AVIVA's MVR ate my profit

Derivative

ellenGB wrote: »

Not sad. This thread wasn't about it at all. Complete misrepresentation. Now that's sad.

If you say so. I'll gladly edit my post if you disagree with any of the points.

dunstonh

darkpool wrote: »

let's all be grown ups here. you really think IFAs emphasise how guaranteed bonuses can be reduced?

i type of think we'll all have to agree to disagree on this one.

but i agree that people should read the t and cs.

As you want to be grown up then yes IFAs do emphasis the risk factors of an investment. Describing the MVR is a virtual mandatory on any suitability report and has been since about 1999. However, you would not emphasise how guaranteed bonuses can be reduced as that isnt how it works.


Look at the current Aviva KFD on the portfolio bond and look on the very first page under risks:

http://www.aviva.co.uk/adviser/life-insurance-documents/view-document.cgi?f=in50002.pdf&lid=prod-lit-Portfolio&lpos=in50002.pdf

Couldnt get clearer than that and that is just on the tax wrapper.

Here is the one on the current version of the fund:
http://www.aviva.co.uk/adviser/life-insurance-documents/view-document.cgi?f=in22120.pdf&lid=prod-lit-Portfolio &lpos=in22120.pdf

Notice the bit that mentions that the guarantee only applies on year 5 and year 10.

Aviva have had the 10 year MVR free exit point for years. Certainly at least 10 years. The 5 year exit point comes and goes depending on offers at the time.

2sides2everystory

Let's try and give this thread some balance shall we?

With Profits - I've had WP contracts continuously for over 30 years - not the same ones - several. Still have four running right now including one with Aviva that started about 6 years ago.

No adviser (of several) has ever explained MVR to me.

I've heard of it, many times over the last decade, and more so lately, always in a bad light.

MVR is just something dreamed up / creamed off by bad-*ssed financial services providers.

That is what caused this thread.

Companies like Aviva should not have been allowed to completely redefine how With Profits worked and to continue calling the product With Profits. That's a bit like taking the motor out of the product most of us used to expect would clean our carpets, replacing it with something that just made similar noise, and then when the noise device falls off and the failing product reveals itself to be a manual dustpan and brush made of dodgy plastic the supplier insists on still calling it "a Hoover" but with an MDB.

With Profits always meant a cautious investment where instead of ups and downs in the performance of funds being directly reflected in individual policyholder's fund values each year, some conservatively calculated and affordable irrevocable bonuses were added annually instead. Some of the fund profits were kept back in the good years in order to be brought into play to maintain or nearly maintain previous bonus levels i.e. to smooth out the troughs in less good years. Once added, bonuses could not be revoked.

Anything that the provider argues entitles them to take away from these bonuses is simply evidence that daylight robbery is taking place.

Trouble is, far too many "workers" in the UK have been on financial services or phone company or edgy retail business' payrolls and been groomed to toe their lines. The rest of us have grown used to daylight robbery, and of course no current financial advisor is prepared to admit to anything of the sort.

That's what is really sad

JamesU

ellenGB wrote: »

And the MVR for the second bond is £1800 (year 4). Tempted to get that reviewed too. If you don't try, you don't get.

So in reality this thread is nothing to do with misunderstanding of T+Cs on wpb's, minimum five year term etc? Rather a focus on forcing a wpb provider to reduce their MVR by finding holes in the T+Cs? Is that what this is all about really?

JamesU

magpiecottage

darkpool wrote: »

i just don't get how someone can guess what a document said and use the imagined document in an argument. a judge would find that amusing

Oh yes - I can see exactly what happens in court.


DunstonH, a Diploma qualified IFA explains that it has not been possible to produce the exact document because neither party has a copy any longer. However the COB rules of the Financial Services Authority, in force at the time, required it to be provided. In fact, its predecessor, the Personal Investment Authority had introduced it over ten years previously.

Although he does not know which actual version was produced, he can provide examples of the type that Norwich Union was using around that time and, as we can see, it explains the reasons for the MVA (to ensure compliance with FSA principle 8), how it works and the circumstances in which it applies.


Darkpool, who has no financial services says that this amounts to a wild guess because it is reasonable to suppose it is more likely than not that Norwich Union decided to remove all reference to the MVR in order to rip off its customers.

Of course, Darkpool has no evidence to support his allegations. He can possibly produce evidence of a disappointing return on his own WP bond but that does not have any bearing on what Norwich Union may or may not have said.

Clearly Darkpool would expect the judge to agree with him. He would get an unpleasant surprise.

magpiecottage

ellenGB wrote: »

And the MVR for the second bond is £1800 (year 4). Tempted to get that reviewed too. If you don't try, you don't get.

If you are going to claim that your complaint is the cause of Aviva reducing its MVR across the board (because it is not allowed to do it just for you) then I would like to make clear that I bought a new boiler this month and obviously this is the reason why we are enjoying an Easter holiday with weather normally associated with July.

opinions4u

ellenGB wrote: »

Individuals have been reported.

for what ?

I can see it now:

"The IFA said I was probably wrong, and was backed up by Jem who called me a 'chancer' which has really hurt my feelings. Somebody called MagpieCottage then had the cheek to mock my implication that I'd managed to change Aviva company policy on MVRs. They even rounded on Darkpool who seemed to support my views, although I didn't really understand his inane and contradictory ramblings. These people shouldn't be allowed to challenge me on a public messageboard. I'm a doctor and have the right to play God don't you know!".

I can visualise Martin Lewis mowing his lawn on a bright Saturday morning, getting the phone call from the junior office staff chap who volunteered to cover the forum over the Bank Holiday weekend. "Martin, we have a crisis. Somebody's upset Ellen. I think I need you to come in and handle this, because somebody's implied she's trying it on a bit with Aviva and she's not happy about it".

Martin kisses his wife goodbye and leaves her in charge of his newborn as he starts the drive in to his London offices (enjoying the thought of not paying the congestion charge because it's weekend) to take on the nasty posters who hide behind screen names. He ponders what to do. It's serious enough to require his personal intervention. Allegations such as "you don't understand the product you bought" and "you haven't really provided full details ..." are hurtful and should be allowed. Such levels of disagreement in this day and age could require the intervention of Her Majesty's constabulary. Indeed, 2 members of Scotland Yard's finest have already sent a PM to Martin to volunteer to take on this complex case, realising that it could be their last chance of double time overtime before police pay and benefits come under a proper cost cutting review.

Serious stuff.

ellenGB

Someone above inferred that I've tried it on with AVIVA but that would be like claiming that Martin tries it on with the banks. One call today and I'm £1000 better off with bond 2. Don't suppose anyone would care to insult Martin and suggest he didn't know his product or didn't understand/read the T & Cs or that he wasn't driven by things we used to value such as fairness and justice? If something doesn't meet the T & Cs, sensible people point it out and hope that the company play fair. They did (after a nice letter from the FO, could be coincidence) and I am better off today than I was before. That's about £2000 in a week. I think Martin would be impressed.

darkpool

magpiecottage wrote: »

Oh yes - I can see exactly what happens in court.


DunstonH, a Diploma qualified IFA explains that it has not been possible to produce the exact document because neither party has a copy any longer. However the COB rules of the Financial Services Authority, in force at the time, required it to be provided. In fact, its predecessor, the Personal Investment Authority had introduced it over ten years previously.

Although he does not know which actual version was produced, he can provide examples of the type that Norwich Union was using around that time and, as we can see, it explains the reasons for the MVA (to ensure compliance with FSA principle 8), how it works and the circumstances in which it applies.


Darkpool, who has no financial services says that this amounts to a wild guess because it is reasonable to suppose it is more likely than not that Norwich Union decided to remove all reference to the MVR in order to rip off its customers.

Of course, Darkpool has no evidence to support his allegations. He can possibly produce evidence of a disappointing return on his own WP bond but that does not have any bearing on what Norwich Union may or may not have said.

Clearly Darkpool would expect the judge to agree with him. He would get an unpleasant surprise.

i was actually referring to opinion4u who guessed what the original document said. i think we can all agree a guess isn't very strong evidence.

exactly what allegations have i made do you disagree with?

i freely admit that i have no financial qualifications and i do not work in financial services. but perhaps that means i have less bias than people that make their living selling WP products?

If a double glazing salesman wrote on a thread how good double glazing was people would be sceptical.........

perhaps if someone reading this has bought a WP product recently they could confirm if the IFA discussed MVA? I would imagine the IFA would have concentrated on the smothing though.

magpiecottage

darkpool wrote: »

i was actually referring to opinion4u who guessed what the original document said. i think we can all agree a guess isn't very strong evidence.

But my point is that DunstonH and I can produce evidence - so it is not a guess on our part but a conclusion based on evidence.

darkpool wrote: »

i freely admit that i have no financial qualifications and i do not work in financial services.

Which is why, unlike DunstonH and me, you have no evidence

darkpool wrote: »

but perhaps that means i have less bias than people that make their living selling WP products?

I do not sell the them either - but nor do I bear a grudge because I had one that did not perform as well as I had hoped. Such a person would, I think hardly be impartial.

darkpool wrote: »

perhaps if someone reading this has bought a WP product recently they could confirm if the IFA discussed MVA?{/QUOTE]

IFAs normally do. EllenGB insists that her IFA did nothing wrong - in which case he will have done.

darkpool wrote: »

I would imagine the IFA would have concentrated on the smothing though.

The word I have highlighted seems to be your problem!