves only the needs of its paymasters in the financial services industry.
The hopeless and hapless FSA has now published its final decision on its endowment mis-selling consultation, and has ignored consumer concerns about the proposals.
Which? describe this as "an unbelievable betrayal of consumers".
Which? goes on to note that the FSA had 234 responses to their consultation. Only 10 responses were from firms and industry bodies. Despite this, the FSA only addressed the concerns of firms who felt that the proposals go too far.
Which? quite rightly states that the FSA is allowing the financial services industry to dictate policy once again; get away with ripping off the consumer.
The FSA will not be missed when it is abolished after the next election. It has been worse than worthless in its role as consumer "champion", and serves only the needs of its paymasters in the financial services industry.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Things Will Only Get Worse
Things Will Only Get Worse
Those of you who hung onto a flimsy straw of hope that the recent rebound in the FTSE may help draw a line under your collapsing "with profits" (such a misnomer for such a lousy product) endowment policy, need to read this article in The Times.
The bottom line is that the returns will worsen, and that the life assurance companies will continue to cut bonuses.
Either way, in good times or bad, the policy holder picks up the bill for the failures of these useless products and the conmen who sold them to you.
We need a class action to bring these companies to heel!
Those of you who hung onto a flimsy straw of hope that the recent rebound in the FTSE may help draw a line under your collapsing "with profits" (such a misnomer for such a lousy product) endowment policy, need to read this article in The Times.
The bottom line is that the returns will worsen, and that the life assurance companies will continue to cut bonuses.
Either way, in good times or bad, the policy holder picks up the bill for the failures of these useless products and the conmen who sold them to you.
We need a class action to bring these companies to heel!
Monday, July 27, 2009
Slash and Burn Policy
Slash and Burn Policy
Aviva (nee Norwich Union) has slashed the payouts on its with-profits (an ironic term, given how useless these products are) endowments and pensions.
Aviva runs several with-profits funds including those sold by; General Accident, Commercial Union, Norwich Union and Provident Mutual.
- A 25 year General Accident mortgage endowment is now down 8.4%
- Aviva Life is now down 12%
- Commercial Union down 7.7%.
Precisely why does the FSA allow life assurance companies to use the phrase "with profits", when it is very clear that they do not do that?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1201432/Aviva-slashes-payouts-profits-endowments-pensions.html#ixzz0MSDHkBV4
Aviva (nee Norwich Union) has slashed the payouts on its with-profits (an ironic term, given how useless these products are) endowments and pensions.
Aviva runs several with-profits funds including those sold by; General Accident, Commercial Union, Norwich Union and Provident Mutual.
- A 25 year General Accident mortgage endowment is now down 8.4%
- Aviva Life is now down 12%
- Commercial Union down 7.7%.
Precisely why does the FSA allow life assurance companies to use the phrase "with profits", when it is very clear that they do not do that?
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1201432/Aviva-slashes-payouts-profits-endowments-pensions.html#ixzz0MSDHkBV4
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Aviva Error
Aviva Error
The Telegraph reports that a computer error by Aviva, has resulted in the miscalculation of Aviva's orphan asset payout to 9,000 policyholders.
One million policy holders were contacted in May, wrt the terms of distribution for Aviva's £1.4BN inherited estate.
Aviva was then forced to send another letter to 9,000 policyholders, to tell them of a "technical error" that resulted in them being offered the wrong amount.
The Telegraph reports that a computer error by Aviva, has resulted in the miscalculation of Aviva's orphan asset payout to 9,000 policyholders.
One million policy holders were contacted in May, wrt the terms of distribution for Aviva's £1.4BN inherited estate.
Aviva was then forced to send another letter to 9,000 policyholders, to tell them of a "technical error" that resulted in them being offered the wrong amount.
Thursday, July 16, 2009
99% Shortfall
99% Shortfall
This Is Money reports that a staggering 99% of endowment policies will fail to pay off the mortgages which they were designed to cover.
With over 4.3M policies still in force this means that millions of people will be affected by the failure of these useless products.
The FSA and the life assurance companies that "manage" these failed products continue to hide behind the excuse that, as they are investments, the consumer knowingly accepted the risk that they might not cover the mortgage.
This excuse is not valid, as the life assurance companies told the hapless consumer that they were designed to pay off their mortgages. Why else would anyone have bought these products if they were not going to fulfil their primary function of paying off a mortgage?
The fact 99% of them will fail to do this is proof that the product was poorly designed, and continues to be atrociously "managed" (eg why do life assurance companies continue to milk the policies of commissions, when they have demonstrably failed?).
The consumer has been ripped off by the life assurance industry, and left to rot by the FSA.
This Is Money reports that a staggering 99% of endowment policies will fail to pay off the mortgages which they were designed to cover.
With over 4.3M policies still in force this means that millions of people will be affected by the failure of these useless products.
The FSA and the life assurance companies that "manage" these failed products continue to hide behind the excuse that, as they are investments, the consumer knowingly accepted the risk that they might not cover the mortgage.
This excuse is not valid, as the life assurance companies told the hapless consumer that they were designed to pay off their mortgages. Why else would anyone have bought these products if they were not going to fulfil their primary function of paying off a mortgage?
The fact 99% of them will fail to do this is proof that the product was poorly designed, and continues to be atrociously "managed" (eg why do life assurance companies continue to milk the policies of commissions, when they have demonstrably failed?).
The consumer has been ripped off by the life assurance industry, and left to rot by the FSA.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Lautro 19 To Remain "Secret"
Lautro 19 To Remain "Secret"
Any hope of naming and shaming the Lautro 19 is now "dead and buried", according to former IFA Defence Union chief Evan Owen.
The Information Commissioner's office has stated that the High Court has ruled that the information falls under absolute exemption rules under the Freedom of Information Act, and therefore does not have to be disclosed.
The Information Commission ruled in August 2007 that the FSA had to name the mortgage endowment providers which misused Lautro projections in setting premiums, which lead to clients being given unrealistically high maturity figures (cynics might say that they were conned).
The hapless FSA, ever keen to protect the financial services industry from the consumer, appealed against the decision. In October 2008 the Information Tribunal rejected the FSA's appeal.
The FSA then took the appeal to the High Court, which upheld the appeal.
If only the FSA were as zealous when protecting the consumer!
Any hope of naming and shaming the Lautro 19 is now "dead and buried", according to former IFA Defence Union chief Evan Owen.
The Information Commissioner's office has stated that the High Court has ruled that the information falls under absolute exemption rules under the Freedom of Information Act, and therefore does not have to be disclosed.
The Information Commission ruled in August 2007 that the FSA had to name the mortgage endowment providers which misused Lautro projections in setting premiums, which lead to clients being given unrealistically high maturity figures (cynics might say that they were conned).
The hapless FSA, ever keen to protect the financial services industry from the consumer, appealed against the decision. In October 2008 the Information Tribunal rejected the FSA's appeal.
The FSA then took the appeal to the High Court, which upheld the appeal.
If only the FSA were as zealous when protecting the consumer!
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
Tax Investigation Insurance - Taxwise
Professional Cover Against the Threat of Costly TAX & VAT Investigations
What is TAXWISE?
TAXWISE is a tax-fee protection service that will pay up to £75,000 towards your accountant's fees in the event of an HM Revenue & Customs full enquiry or dispute. The Policy has been designed to combat the costs and inequities of undergoing the ever-increasing number of HM Revenue & Customs random investigations.
Taxwise Coverage
The standard cover provides representation costs by registered accounting practices on your behalf, for up to £75,000 in any one claim, arising from:
-Income Tax Self Assessment full enquiries
-Income Tax Self Assessment aspect enquiries (if this option is selected)
-Corporation Tax Self Assessment full enquiries
-Corporation Tax Self Assessment aspect enquiries (if this option is selected)
-H M Revenue & Customs VAT disputes
-Employer compliance disputes PAYE/ P11D/ NIC
-IR35 disputes
-Now covers business's with an annual turnover of up to £10 million
To find out more, please use this link Taxwise
What is TAXWISE?
TAXWISE is a tax-fee protection service that will pay up to £75,000 towards your accountant's fees in the event of an HM Revenue & Customs full enquiry or dispute. The Policy has been designed to combat the costs and inequities of undergoing the ever-increasing number of HM Revenue & Customs random investigations.
Taxwise Coverage
The standard cover provides representation costs by registered accounting practices on your behalf, for up to £75,000 in any one claim, arising from:
-Income Tax Self Assessment full enquiries
-Income Tax Self Assessment aspect enquiries (if this option is selected)
-Corporation Tax Self Assessment full enquiries
-Corporation Tax Self Assessment aspect enquiries (if this option is selected)
-H M Revenue & Customs VAT disputes
-Employer compliance disputes PAYE/ P11D/ NIC
-IR35 disputes
-Now covers business's with an annual turnover of up to £10 million
To find out more, please use this link Taxwise
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Lost The Plot
Lost The Plot
The FT is suitably scathing about the FSA decision to kowtow to the insurance industry wrt compensation payments for mis-selling endowment policies.
"So FSA has bottled it once again. Faced with pressure from the insurance industry, they have backed away from fully enforcing a ban on using policyholders' money to mis-selling bills.
The decision appeared in document CP 09/09: "Proprietary firms will no longer be able to pay compensation and redress payments from their with-profits funds, where they arise out of events that occur after the rule takes effect. The position in relation to events prior to the effective date will be unchanged."
So any compensation or redress from new mis-selling cannot come from the with profits fund, but for all past misdemeanours they can still raid policyholders' cash.
The Financial Services Consumer Panel describes this as a "backward step" and says that "having uncovered unfairness, the FSA should resolve it".
Predictably, the FSA has allowed intense lobbying from the powerful insurance industry to override consumer fairness. Reading through the comments from respondents in this consultation paper illustrates how many insurance companies are still living in the dark ages.
Some argued that policyholders have no interest or rights in any inherited estate that might exist in with profits funds. Others referred to previous consultation papers without appearing to have noticed that these have been overtaken by clarifications and later statements.
So once again the dinosaurs have outwitted the FSA and consumers will be left to pick up the bill as insurers continue to raid their savings to pay mis-selling bills."
The FT is suitably scathing about the FSA decision to kowtow to the insurance industry wrt compensation payments for mis-selling endowment policies.
"So FSA has bottled it once again. Faced with pressure from the insurance industry, they have backed away from fully enforcing a ban on using policyholders' money to mis-selling bills.
The decision appeared in document CP 09/09: "Proprietary firms will no longer be able to pay compensation and redress payments from their with-profits funds, where they arise out of events that occur after the rule takes effect. The position in relation to events prior to the effective date will be unchanged."
So any compensation or redress from new mis-selling cannot come from the with profits fund, but for all past misdemeanours they can still raid policyholders' cash.
The Financial Services Consumer Panel describes this as a "backward step" and says that "having uncovered unfairness, the FSA should resolve it".
Predictably, the FSA has allowed intense lobbying from the powerful insurance industry to override consumer fairness. Reading through the comments from respondents in this consultation paper illustrates how many insurance companies are still living in the dark ages.
Some argued that policyholders have no interest or rights in any inherited estate that might exist in with profits funds. Others referred to previous consultation papers without appearing to have noticed that these have been overtaken by clarifications and later statements.
So once again the dinosaurs have outwitted the FSA and consumers will be left to pick up the bill as insurers continue to raid their savings to pay mis-selling bills."
Friday, May 15, 2009
Which? Campaign
Which? Campaign
Which? have launched a campaign to lobby the FSA to change its decision re allowing life assurance companies to charge compensation costs for mis-selling endowment policies against inherited estate.
Prudential has taken a staggering £1.6BN from the inherited estate to pay mis-selling costs, while Norwich Union (Aviva) has taken £202M and earmarked another £64M for future claims.
Which? thinks it is outrageous that firms can avoid paying the penalty for their mistakes. The FSA seemed to agree that they should change the rules but have gone back on their original proposals. Now the FSA say that they will only stop firms from charging for mis-selling on policies sold from July this year.
This new rule will be almost meaningless, as hardly any new policies are being sold and firms will be still be able to avoid paying the cost of any new cases that emerge of past mis-selling.
Which? have created template letters which can be completed and sent to MPs and the FSA in less than 2 minutes. They can be accessed via this link Which?
Which? have launched a campaign to lobby the FSA to change its decision re allowing life assurance companies to charge compensation costs for mis-selling endowment policies against inherited estate.
Prudential has taken a staggering £1.6BN from the inherited estate to pay mis-selling costs, while Norwich Union (Aviva) has taken £202M and earmarked another £64M for future claims.
Which? thinks it is outrageous that firms can avoid paying the penalty for their mistakes. The FSA seemed to agree that they should change the rules but have gone back on their original proposals. Now the FSA say that they will only stop firms from charging for mis-selling on policies sold from July this year.
This new rule will be almost meaningless, as hardly any new policies are being sold and firms will be still be able to avoid paying the cost of any new cases that emerge of past mis-selling.
Which? have created template letters which can be completed and sent to MPs and the FSA in less than 2 minutes. They can be accessed via this link Which?
Monday, May 11, 2009
Aviva Halves Offer
Aviva Halves Offer
Aviva (formerly known as Norwich Union) has halved its offer to policyholders for a share of the company's surplus investment funds.
As noted on this site earlier this year, Aviva reneged on last year's offer of £1BN to one million policyholders.
Quote:
"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."
The policyholders in two with-profits funds are now being offered £500M of the firm's "inherited estate".
How ironic that Aviva took time out during a rapidly falling market to revise its offer. Cynics might argue that the timing was deliberate, thus ensuring that any payout offered would be reduced.
Aviva (formerly known as Norwich Union) has halved its offer to policyholders for a share of the company's surplus investment funds.
As noted on this site earlier this year, Aviva reneged on last year's offer of £1BN to one million policyholders.
Quote:
"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."
The policyholders in two with-profits funds are now being offered £500M of the firm's "inherited estate".
How ironic that Aviva took time out during a rapidly falling market to revise its offer. Cynics might argue that the timing was deliberate, thus ensuring that any payout offered would be reduced.
Wednesday, April 01, 2009
The Lautro 19
The High Court will take at least a month to decide as to whether to rule in favour of the FSA's appeal to avoid naming the Lautro 19.
The FSA presented new evidence this Monday, which focused on the FSA's argument that confidential information received by the FSA must not be disclosed without consent.
This relates to a Freedom of Information request by IFA Defence Union chairman Evan Owen in January 2005. The Information Commissioner ruled in August 2007 that the FSA had to name the endowment mortgage providers which misused Lautro projections in setting premiums.
The FSA presented new evidence this Monday, which focused on the FSA's argument that confidential information received by the FSA must not be disclosed without consent.
This relates to a Freedom of Information request by IFA Defence Union chairman Evan Owen in January 2005. The Information Commissioner ruled in August 2007 that the FSA had to name the endowment mortgage providers which misused Lautro projections in setting premiums.
Thursday, March 05, 2009
Suckered In
Suckered In
As per The Daily Mirror:
"More than 300,000 homeowners due to clear their mortgage debts this year are facing shameful shortfalls.
And some five million more people will suffer a similar fate in the next few years as a result of monstrous mis-selling of with-profits endowment policies....
Millions of people were suckered into taking out these disastrous policies in the 80s...."
Re being "suckered in", I couldn't agree more!
As per The Daily Mirror:
"More than 300,000 homeowners due to clear their mortgage debts this year are facing shameful shortfalls.
And some five million more people will suffer a similar fate in the next few years as a result of monstrous mis-selling of with-profits endowment policies....
Millions of people were suckered into taking out these disastrous policies in the 80s...."
Re being "suckered in", I couldn't agree more!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)