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:

• 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.

With profits is a misleading term, many of the life assurance companies should be sued for misleading their hapless customers.

Named and Shamed

Named and Shamed

As we all know, endowment policies have proven to be the worst, most costly financial scandal perpetrated on millions of home owners in living memory.

Money Management have produced a list of the worst performers.

Endowments managed by Resolution and Pearl, which bought up several closed-life funds, dominates the list.

Money Management shows that their endowment policyholders have earned less than in a deposit account over 25 years.

Resolution owns Life Association of Scotland, this was the worst performing endowment in the survey. It gave a 3.9% return over 25 years..yes you did read that correctly...3.9% over 25 years.

What exactly have they been doing with people's money?

Crusader and Britannia, also owned by Resolution, were the third and fourth-worst performers at 4.3% and 4.9% respectively.

National Provident was second with a return of 4.2%.

Clive Cowdery, Resolution's founder, has made millions from his dealing with these funds. However, his policyholders haven't.

Ironically some of Resolution's funds have done very well. Phoenix Assurance, owned by Resolution since September 2004, has paid out £317,800 on typical 25-year maturing endowment policies, reflecting an annual growth rate of 20%, or 1,168% more than the Life Association of Scotland policy.

Phoenix has paid out so much because it has been winding down its estate, and distributing the proceeds to 1,500 policyholders.

Resolution owned National Employers Life, with an annual growth rate of 11%, and Swiss Life, at 9.4%, also topped Money Management's list of 25-year policies.

Money Management reveals that some 10 year endowments have in fact lost money over 10 years, even though the FTSE All Share is up 43.3% during the last 10 years.

The worst 10-year policy, Pearl-owned London Life, fell by 1.6% a year while Resolution's Sun Alliance & London Assurance dropped 1.2%, Royal Life fell 0.6% and Scottish Mutual declined 0.4%.

The holders of these useless products are going to receive a nasty shock when these shortfalls crystallise.

Gherkin To Gobble Up Pru

Gherkin To Gobble Up Pru

It is reported that Swiss Re, the Swiss financial group known for the Gherkin in London, is to buy a large part of the UK operations of Prudential for around £5BN.

Swiss Re is reported to have offered to buy the closed life fund business of Prudential. The closed funds contain existing insurance policies, but no longer have new policies added to them.

The approach was made last month on the heals of Mark Tucker's, the CEO of Prudential, plans to shake up the Pru's underperforming UK operations.

Prudential's UK closed life book includes with profits policies and endowment mortgages. The value is estimated to be around £5BN.

The approach has raised questions about the Pru's commitment to Britain. There are rumours that some investors are keen for Tucker to scale back in Britain and concentrate on the faster growing business in Asia and the US.

The sale would give the Prudential £1.5BN. The value of with profits policies is split between shareholders and policyholders. Under the sale of a with profits business, shareholders receive a lump sum to account for the future profits they would have received from the policies.

Swiss Re has bought a series of closed life funds in America, and in Britain it bought Life Assurance Holding Corporation.

Nice to see that someone can make money out of the useless and underperforming endowment policies that were foisted on the unwary British public in the 1980's.

Ever Wondered?

Ever Wondered?

Those of you who are sitting on an unhealthy endowment shortfall, there are estimated to be around 8 million of you, may be wondering why more has not been done by the Financial services Authority (FSA) to bring those who manage these useless polices (ie the life assurance companies) to book.

Well the answer can be found in a speech made, a month ago in Washington, by Sir Howard Davies.

Sir Howard Davies is the director of the London School of Economics, and the former chairman of the FSA.

When he was head of the FSA, Davies decided against playing hard ball with the life assurance industry in respect of their mis-sold and mismanaged endowment mortgages.

In his speech he noted that a more aggressive approach "could perhaps be justified in consumer protection terms". However, it "could well have generated a systemic crisis", because "the amount of compensation politically payable would have threatened the viability of many insurance companies".

In other words he was afraid of the consequences of doing the right thing, because it would hurt the life assurance companies.

A cynic might argue that he was protecting the powerful life assurance lobby, because he was more afraid of them than he was of the hapless consumers who bought these underperforming and useless endowment policies.

Regrettably, it seems, the "old boys network" is still alive and flourishing in Britain.

I assume that Sir Howard, and the life assurance industry did not buy any of these products themselves?

Time Bar To Bring Chaos

Time Bar To Bring Chaos

Life assurance companies, who sold underperforming and useless endowment policies to 8 million home owners, are using a number of methods to reduce the claims being made against them for compensation.

One such method is the time bar, whereby claimants are given a deadline to complain or lose their right to do so for ever.

This neat little trick is allowed by the Financial Services Authority (FSA), which said that an insurer may disregard a case for mis-selling three years after a policyholder receives the first "red" letter warning that an endowment has a high risk of not meeting its target.

Needless to say, there is now a deluge of complaints swamping the system.

Many hundreds of thousands of red letters were sent out in early 2003, this means that the deadline is now fast approaching for these people to make a claim.

The deluge has been further exacerbated by the fact that the FSA has told the life assurance companies that they must remind people 6 months before the final deadline, as to their right to make a claim.

Needless to say the life assurance companies and the Ombudsman will be hard pressed to cope with this deluge of complaints.

It has taken me over two years to reach the final stage of my claims which, for the record, were both rejected.

Simply put, the system can't cope!

This problem is exacerbated by the fact that, according to Chief Ombudsman Walter Merricks, 45% of endowment mis-selling cases were upheld by his office after being turned down by life companies.

These companies are reportedly issuing time bars:

Norwich Union - it has 1M endowment policyholders. It began warning of a time bar last October, giving 12 months' notice.

Standard Life - it has 1.2M endowment policyholders. It will write to customers in coming weeks to remind them about its deadline, giving 12 months' notice.

Royal & SunAlliance - it has 450K policyholders. It began reminding policyholders about time-barring last May and gives policyholders six months to complain after a second red warning letter.

Allied Dunbar/Eagle Star - it has 100K policyholders. Policyholders have 12 months to complain after receiving second letter.

Friends Provident - it has 450K policyholders. They have imposed a three-year time bar after policyholders receive their first red letter.

Pearl/NPI/London Life - it has 100K policyholders. Time barring applies three years after the first red letter.

Axa - it has 160K endowment policyholders. It introduced time-barring last month and is writing to customers giving 12 months' notice.

Scottish Widows - it has 165K endowment policyholders. It introduced time-barring in February, giving customers 12 months to complain after receiving their second red letter.

Good luck!

Obstructive Unhelpful Delaying Tactics

You will recall that, on the 12th of November, I sent my life assurance company a letter asking about commission payments made from my two endowment policies.

Here is the letter that I sent:

"Dear Sir/Madam,

Endowment Policies (numbers **** and ****)

I have a number of queries concerning my two endowment policies (numbers **** and ***), which you manage on my behalf.

Please can you answer the following queries in respect of the above policies:

1. Please can you advise me as to how much commission has been paid to any third party, or connected party, at the time the policies were taken out?

2. Please can you advise me of the names of the companies to which commission payments have been made, in respect of these policies?

3. Please can you advise me if commission payments have been made, at dates other than at the commencement of the policies?

4. If so please can you quantify the amounts, the frequency and the organisations to which these additional commission payments have been/are being made?

5. Please can you advise me if the commission payments referred to in questions 1- 4 above were deducted directly from my policy payments, or have been charged indirectly?

6. If commission payments are still being made on my policies, please can you advise me as to why?

7. Do I have the right to stop these ongoing commission payments?

8. If I have the right to stop these ongoing commission payments, please can you explain as to why you have not drawn this to my attention before?

9. Please can you provide me with an estimate as to negative impact, on the final expected maturity value of my policies, which these payments have had?

Please feel free to contact me if you need clarification of the above.

Thank you in advance for your prompt co-operation.


Yours faithfully..."

Today I received their response; which, not to put too fine a point on it, I regard as obstructive and unhelpful.

Here is their response:

"Thanks you for your letter of 11 November, asking how much commission is being paid monthly to the adviser.

The policy *** was sold by **, direct sales office, South London branch. If you have any queries concerning the sale of these policies please contact us at the above address (note they do not supply the address in the letter, they are the same company why not just pass my letter on?).

You took out plan (**) before 1 January 1995, when the current commission disclosure rules came into force. I cannot give you details of the commission paid to the selling agent without the agent's permission in writing. In order to obtain the commission information therefore, we suggest that you contact your adviser direct (it is my money, yet they will not tell me how much they are taking!).

...."

I will follow this up.

I do not consider that their response has been at all helpful; it leaves me to wonder precisely what they are hiding.