AVIVA's MVR ate my profit

jem16

ellenGB wrote: »

and I choose not to.

OK then - we can only guess what you really mean then and it might lead to further "misunderstandings".

magpiecottage

ellenGB wrote: »

All I know now is that after the FO wrote, the estimate went from £900 to £20. I'm sure that it's pure coincidence.

It will be - the Financial Ombudsman Service would dismiss a complaint about the decision to impose an MVR under FSA rules DISP 3.3.4R(11) and DISP3.3.4R(13), which effectively force it to do so.

A complaint that you were not aware of the possible outcome would, as has previously been explained, be interpreted as meaning you did not have sufficient information to make an informed decision at the point of sale. Regardless of your opinion of your IFA, he is the one who would need to answer it.

I sympathise with Jem16, though. It has not been easy to establish what is going on.

jem16

ellenGB wrote: »

My IFA used to work for AVIVA and his advice proved accurate and invaluable.

If he used to work for Aviva then he should have been able to tell you right from the start when your no MVR guarantee was/is. He would also have been the best person to have taken this up with Aviva for you - surely that's his job?

If he says that there's something odd, and oops, a few days after my contact with the FO and their letter to AVIVA, there's a massive reduction in MVR, then who is to say that AVIVA might not have been reminded of something they might have forgotten, like what their criteria for MVR are.

Their criteria for MVR is still in place, hence the £20 MVR currently being applied as I have already pointed out to you.

It is also more than a coincidence the Old Slaphead posted to say his MVR with Aviva has just been reduced by 90%.

No, it would ahve been hard to follow this thread, with all the differeing views on MVR and the requests for info already given etc.

There has only been two differing opinions on the MVR - yours and darkpool's. Both of which have been shown to be inaccurate.

Everybody else has posted to say that an MVR is justified.

As to requests for info, you may feel that you provided an accurate picture of what went on. It is very obvious to a lot of others that you did not and what you did post changed often.

dunstonh

If he says that there's something odd, and oops, a few days after my contact with the FO and their letter to AVIVA, there's a massive reduction in MVR, then who is to say that AVIVA might not have been reminded of something they might have forgotten, like what their criteria for MVR are

Who is to say aliens didnt land in Milton Keynes last night?

The reality is that they review MVRs multiple times during the year. End of quarter 1 and end of quarter 3 adjustments are by far the most common times they make the adjustments.

I just checked a couple of Aviva WP plans I have on my books that had MVRs at the end last year and they are all showing increased final bonus and MVR removed.

No, it would ahve been hard to follow this thread, with all the differeing views on MVR and the requests for info already given etc

With respect, your changing position has not helped. The fact you hadnt hit the 5 year point when you indicated you had being one of the key areas. Also, that the WP inflation proof letter that is sent out when you get to 5 years has been ignored. We now know why you havent got that and its because you are not yet at 5 years.

There are actually two differing views from the rest and they are from posters who you know will be like that. The rest shared the same views.

browniej

ellenGB wrote: »

]In the end, you sign a contract becased on AVIVA T & Cs. As their criteria for MVR are not met at this moment, I have saved me a large sum of money.

Why are they applying an MVR then?

ellenGB wrote: »

Current MVR for my bond is £20.

ellenGB

I daren't ask, but you appreciate the difference between £900 and £20. I'm sure they have a reason, based on values etc. My issue is resolved. I shall now focus on this year's ISA.

jem16

ellenGB wrote: »

I learnt from the IFA's who allerted me to the 'what exactly did you know based on the documentation' argument,

I'm glad I helped you with this but I'm not an IFA.

ellenGB wrote: »

I daren't ask, but you appreciate the difference between £900 and £20.

Yes I do as does everyone else I'm sure.

I'm sure they have a reason, based on values etc.

Otherwise known as their criteria for applying an MVR.

darkpool

jem16 wrote: »

There has only been two differing opinions on the MVR - yours and darkpool's. Both of which have been shown to be inaccurate.

yeah, i'll stick my hand up and admit that i don't agree with the financial industry's use of the term "smoothing returns". policy holders get an annual valuation that is subject to reduction.

this is a consumer website, yet people are defending the use of small print to reduce the value of clients investments??? anyone realllly think MVRs are in the consumers interest? anyone else think you shouldn't complain about a policy because the IFA that sold you it might get upset?

so to sum up with profits in one paragraph.

An investment where an annual bonus is added each year depending upon the underlying investments performance. the annual bonuses and initial investment are subject to reduction if the insurance company feel like it. all marketing literature that refers to '"smoothing" returns is misleading as the annual bonuses are in no way guaranteed.

darkpool

dunstonh wrote: »

There are actually two differing views from the rest and they are from posters who you know will be like that. The rest shared the same views.

I think WP policies are a poor investment. I'd honestly be interested if some other posters shared their experience of WPs.

I'm not a stupid person, if hundreds if people post with evidence of fabulous returns from WP i'd consider investing in them. However I doubt many people here will be happy with them.

To start the ball rolling i'll tell you about my WP experience.

I invested an annual sum with Scottish Widows for ten years. At the end of 10 years I got the sum I invested back with 2% on top. I do suspect that the financial industry made a lot more from MY money than I did

jem16

darkpool wrote: »

this is a consumer website, yet people are defending the use of small print to reduce the value of clients investments???

It's not in the small print though - it's in the same large print as the rest of the info.

This website promotes consumer's interests yes. However I doesn't, I hope, promote ignoring the T&Cs that you signed up for and which people should ensure they read. It's the same in every business whether it's a financiial product or buying a bed.

I don't think I have read one post that is advocating the use of WP funds nowadays. However if you do choose to use them you must abide by the T&Cs.

anyone realllly think MVRs are in the consumers interest?

You wouldn't be happy if someone removed a large chunk of cash without an MVR leaving you, as a remaining investor in the same fund, with a smaller amount as that's what's left.

anyone else think you shouldn't complain about a policy because the IFA that sold you it might get upset?

No-one said that either. In fact quite a few posters questioned the IFA's use of the wrapper and the fund. However we don't know the story from the IFA's point either.

Bottom line is Aviva have done nothing wrong.