AVIVA's MVR ate my profit

darkpool

dunstonh wrote: »

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.



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



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.

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?

you must admit it would only be human nature to put a spin on threads here to defend the industry you work in.

i understand why MVRs are applied. But i believe MVRs were originally used after exceptional market downturns. it does seem that now MVRs are now the general rule. if your house burnt down and the insurance company used the smallprint to reduce the payout people would complain. yet people defend the insurance company reducing policy payouts.

Wow, a policy that outperformed the FTSE100. i really am impressed. Perhaps considering aviva have had 5 years of dividends and stock lending fees means that boast is nothing to be impressed by? All an investment company has to do to beat the FTSE100 is buy a tracker and colect the dividends

FTSE100 is the main index in the UK. It's the index i look at each day, what index do you look at?

jem16

magpiecottage wrote: »

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.

Can I ask why you feel a complaint against the IFA probably would have been upheld?

jem16

darkpool wrote: »

if your house burnt down and the insurance company used the smallprint to reduce the payout people would complain.

There are already clauses in a home insurance policy that would reduce the payout such as insuring your home for less than its value.

All an investment company has to do to beat the FTSE100 is buy a tracker and colect the dividends

That would have equalled it, not beaten it. After all a FTSE100 tracker tracks the index.

dunstonh wrote: »

A nice man with knowledge from Aviva answering the phones? That is pushing the realms of believability.

Very true.

darkpool

jem16 wrote: »

That would have equalled it, not beaten it. After all a FTSE100 tracker tracks the index.

you actually know anything about investment? do you know what a dividend is?

if you buy a tracker you also get dividends..... these dividends mean your investment will beat the FTSE100........

jem16

darkpool wrote: »

you actually know anything about investment?

Lots more than you do obviously.

do you know what a dividend is?

Yes.

if you buy a tracker you also get dividends..... these dividends mean your investment will beat the FTSE100........

The returns on the FTSE100 quoted on Trustnet etc include those dividends.

magpiecottage

jem16 wrote: »

Can I ask why you feel a complaint against the IFA probably would have been upheld?

Certainly.

1. As DunstonH has observed, the IFA had a duty to make sure that the MVA was explained to her
2. EllenGB clearly does not understand it
3. EllenGB's comments indicate that the IFA did not understand it either
4. She claims to been given documentation but, apparently, not a Key Features document
5. She wanted the money out within five years.

I would not consider the Terms and Conditions, in themselves, to be sufficient to alert her to the risk of an MVA but I would normally consider the provision of the Key Features document to.

However, against that, I would say that I say that I would uphold on the basis of what EllenGB says. That ignores the fact that, if I were really looking at it, the IFA would have the opportunity to defend himself.

It also assumes that I would be coming to the case without the benefit of this thread and that I would not have read the series of comments made by EllenGB which caused me to question the reliability of her testimony.


So it is not, by any means, a foregone conclusion - simply that what she has said would lean me in her favour in the absence of other evidence.

darkpool

jem16 wrote: »

Lots more than you do obviously.



Yes.



The returns on the FTSE100 quoted on Trustnet etc include those dividends.

why do you think you know more about investment than myself?

you think the OP's investment beat the FTSE100 including dividends? she made 1k on a 15k investment over 5 years. FTSE100 is the same level now as 5 years ago. dividend yield is about 4% a year.

think about it.

darkpool

magpiecottage wrote: »

No - its a waste of Aviva's time, which its other customers will be paying for.

And its a waste of FOS time, which could be used clearing complaints where there is a case to answer. Which in turn means you are wasting the time of those complainants.

how come a few days ago you thought the OP would be wasting everyone's time? now you agree wth her complaint?

dunstonh

why do you think you know more about investment than myself?

Its clear from your posts that you dont seem to know much about investments. For example, comparing a fund that is mostly made up of non equity investments with 100% UK Equity.

you think the OP's investment beat the FTSE100 including dividends? she made 1k on a 15k investment over 5 years. FTSE100 is the same level now as 5 years ago. dividend yield is about 4% a year.

you are wrong. There has been no mention of the current value of what Ellen's investment. The £1000 she mentioned was the MVR before the spring adjustment was made to all policyholders.

However, if you want to compare the fund to others then you can do so via the usual research sites. Ellen has the S4 version.

Without the RPI guarantee, Finex is showing that the aviva uk index tracking fund has made 20.47% over 5 years compared to 19.53% on the WP guaranteed fund. Just a few days ago, the WP fund was higher in value.

Over the 5 year period, the UK Index tracking fund only spent 15 months of the 60 above the WP fund.

think about it.

you must admit it would only be human nature to put a spin on threads here to defend the industry you work in.

What bit of independent do you not understand? This fund is one of around 50,000 I can use. If you think I am going to say all 50,000 odd are good then the accusation of bias stands firmly at your door.

Wow, a policy that outperformed the FTSE100. i really am impressed. Perhaps considering aviva have had 5 years of dividends and stock lending fees means that boast is nothing to be impressed by? All an investment company has to do to beat the FTSE100 is buy a tracker and colect the dividends

FTSE100 is the main index in the UK. It's the index i look at each day, what index do you look at?

again this shows you dont know about investments.

darkpool

dunstonh wrote: »

Its clear from your posts that you dont seem to know much about investments. For example, comparing a fund that is mostly made up of non equity investments with 100% UK Equity

ohhh sorry i thought it was YOU that compared the WP to the FTSE100.

Hold on a second, i done a check and it was definetely you that compared the WP in question to the FTSE100.