MVA Can anyone tell me it's not just robbery?

dunstonh

IMO With Profits have been found out - no one should be selling them anymore..

You tell that to those invested in the likes of the modern Pru or Aviva WP funds who are beating cash and if you look at 10 year performance compared to the FTSE last year, WP funds would have been ahead.

To rule out all versions of WP funds without actually knowing anything about them is irresponsible. There are certainly some you wouldnt want to be in but there are some that are pretty good.

So far, the negative posters are showing a distinct lack of understanding. Lack of understanding is acceptable as some of the products these funds are attached to are complicated. However, rudeness and stupidity are not acceptable. Still, some people prefer to mouth off like that and remain ignorant rather than understand what they have.

parcival

Surprise surprise the last 2 posts are from people with large vested interests - a financial advisor and someone who works for the Pru.

I have a very reasonable understanding of WP and can say that the Pru WP in which I have a large investment is reasonable. The Aviva fund is pathetic if you take out the special bonuses and reatribution.

I have Standard Life which is worse than useless.

Both SL and Aviva have performed far worse than the best cash accounts over the nine year term and both have had MVA's for a large part of the 9 years.

Don't try and defend the indefensable.

dunstonh

Surprise surprise the last 2 posts are from people with large vested interests - a financial advisor and someone who works for the Pru.

See what I mean about stupidity.

I have a very reasonable understanding of WP and can say that the Pru WP in which I have a large investment is reasonable. The Aviva fund is pathetic if you take out the special bonuses and reatribution.

So, how do you explain some of the Aviva WP investments beating Pru over the same period?

I have Standard Life which is worse than useless.

I would go with that.

Both SL and Aviva have performed far worse than the best cash accounts over the nine year term and both have had MVA's for a large part of the 9 years.

Except the ones that havent.

Please let us know of a savings account that has exceeded 5% p.a. net for the last 5 years?

i.e. Aviva invested on 17/2/05 £100k. Now worth £108465.21 (close yesterday) and had £20,852.52 in withdrawals paid out (£3903 MVR)
or Pru invested on 6/10/03 £90k. Now worth £104,853 and had £24,120 in withdrawals so far. (no MVR currently)

Don't try and defend the indefensable.

Dont be so blinkered

parcival

Stupidity - agreed for being led to buy a product from the Financial Services industry whose prime motive seems to be to look after it'self.

The Aviva policy has only performed reasonably due to the 3 special bonuses which were NOT envisaged at time of sale.

Over the period of 9 years it has at times been possible to obtain 7% plus in fixed term accounts (both wife and I are non tax payers which the IFA knew at time of sale). Had we invested the money that we placed with Aviva and SL in the best available accounts we would have been far better off AND we would not have been faced with MVA's.

Feel free to make any further comment but all of your numbers simply don't stack up in my case.

I think the 'industry' would do it'self a favour by admitting that MOST of these products have gone past the sell by date.

casey_junior

TMFTP wrote: »

In which case, Casey, you may have guarantees on your transfer which make the fund value irrelevant. Without a review of the value of your contributions, growth and effect of guarantees, it's impossible to comment on the fund value.

Your fund may also have benefitted from the reattribution exercise Aviva undertook last year.

CHeck:
https://www.lifeft.qs.aviva.co.uk/fundtransfer/announce/am-i-nv-eligible.do

There are absolutely no guarantees with this policy, and the fact that yourself and dunstonh in a previous thread mentioned the same thing only confirms my belief that I was sold a pup, If there were such guarantees around at the time, why was I not offered any? or would that have affected the FAs comission?

dunstonh wrote: »

So far, the negative posters are showing a distinct lack of understanding.

I'm posting here to try to understand

Lack of understanding is acceptable as some of the products these funds are attached to are complicated. However, rudeness and stupidity are not acceptable.

Where do you see the rudeness? Mabye in your own posts?
Can't see any stupidity though.

Still, some people prefer to mouth off like that and remain ignorant rather than understand what they have.

I think I know now what I have, and it probably is a very good reason to "mouth off", as there's no recourse to anything else!

DavidLaGuardia

casey_junior wrote: »

Financial advisers are the dogs !!!!!!!!, they will sell you each new product as the best thing since sliced bread and when it goes wrong they will smile at you and tell you its your own fault..
As i have said before in another post, private pensions are a rip off, the only winners are the financial advisers, the financial institutions and the tax man.

I would agree that some people working in Financial Services over the years have been repsonsible for bad advice. I know also that the vast majoority of misselling rests with the banks and some insurance companies rather than the IFAs which Dunstonh is among. In any case, you are tarring all with the same brush appropriate for a few is ridiculous. And.. how on earth does the tax man win???

casey_junior wrote: »

Can you convince me after paying into pension schemes for 35 years and finishing up with a total pension £15 pw greater than what the state would pay me ,that I have not been ripped off.

How can any one answer that without knowing what you put in?
Though tax favoured, in terms of investments Pensions are neutral. It is the investment(s) held in the pension that can be good, indifferent or crappy.

Old_Slaphead

dunstonh wrote: »

You tell that to those invested in the likes of the modern Pru or Aviva WP funds who are beating cash and if you look at 10 year performance compared to the FTSE last year, WP funds would have been ahead.

Just checked the WP element of my Aviva Portfolio bond taken out in June 2000 - so here's the 9 year performance to June 2009.....

Unit price up 33% however there's a 20% MVA so overall they're up by 7%.

FTSE allshare down approx 27% although there's probably around +33 to37% compound divs to take account of giving an overall return of approx +6 to10%.

My Aviva investment June 2009 - June 2009 certainly hasn't beaten cash returns and has underperformed Aviva Managed fund over that time period.

I'm not complaining as I'll get out later this year without the MVA (but in any case that shouldn't be applied as markets gone up 20+% in last since June 2009). Certainly between 2000 and 2009 my WP investment didn't outperform cash or FTSE AS performance.

casey_junior

DavidLaGuardia wrote: »

I would agree that some people working in Financial Services over the years have been repsonsible for bad advice. I know also that the vast majoority of misselling rests with the banks and some insurance companies rather than the IFAs which Dunstonh is among. In any case, you are tarring all with the same brush appropriate for a few is ridiculous. And.. how on earth does the tax man win???


He's the third person to have a dip into my pension pot after the FA and the provider



How can any one answer that without knowing what you put in?
Though tax favoured, in terms of investments Pensions are neutral. It is the investment(s) held in the pension that can be good, indifferent or crappy.

What I put in was £10k in 1988 in respect of 21 years contributions (contracted in) with my first employer which was projected to give me a pension of between £14k and £18k pa. The present value is £43k not guaranteed with an estimated retirement fund of £61k next year at 65. Going by data available this should buy a pension of c. 2050pa. This compares with a pension of £4150pa which I calculate I would have received had I preserved my pension with my employer.

My next 14 years contributions were in a contracted out scheme which has been in administration since 2000, Another poster has estimated this to be worth £3k pa which I think is too high, the state pension forecast saying it is £17 pw short

I paid nothing into a pension in my last employment as the wages were rubbish.

So if I take my state pension forecast £150
my annuity £40
my pension in admin £30

this gives me a total of £220
on which I am liable for tax of £8


I am then left with £212 pw. Had I not contributed to any pension in my working life, I would receive £197 pw according to the benefits website, so was it worthwhile paying into pensions?

noh

Had I not contributed to any pension in my working life, I would receive £197 pw according to the benefits website,

How do you get the figure of £197
Is that for a couple or a single person?

The figures are £132.60 for a single person or £202.40 for a couple.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Pensionsandretirementplanning/PensionCredit/DG_10018692

Calculator here:-
http://pensions.direct.gov.uk/en/pension-credit-calculator/calculate.asp

If you have a partner you need to add their retirement income to yours to get a valid comparison.

casey_junior

It comes from the benefit adviser on the gov website.