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.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)