Report Endowment Misselling Compensation SUCCESSES

2sides2everystory

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

I love it that you posted this when so clearly you are not - laughable. :rotfl:

Whether people still in the industry like it or not, I am an example now of an elder from the financial services industry and not one who was merely in it, but one who has upheld standards in the face of severe for profit criticism. And you laugh perhaps because you feel dinosaurs should remain extinct - is that it?

Where do you fit in to this story Hanky Panky? Are you a force for good or for yourself? I think we probably already know the answer but humour us.

holly_hobby

Hanky_Panky wrote: »

I love it that you posted this when so clearly you are not - laughable. :rotfl:

Thanks Hanky ..

I absolutely agree (I would of course !), but since when does discussing factual issues and clearing up mis-conceptions suddently put you "on a high horse", or the other one was "having it my way" .... when you read them objectively, togther with the content of further posts to others, they do become telling and then amusing rather than offensive - and I'd rather smile than frown any day !

I do have to be be honest though, and say that from the contents of their posts, to both myself and others, that I have really never encountered such a sanctimonious and disagreeable indvidual - its really quite unncessary and altogether unpleasant, but I know some individuals do seem to enjoy acting this way.

It does rather ruin a debate though ...

H x

holly_hobby

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Whether people still in the industry like it or not, I am an example now of an elder from the financial services industry and not one who was merely in it, but one who has upheld standards in the face of severe for profit criticism.

But of course you were ... but of course you did ...

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Where do you fit in to this story Hanky Panky? Are you a force for good or for yourself? I think we probably already know the answer but humour us.

The rest of your post I can't even be bothered to respond to - which gives you an idea of what I think of it. .

What I will say though, is sadly yet another poster who fails to fall in with 2sides views, feels their immediate wrath and barrage of personal insults to boot ...... there is really only one word for this type of behaviour, its called bullying - its distasteful and a most revealling character trait.

H

2sides2everystory

You can throw all the disagreeable words you like at me Holly dear - I am aggressive, rude, bullying, sanctimonious, nasty, wrong, insulting, unpleasant, distasteful and goodness knows what else to someone with your character traits but I have never skewed and ruined a once perfectly good industry in the ways that hoards of people like you have managed on your watch.

There's the ruin. There's no good debate - unless that is you actually have a plan to rebuild it so that it becomes truly worthy again? I don't suppose you even know someone that has such a plan? No need now is there? Insurers can cloak themselves in new names almost in an instant, sell books down the river, and dream all sorts of wheezes which willing helpers will execute for their salary, and get away with it. So resistance is futile, eh?

holly_hobby

Yes you certainly appear to be all of those things - which as you infer are in complete opposite to my own.

It also appears from your comments, that you were out (forced, jumped, retired off) of the industry by the implementation of the FSA87 - which explains a lot.

Further to which we are back to the mud slinging, and jumping on the bandwagon, that the total cause and fault of the endowment issues we face, are solely to be laid at the feet of the adviser and those nasty providers whose only goal in life was to exploit and rip the public off.

Oh do grow up ... your churlishness and arrogance are breathtaking ...

H

Hanky_Panky

Holly - trolls appear in more than one guise

Just ignore it and it may go away. :j

dunstonh

It also appears from your comments, that you were out (forced, jumped, retired off) of the industry by the implementation of the FSA87 - which explains a lot.

I dont think you can even come close to comparing life back then to now. Its chalk and cheese.

holly_hobby

Hi Duns,

I totally agree, pre A day, we all know that suitability/best advice, as we know it post reg, did not underpin a sale, (notwithstanding of course misleading/inaccurate statements, undure care, inc arranging extensive terms into NRA).

So to say that despite this, the industry at that time (when they were part of it) was somehow beyond reproach, with salespersons and their sales statements nothing but open, factual and appropriate - when compared to post regulation conduct is quite, quite, ridiculous - and IMHO a little rosy tinted and idealistic to say the least.

To then infer that the industry has since been tained and ruined beyond reproach by post A day advisers, and the greedy providers who subsequently threw their morals, professionalism and souls out the window, in order to solely expolit the layman for a quick buck and a decent annual bonus, not only without basis, but extremely offensive to those past and present advisers, who continue to work in a heavily regualted enviroment (and quite righly so, as consumer protection should be the foundation from which eveything else is built upon).

Apols .. as I do hate peeps on soap boxes, but sometimes you feel duty bound... !

H x

2sides2everystory

Your apols are not accepted. Get off your soap box and dump your stupid wild assumptions about people who disagree with you. Almost every post you have made in response to one of mine contains a stupid wild assumption followed by some consequent falsely founded assertion.

As Dunstonh says, the periods under comparison are indeed like chalk and cheese. Until the mid 80s the UK insurance industry was generally run by directors with a high standard of ethics. They started to find themselves early retired and the downhill slide began very quickly.

The industrial life branch which you mistakenly assumed I was part of merely because I mentioned a black book was always a bit wishy washy wide boyish to an extent but at least the products performed.

It was when the sharper of the wishy washy wide boys started arriving on the company boards that the problems began. The lunatics started running the asylum. The introduction of "regulation" was just an excuse to dump morals altogether and just pay lip service to what the external regulations demanded. And if they didn't exactly demand something it never happened.

Look what a mess there was with the number of supposed regulators in the 80s. This even continued well into the late 90s early noughties. We even had the crazy situation where Lloyd's Of London was "regulated" by GISC for a couple of years :rotfl:

There in fact followed years of no self-regulation just "light touch / easy touch regulation" and bingo - the type of inside out industry you all inhabit emerged - morals out - anything goes - in (as long as the compliance lawyers say it'll do). Ever wondered why Compliance Officers have mostly needed to be qualified corporate lawyers in your companies?

They've been stretching a point against fairness to maximise profit for years. How many of them have stretched a point against profit to maximise fairness? What? Sure that's unthinkable It wasn't when I started but generally it is now, isn't it?

Chalk and cheese indeed.

holly_hobby

This really is too much ... I've never read so much bitter clap trap in my life .. !!

Oh and for the record and as surprising as this may come, my apology wasn't directed at you.

H