We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
AIG - Pensions lost if they goi bust...
Options
Comments
-
GrammarPolice wrote: »But you're missing the point - are ring fenced unit link funds affected if the parent goes bust? Equally, are investors entitled...
Wahey! You started the sentence with a capital letter. Do you have any punctuation for the end?
Trying to eliminate poor grammar from the uneducated masses!
T**t, (think that's how you spell it, capital included)I like the thanks button, but ,please, an I agree button.
Will the grammar and spelling police respect I do make grammatical errors, and have carp spelling, no need to remind me.;)
Always expect the unexpected:eek:and then you won't be dissapointed0 -
-
EdInvestor wrote: »
That relates to their pension annuities. Not unit linked pension plans.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
On the other hand, AIG investment bonds, allegedly guaranteed, might not be so safe.Trying to keep it simple...0
-
EdInvestor wrote: »On the other hand, AIG investment bonds, allegedly guaranteed, might not be so safe.
Investment bonds in unit linked funds have identical protection. The FSCS protection on with profits funds may be more attractive but it also identical except the conventional with profits funds would not be ring fenced in the same way unit linked funds are.
However, the article you link to doesnt seem to be talking about investment bonds. I'm surprised you made such a novice error. Although given your blinkered views on these, perhaps I am not that surprised.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
GrammarPolice wrote: »Wahey! You started the sentence with a capital letter. Do you have any punctuation for the end?
i dont use punctuation and spell porly just to waste the time of people like this!
i always get a slight kick whenever they step in to correct my erors.
Besides, prescriptivists are doomed to failure! english will evolve weather they like it or not. innit! and their aint a fink they can do bout it
*mistakes intentional0 -
SunnySusie wrote: »
*mistakes intentional
eye tink youd fined it's spelt intentnal honie !:rotfl:0 -
Investment bonds in unit linked funds have identical protection. The FSCS protection on with profits funds may be more attractive but it also identical except the conventional with profits funds would not be ring fenced in the same way unit linked funds are.
Dunstonh
My understanding is that the underlying investments in OEICS and the like are "protected" in as much as the title is held by a nominee company "on trust" for the investors. To cut to the chase ... that the insurance company does not own the assets in which the unit-linked are invested and that they are, therefore, protected. The administrator can't control them as the administrator is only appointed to take ownership of the company's assets - not those held by a nominee
Interestingly ..... Lehman's asset management division/company is not in administration. Probably because it owns no assets and simply "manages" assets for the investors - with those assets held by the nominee
Is that "about right" ??????Warning ..... I'm a peri-menopausal axe-wielding maniac0 -
Debt_Free_Chick wrote: ». To cut to the chase ... that the insurance company does not own the assets in which the unit-linked are invested and that they are, therefore, protected. The administrator can't control them as the administrator is only appointed to take ownership of the company's assets - not those held by a nominee
But to what level are they protected?For instance in a SIPP , the underlying investments held in a nominee account attract only the savings limit (ie 48k) not the uncapped pension limit, though a SIPP is undoubtedly a pension.
What about a PP at say, Standard Life, which is invested partly in Standard Life With profits, partly in SL in-house pension funds and partly in external funds?
Is DH sure the PAS is wrong>
And why should a Guaranteed Income Bond at AIG ( a cash- like "investment" ) attract pension type protection?
Some clarification would be useful.Trying to keep it simple...0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 350.9K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.2K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards