Do you think I got a good maturity value?

EdInvestor

Mary_Jones wrote: »

In my experience of them over 20+ years they always paid well

A little too well I'm afraid.

... until they sold out to Liverpool Victoria a few years ago.

A better way of putting it might be "were bailed out by LV".This was a failed mutual, like Equitable Life.

dunstonh

Thats twice today Ed that we have agreed on something. Whats going on!

Mary_Jones_2

Well you're the experts, obviously, so you should know. Stock market crash of late 80's, if I remember correctly, would be one.
There is no comparison with Equitable Life. No-one has lost their savings. Where is the evidence of failure? Anyway, when did FA's ever approve of mutuals?

EdInvestor

Mary_Jones wrote: »

There is no comparison with Equitable Life. No-one has lost their savings.

The situation is the same.No-one at either company has lost guaranteed funds at maturity. All will have seen unguaranteed funds unravelling.

Where is the evidence of failure?

Err, why do you think it had to be taken over by Liverpool Victoria?Mutual managements never ever give up control unless they're absolutely forced to - usually in the case of life mutuals because they have run out of capital, as here.:rolleyes:

Anyway, when did FA's ever approve of mutuals?

I'd have thought most advisors liked mtuals a lot - not only did they usually pay high commission and buy their way to the top of the performance tables, but it was so easy to sell a policy - simply mention the question of demutualisation windfalls (nudge, nudge) and the punter would be like putty in your hand....

....of course nobody usually mentioned the question of the extra risk.

nondipoo

EdInvestor wrote: »

The situation is the same.No-one at either company has lost guaranteed funds at maturity. All will have seen unguaranteed funds unravelling.



Err, why do you think it had to be taken over by Liverpool Victoria?Mutual managements never ever give up control unless they're absolutely forced to - usually in the case of life mutuals because they have run out of capital, as here.:rolleyes:



I'd have thought most advisors liked mtuals a lot - not only did they usually pay high commission and buy their way to the top of the performance tables, but it was so easy to sell a policy - simply mention the question of demutualisation windfalls (nudge, nudge) and the punter would be like putty in your hand....

....of course nobody usually mentioned the question of the extra risk.

I feel that LV has cheated nurses out of a lot of money. WE WERE PROMISED WHEN THEY TOOK OVER rnpfn THAT WE WOULD GET A SPECIAL BONUS WAS WELL AS THE TERMINAL BONUS, WHICH WOULD BE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT THEY OFFERED & WHAT rnpfn WOULD HAVE PAID HAD THEY REMAINED A MUTUAL. WHY DIDN'T ANYONE TELL US THAT WE WOULDN'T GET WHAT WAS PROMISED. ii LOST ABOUT £9000 ON APOLICY LAST YEAR AND AM LOSING ANOTHER LARGE AMOUNT ON FOUR DUE OUT THIS MONTH AND NEXT MONTH. IF WE HAD KNOW WE CULD HAVE CASHED THE POLICIES IN EARLY AND INVESTED THEM IN CASH SAVINGS ACCOUNTS, WHICH WOULD HAVE PAID SOMETHING EACH YEAR. THEY DON'T EVEN SHOW THE BONUS CALCULATION ON THEIR STATEMENT.

nondipoo

I don't understand why the RCN didn't advise us not to accept the wording of the take over document on the ffirst place. They don't seem to give us any support over the matter. When I took out my policies they padi out the best amounts compared to other endowments and at first the bonuses were very good. LV has mismanaged the funds and must have made some profit over the last 6 years,m but none of it has come out way, not has any of the special terminal bonus, which was supposed to be a sum of about £1000 per policy.

dunstonh

I don't understand why the RCN didn't advise us not to accept the wording of the take over document on the ffirst place. They don't seem to give us any support over the matter.

They would have required financial advisers to do that and I guess they didnt want to pay for that. Plus, many IFAs would have told you to knock these awful plans on the head and go with an ISA instead which would have cost RCN money as I believe they get a commission cut on all policies that were sold. Most unions/associations have their fingers in the pot somewhere along the line.

LV has mismanaged the funds and must have made some profit over the last 6 years

LV purchased a company that had over paid bonuses and was financially weak. There is nothing to suggest any mismanagement by them. They are taking the blame for something they have no control over.

Milarky

ffacoffipawb wrote: »

£7,600 out for £6,000 in.

That is a tax free return of 4.80%.

Actually more like 4.6%

1 : 612.81
2 : 1254.41
3 : 1926.16
4 : 2629.47
5 : 3365.82
6 : 4136.77
7 : 4943.94
8 : 5789.03
9 : 6673.82
10 : 7600.19

nondipoo

Mary_Jones wrote: »

I have belatedly come upon the discussion about RNPFN savings plans.
In my experience of them over 20+ years they always paid well and compared favourably to other low risk investments until they sold out to Liverpool Victoria a few years ago. Since then they have stopped paying annual bonuses and little if anything in the way of terminal bonuses and justify this on the basis that the returns (allegedly) compare favourably to bank or BS savings rates. The policies were sold on the basis that they did considerably better than ordinary savings accounts.
It seems to me that the substantial RNPFN funds and members loyalty have been a cash cow for Liverpool Victoria who have no interest in maintaining the RNPFN's good record.
What would be interesting to know is whether RNPFN investors have been treated at least as well as other LV members.
Prior to the merger, RNPFN never failed to pay out annual and good terminal bonuses throughout far worse market conditions than we have experienced in recent years. They were supposed to be one of the top performers but not feature in Guardian best buys because they were not open to all.

They were not sold by salesmen coming to the door but advertised via the Nursing Standard magazine as far as I recall. What annoys me is tht the wording of the document issued about the tke over stted that £150m had been put side in order to provide an enhanced terminal bonus as part of our share of the demutualisation. LV don't even mention this in their figures, nor give a proper statement like they used to. When I asked for sttement I was shown just the erly bonuses, not the terminal one.We were led to believe that we would get a large amount of money on term of the policy. Even more annoying is that LV comes top of the list when you compare companies figures, paying out about 5 times what we have been offered for a similar policy and term. Surely this is proof of their mismanagement and the appropriation of our money towrds their own customers policies. There is an obvious need for a proper legal investigation which the RCN should be responsible for financially as it is because of them that we have lost our money which we were depending on for our retirement. What was the point of issuing us with an advice document when it seems to hve been totlaly ignored by LV & to have no legal value?

sambass

Brand new to this game. Too trusting in financial organisations, foolishly believed the blurb. I have a policy, initially with RNPFN (life assurance not pension) due to mature in July but terrified that if I do not do something I will lose the lot. My son has lost his job so I need ready cash to help out. Paid in £50 for 10 years (come July) surrender value £7126.86. Should I hold out for the terminal bonus or cut and run? I asked LV what the terminal bonus would be if the policy matured now, but no joy. Advise please.