L&G Puts The Boot In
It is reported that David Prosser, CEO of Legal & General (L&G), has demanded changes to the Financial Services Authority's (FSA) disciplinary procedures.
This is in the wake of the partly successful appeal by L&G, against the FSA fine of £1.1M for endowment policy mis-selling by L&G.
Prosser asked for greater independence in the FSA's regulatory decisions committee (RDC), that is the body that considers recommendations made by the regulator's enforcement staff.
Currently the chair of the RDC is an FSA employee.
It is reported that L&G may ask the Financial Services and Markets Tribunal to enforce these changes.
Friday, January 21, 2005
Wednesday, January 19, 2005
Norwich Union Cuts Payouts
Norwich Union Cuts Payouts
Norwich Union gave 1M holders of its with profits endowment policies a kick in the teeth yesterday.
It announced that it would be cutting payouts on maturing, longer term, policies by up to 11%.
The cuts are in spite of an investment return of over 11% before tax in 2004.
Norwich Union did at least try to ease the pain, by announcing that it has put aside £1BN to help its policy holders stuck with an underperforming endowment policy.
Mike Urmston, the chief actuary at Norwich Union Life, is reported to have said:
"The last two years of positive returns have not compensated for the negative returns of the previous three years."
Norwich noted that its maturing 25 year mortgage endowments are producing surpluses, over and above the target amounts. However, its 15 year mortgage endowments are falling short.
The company has reduced its exit penalties, that are charged when people cash in their policies early or move their money to other insurers, to a rather high 18%.
Norwich Union gave 1M holders of its with profits endowment policies a kick in the teeth yesterday.
It announced that it would be cutting payouts on maturing, longer term, policies by up to 11%.
The cuts are in spite of an investment return of over 11% before tax in 2004.
Norwich Union did at least try to ease the pain, by announcing that it has put aside £1BN to help its policy holders stuck with an underperforming endowment policy.
Mike Urmston, the chief actuary at Norwich Union Life, is reported to have said:
"The last two years of positive returns have not compensated for the negative returns of the previous three years."
Norwich noted that its maturing 25 year mortgage endowments are producing surpluses, over and above the target amounts. However, its 15 year mortgage endowments are falling short.
The company has reduced its exit penalties, that are charged when people cash in their policies early or move their money to other insurers, to a rather high 18%.
Score Draw
Score Draw
The Financial Services and Markets Tribunal (FSMT) issued its judgement in the Legal & General (L&G) vs Financial Services Authority (FSA) case.
The FSMT yesterday cleared L&G of wide-spread mis-selling of endowments, it noted that only 8 out of the 152 sales reviewed could be proven to be mis-sold.
The Tribunal also noted that the £1.1m fine imposed by the FSA should be reduced, and said a further hearing will be held on this issue.
It noted that ruled that the FSA had been "in error in its approach to the mis-selling case", adding that its conclusions were "not justified by the material before it".
The case has ended up costing L&G more in legal fees, than it will save through a lowering of its fine.
Needless to say both L&G and the FSA are claiming victory.
Whether this ruling helps the 8 million hapless holders of these underperforming, and useless, products remains to be seen.
The Financial Services and Markets Tribunal (FSMT) issued its judgement in the Legal & General (L&G) vs Financial Services Authority (FSA) case.
The FSMT yesterday cleared L&G of wide-spread mis-selling of endowments, it noted that only 8 out of the 152 sales reviewed could be proven to be mis-sold.
The Tribunal also noted that the £1.1m fine imposed by the FSA should be reduced, and said a further hearing will be held on this issue.
It noted that ruled that the FSA had been "in error in its approach to the mis-selling case", adding that its conclusions were "not justified by the material before it".
The case has ended up costing L&G more in legal fees, than it will save through a lowering of its fine.
Needless to say both L&G and the FSA are claiming victory.
Whether this ruling helps the 8 million hapless holders of these underperforming, and useless, products remains to be seen.
Tuesday, January 18, 2005
Judgement Day
Judgement Day
Today is judgement day in the battle between the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and Legal and General (L&G).
The Financial Services and Markets Tribunal will rule in the appeal made by L&G, over the FSA's fine of £1.1M for mis-selling endowment mortgages.
Smart money in the City is on the tribunal giving the FSA a "drubbing" over it's role in this case, and in the manner in which it decided on the fine.
A partial victory for L&G would severely damage the FSA, and open the gates for others to appeal their fines.
Today is judgement day in the battle between the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and Legal and General (L&G).
The Financial Services and Markets Tribunal will rule in the appeal made by L&G, over the FSA's fine of £1.1M for mis-selling endowment mortgages.
Smart money in the City is on the tribunal giving the FSA a "drubbing" over it's role in this case, and in the manner in which it decided on the fine.
A partial victory for L&G would severely damage the FSA, and open the gates for others to appeal their fines.
Monday, January 17, 2005
Backlog Developing
Backlog Developing
It seems that there is quite a backlog of endowment mis-selling cases piling up, at the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).
These cases are now likely to take a year or more to resolve. The FOS had budgeted for around 35000 cases, but now believes that it will be dealing with 67000.
The FOS has hired 200 new adjudicators in 2004, but that does not seem to be enough to cope with the increased number of complaints from people holding useless and underperforming endowment policies.
The FOS is pretty "pissed off" with the endowment providers, and believes that they are not co-operating with the FOS adjudicators.
It seems that there are 10 well known trouble making life assurance companies, who simply reject consumer complaints out of hand. These rejected complaints then land on the desk of the FOS.
It seems that these 10 naughty companies don't even bother to investigate the complaints, but are happy to let the poor consumer wait in limbo for 8 weeks (the FSA time limit) before telling them that their complaint is rejected.
Nice trick guys!
I am pleased to note that the names of these 10 companies have been passed on to the FSA, for fines.
It would be even better, if the names were released to the media; thus "naming and shaming" these companies as well.
It seems that there is quite a backlog of endowment mis-selling cases piling up, at the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS).
These cases are now likely to take a year or more to resolve. The FOS had budgeted for around 35000 cases, but now believes that it will be dealing with 67000.
The FOS has hired 200 new adjudicators in 2004, but that does not seem to be enough to cope with the increased number of complaints from people holding useless and underperforming endowment policies.
The FOS is pretty "pissed off" with the endowment providers, and believes that they are not co-operating with the FOS adjudicators.
It seems that there are 10 well known trouble making life assurance companies, who simply reject consumer complaints out of hand. These rejected complaints then land on the desk of the FOS.
It seems that these 10 naughty companies don't even bother to investigate the complaints, but are happy to let the poor consumer wait in limbo for 8 weeks (the FSA time limit) before telling them that their complaint is rejected.
Nice trick guys!
I am pleased to note that the names of these 10 companies have been passed on to the FSA, for fines.
It would be even better, if the names were released to the media; thus "naming and shaming" these companies as well.
Waste Not Want Not
Waste Not Want Not
It is not the place of this site to lecture people on what they should do with their endowment compensation, if they are lucky enough to receive some.
However, I must admit to being more than a little concerned to read that some people; instead of using the compensation to reduce their outstanding mortgages, are in fact "blowing it" on holidays and consumer items.
The full story is in the Sunday Herald.
This is, in my humble view, a very stupid thing to be doing.
It is not the place of this site to lecture people on what they should do with their endowment compensation, if they are lucky enough to receive some.
However, I must admit to being more than a little concerned to read that some people; instead of using the compensation to reduce their outstanding mortgages, are in fact "blowing it" on holidays and consumer items.
The full story is in the Sunday Herald.
This is, in my humble view, a very stupid thing to be doing.
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
Halifax Tardy
Halifax Tardy
It is reported that Halifax is being somewhat tardy with paying compensation to its endowment policy holders.
Complaints handler, Brunel Franklin, accused Halifax of delaying payments up to 6 months.
Claims director for Brunel Franklin, Ian Allison, is reported to have said:
"We have supplied Halifax with all the information they need to settle these claims quickly, yet they are still refusing to pay out monies that they have admitted is due to clients....This is an outrageous state of affairs and one that people need to know about..."
Halifax say that all cases were handled within the guidelines laid down by the Financial Services Authority.
Halifax spokesman Mark Hemingway is reported to have said:
"We aim to clear compensation cases as quickly as possible, but often we are reliant on calculations coming back from third parties, such as life companies, so this can take time...Among banks and insurers, we are not unusual in the time we take over payment of claims..".
In other words, whoever you are claiming against, you are going to have to wait a long time.
It is reported that Halifax is being somewhat tardy with paying compensation to its endowment policy holders.
Complaints handler, Brunel Franklin, accused Halifax of delaying payments up to 6 months.
Claims director for Brunel Franklin, Ian Allison, is reported to have said:
"We have supplied Halifax with all the information they need to settle these claims quickly, yet they are still refusing to pay out monies that they have admitted is due to clients....This is an outrageous state of affairs and one that people need to know about..."
Halifax say that all cases were handled within the guidelines laid down by the Financial Services Authority.
Halifax spokesman Mark Hemingway is reported to have said:
"We aim to clear compensation cases as quickly as possible, but often we are reliant on calculations coming back from third parties, such as life companies, so this can take time...Among banks and insurers, we are not unusual in the time we take over payment of claims..".
In other words, whoever you are claiming against, you are going to have to wait a long time.
Tuesday, January 11, 2005
Complaint Raised With Ombudsman
Complaint Raised With Ombudsman
Copy of a letter sent to the Financial Ombudsman Service today:
"Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to make a formal complaint about ***’s handling of my request for information about commission payments, on my two endowment policies.
I originally made the request for information on 11 November 2004 and, despite several letters and a phone call, I have yet to receive an answer.
I regard their handling of this matter to be unhelpful and obstructive.
I have enclosed copies of the correspondence, and a summary of the phone call.
Please feel free to contact me if you require further information.
Thank you in advance for your help..."
Copy of a letter sent to the Financial Ombudsman Service today:
"Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to make a formal complaint about ***’s handling of my request for information about commission payments, on my two endowment policies.
I originally made the request for information on 11 November 2004 and, despite several letters and a phone call, I have yet to receive an answer.
I regard their handling of this matter to be unhelpful and obstructive.
I have enclosed copies of the correspondence, and a summary of the phone call.
Please feel free to contact me if you require further information.
Thank you in advance for your help..."
Monday, January 10, 2005
Bonuses Cut
Bonuses Cut
More bad news for the hapless holders of underperforming, and useless, endowment policies.
Axa Equity & Law has announced that it will be halving the annual bonus payments on its with-profits policies from a pathetic 2%, to a derisory 1%.
That is less than inflation, and certainly less than you would get for leaving your money in a savings account.
Legal & General (L&G) has cut interim bonuses on some of its with-profits bonds from 3.5% to 2.75%.
Prudential is maintaining its annual bonus payouts on its Prudence Bond, at 3.25%.
The Actuarial Profession are reported to have said that, despite rising equity markets, bonus payouts "are continuing to fall and are set to do so for a number of years yet".
More bad news for the hapless holders of underperforming, and useless, endowment policies.
Axa Equity & Law has announced that it will be halving the annual bonus payments on its with-profits policies from a pathetic 2%, to a derisory 1%.
That is less than inflation, and certainly less than you would get for leaving your money in a savings account.
Legal & General (L&G) has cut interim bonuses on some of its with-profits bonds from 3.5% to 2.75%.
Prudential is maintaining its annual bonus payouts on its Prudence Bond, at 3.25%.
The Actuarial Profession are reported to have said that, despite rising equity markets, bonus payouts "are continuing to fall and are set to do so for a number of years yet".
Sunday, January 09, 2005
Three Cheers for Liverpool Victoria
Three Cheers for Liverpool Victoria
Liverpool Victoria, the UK's largest friendly society, announced this week that all of its currently maturing mortgage endowment policies would receive a surplus on top of the mortgage amount covered.
In other words, those who hold endowment polices with Liverpool Victoria will receive a small profit over and above the mortgage.
Malcolm Berryman, Liverpool Victoria's group chief executive, said:
"The strong performance of our with-profits fund has ensured a surplus for all of our mortgage endowment policies that have matured or are currently maturing..In addition, our unconditional guarantee gives total peace of mind to our members for the future...."
Liverpool Victoria confirmed that none of its 6,000 mortgage endowment policyholders will suffer a shortfall, whatever happens to future investment returns.
It has made a financial provision to cover this guarantee, this will not have any adverse impact on future financial performance.
Now let us compare this excellent piece of news, with the dismal announcements made by the life assurance industry recently.
After all, they have all faced the same declining stock market!
The answer lies in the manner in which the companies manage their funds. Liverpool Victoria were more cautious when it came to paying out vast annual bonuses, in years of high returns.
They understood the concept of "with profits", namely that the profits made in one year should be used to smooth returns in the years of poor performance.
Unfortunately, it seems that many other "big names" in the "profession" chose to go for big bonuses in order to attract customers.
Needless to say, famine follows feast; when the stock markets started to fall, and with it investment returns, these companies that had paid out super inflated bonuses had nothing left in the cupboard to smooth things over with in the lean years.
I would argue that, in addition to persuing these companies for "mis-selling" polices, people, the FSA and the Treasury Select Committee should be going after them for mismanaging the funds.
After all if one company can produce a surplus whilst operating in the exactly the same market, why couldn't the others?
Liverpool Victoria, the UK's largest friendly society, announced this week that all of its currently maturing mortgage endowment policies would receive a surplus on top of the mortgage amount covered.
In other words, those who hold endowment polices with Liverpool Victoria will receive a small profit over and above the mortgage.
Malcolm Berryman, Liverpool Victoria's group chief executive, said:
"The strong performance of our with-profits fund has ensured a surplus for all of our mortgage endowment policies that have matured or are currently maturing..In addition, our unconditional guarantee gives total peace of mind to our members for the future...."
Liverpool Victoria confirmed that none of its 6,000 mortgage endowment policyholders will suffer a shortfall, whatever happens to future investment returns.
It has made a financial provision to cover this guarantee, this will not have any adverse impact on future financial performance.
Now let us compare this excellent piece of news, with the dismal announcements made by the life assurance industry recently.
- AXA has announced that it will be reducing their payouts
- Standard Life will reduce its payouts to its 2.4M policy holders
- The Actuarial Profession, the body which represents those who run with-profits funds, has warned that the majority of customers will face falls in value of their policies for several years to come
After all, they have all faced the same declining stock market!
The answer lies in the manner in which the companies manage their funds. Liverpool Victoria were more cautious when it came to paying out vast annual bonuses, in years of high returns.
They understood the concept of "with profits", namely that the profits made in one year should be used to smooth returns in the years of poor performance.
Unfortunately, it seems that many other "big names" in the "profession" chose to go for big bonuses in order to attract customers.
Needless to say, famine follows feast; when the stock markets started to fall, and with it investment returns, these companies that had paid out super inflated bonuses had nothing left in the cupboard to smooth things over with in the lean years.
I would argue that, in addition to persuing these companies for "mis-selling" polices, people, the FSA and the Treasury Select Committee should be going after them for mismanaging the funds.
After all if one company can produce a surplus whilst operating in the exactly the same market, why couldn't the others?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)