AVIVA's MVR ate my profit

magpiecottage

EllenGB

Why have you not posted the Key Features document that your IFA was required to provide you at outset?

I can only think of three plausible explanations:

1. You have lost it. If so, then you have no evidence to contradict that posted by DunstonH.
2. Your IFA never gave it to you. If that is the case, despite all your protestations that he is wonderful, he has broken the rules and, despite my generic disagreements with Darkpool, he is probably correct in your specific case.
3. You do have it but are not posting it because it actually proves the point that we are making.

Can I also ask another question?

Why do you automatically assume that anybody who contradicts you is trolling and report them?

Your position is becoming more and more ridiculous. It begins to look like it is not just your Key Features document that you have lost.

I presume you have never addressed a medical research meeting because if you ever do with the level of evidence you have here, you are likely to have a very rough ride!

darkpool

magpiecottage wrote: »

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.




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




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.



The word I have highlighted seems to be your problem!

You do work in the IFA industry though. It does suggest a certain amount of bias.

You really think clients are happy when a company like aviva uses the T and Cs to reduce payouts? it might be in the contract, but it looks like a con for a product with the selling point of "smoothing" returns

There has been over 200 posts in this thread, so far no one has actually said they thought WPs are any good. Again it does suggest that they do not produce good returns.

anyone here actually been happy with a WP product?

jem16

darkpool wrote: »

You really think clients are happy when a company like aviva uses the T and Cs to reduce payouts? it might be in the contract, but it looks like a con for a product with the selling point of "smoothing" returns

You keep missing the point.

The MVR is used to protect all the customers investing in a with-profits fund. At certain points - the no MVR guarantee - there is no MVR applied. That can be 5yrs, 10yrs or on death.

The MVR does not reduce payments just because the company feels like it.

There has been over 200 posts in this thread, so far no one has actually said they thought WPs are any good. Again it does suggest that they do not produce good returns.

It suggets that it is a niche product only suited to certain investors. If you are one of those you use it, if not you don't.

anyone here actually been happy with a WP product?

The OP is apparently. She also seems to have about 3 of them - so either she likes them or her IFA does.

opinions4u

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.

The "guess" as you kindly put it was actually based on information from other posts in the thread and my knowledge of MVRs from other providers (albeit somewhat dated knowledge). I made it very clear that I haven't seen the original document because I thought it absolutely right to provide that clarity.

While you can choose to mock, nobody appears to have suggested that my brief summary of the points involved is wrong.

If it is, then I will openly accept the facts.

The OP has failed to produce anything that contradicts my summary.

ellenGB wrote: »

You can't have rung the phone line on my documentation, as the AVIVA line I deal is open on Saturday. Today is Saturday.

For the benefit of clarity then, what number is on your documentation?

darkpool

jem16 wrote: »

The MVR does not reduce payments just because the company feels like it.

but they do apply a MVR when the FTSE100 is at a 5 year high.

dunstonh

You do work in the IFA industry though. It does suggest a certain amount of bias.

Magpiecottage deals with complaints. Some of which he will uphold, some reject. That puts him in an ideal situation to know right and wrong. I cannot see how you can accuse him of bias in a role where he does support clients where wrong doing has taken place.

You really think clients are happy when a company like aviva uses the T and Cs to reduce payouts? it might be in the contract, but it looks like a con for a product with the selling point of "smoothing" returns

Absolutely. Clients want products that do what they say. Can you imagine if they printed T&Cs and then didnt follow them?

There has been over 200 posts in this thread, so far no one has actually said they thought WPs are any good. Again it does suggest that they do not produce good returns.

Most posting here are not fans of With Profits. However, your comment on not producing good returns selective reading on your part as its clear that the fund Ellen has, has outperformed FTSE trackers and cash savings whilst offering a capital guarantee.

I still have several on my books which I have not changed as they are meeting objectives of the individuals. i.e. paying out a regular withdrawal of 5% a year net whilst gaining capital growth over the long term whilst offering some security of capital on death. Just because I don't like the product and wouldnt have it myself, doesnt make it unsuitable for those that it is suitable for.

I didn't lose. My MVR is almost gone. I won £1000. I've noted that above.

Ellen, you didnt win anything. Your fund was adjusted just like all the other policyholders were as part of their normal process.

I'd already contacted AVIVA and was shocked at the size of the MVR.

Your MVR size was peanuts. It was under 7% of your original investment. If you cannot handle volatility of that level then what would it have been like had you invested in a FTSE tracker when that lost 40%?

Given the changing information that has occurred on this thread I am beginning to doubt the authenticity of some of what has been posted.

Here is the internal flyer on the fund that was issued 5 years ago:
http://www.aviva.co.uk/adviser/product-literature/view-document.cgi?f=in22032c.pdf

It confirms the 5 years guarantee as posted:

here is the link to the letter and info when you get to 5 years:
http://www.aviva-for-advisers.co.uk/adviser/site/public/news/all/article/?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/hybrid+content+library/news/published-news/aviva+news/wcm397+-+with-profit+inflation

Notice the wording near the bottom that says:
The Inflation Protected Guarantee is not affected by any Market Value Reduction (MVR) or final bonus.

So, the investment performance must be above the guarantee increases for RPI for there to be a final bonus and MVR.

Effectively, the complaint made to aviva is that they performed better than the RPI guarantee offered.

but they do apply a MVR when the FTSE100 is at a 5 year high.

Darkpool, why do you even bother posting here if you dont read the posts. What has FTSE100 got to do with this fund? What about the fact that it has outperformed the FTSE100?

jem16

ellenGB wrote: »

You can't have rung the phone line on my documentation, as the AVIVA line I deal is open on Saturday.

The only phone line that is open on a Saturday is the Call Centre - it does not have the authority to change an MVR because you think it is unfair. I phoned the number that specifically deals with investment products and would have the authority to do what you are suggesting.

What the Call Centre can do is simply quote what is applicable for your bond at this moment in time. In fact you can do this online if you sign up for account management.

https://www.avivacustomer.co.uk/site/public/login

As has been said to you repeatedly - your MVR has been adjusted as part of Aviva's normal procedures and in line with their T&Cs.

It doesn't matter as I followed all the rules and I'm happy.

You are not following the rules now by trying to get Aviva to overturn an MVR on a 4yr old bond. You are trying it on.

You don't have the documentation and T & Cs for my bond so you cannot judge what is fair and what is not.

Wrong again.

I do have all the documentation for the Portfolio Bond issued February 2006 as I have the Portfolio Bond.

As a customer I also know how Aviva deals with any problems and how long it takes.

jem16

ellenGB wrote: »

FYI, The helpline gives you a valuation and breakdown.

Ah now we are finally getting somewhere. You phoned a Call Centre helpline.

There is no one who decides on the spot what your MVR is and I did not claim that someone had changed my MVR because I rang or that she was in a position to change as I rang.

No you are correct - you did not say it. However like most of your info you are a little short on accuracy.

ellenGB wrote: »

One call today and I'm £1000 better off with bond 2.

snip

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.

You insinuated that your phone call today saw reduction in your MVR on Bond 2 because you had contacted the FOS.

With the advice on the thread to check the T & Cs, and the effort to work out why there was such a high MVR on bond 1, I have a good outcome. A fair one.

You would have got that anyway had you simply waited until your 5yr anniversary. Nothing you have done has changed that and it is wrong of you and misleading for others for you to insinuate otherwise.

ellenGB wrote: »

Due to the threat and failure of the moderators to act, I'm leaving this thread.

The moderators can see that everyone on this thread, despite allegations of wrongdoing from you, have been simply trying to get to the bottom of the whole story.

dunstonh

As explained to me by nice man with knowledge, the helpline does not aways have the latest information re MVR. The link between AVIVA's people who calculate the MVRs and the helpline abroad (India?) is not always perfect. And while things may not have always been great in the past, the company has changed and is changing.

A nice man from Aviva on the phone maybe. You rarely get an unpleasant person on the phone. A nice man with knowledge from Aviva answering the phones? That is pushing the realms of believability.

As explained to me by nice man with knowledge, the helpline does not aways have the latest information re MVR. The link between AVIVA's people who calculate the MVRs and the helpline abroad (India?) is not always perfect. And while things may not have always been great in the past, the company has changed and is changing.

Actually, the helpline staff are specifically told to not offer opinion, advice or estimates/guesses on things like that MVR. They are told to stick to what the computer tells that and thats all. The data they have is correct on a daily basis.

magpiecottage

Thank you for your comment at 245 DunstonH.

In fact, I hold the Certificate in Regulated Complaint Handling. It is a specific qualification for those addressing complaints subject to the jurisdiction of FOS. To pass it, you need to have a thorough knowledge of both how FOS works and the FSA's dispute resolution rules.

You do not actually need to pass it to become an adjudicator or an Ombudsman (as far as I am aware, the Chief Ombudsman does not have it) but I have. In fact, not only do I have it but I got a distinction.

I am not looking to blow my own trumpet or promote my services (any IFA who wants my help will know they can PM me anyway).

I say this to show that I really do know what I am talking about and I am capable of looking at the evidence impartially.

Using all that expertise, I cannot see any substance in her allegations against Aviva that would cause me to uphold it.

On the other hand, I think a complaint against her IFA probably WOULD be upheld but for the fact that she seems to have achieved a better return than simply putting the money on deposit and would have done so even if the MVR had been at its previous level. The outcome of such a complaint would probably be that it was likely to have been missold but no loss was suffered as a result.


With regard to post 244, I would comment that if you are not resilient enough to accept contradiction then you really should not post on an internet forum - so provided EllenGB sticks by what she says in post 248 then there is unlikely to be a problem.

If the mods agreed with her views, I would have expected them to have acted in the way she thinks they should have done but, as she says, they have not.

I suppose Atypical is correct and I could actually report her for attempting the threaten me but I really don't see any point.