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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)