AVIVA's MVR ate my profit

jem16

darkpool wrote: »

ehhhmmm i think you did compare the WP in question against the FTSE100

Which post would that be - perhaps you can quote it?

All I can see is this (Post 2) in answer to the OP's suggestion that the FTSE was well over 6000;

dunstonh wrote: »

If you had invested in the UK all companies sector then that figure would be applicable. However, you didnt and probably a good job as currently over 5 years the WP fund has outperformed it.



Wait until the MVR is removed. Or if you don't want to invest in a partially protected asset fund and prefer to move up the risk scale and invest in the FTSE100 linked fund then accept the step back to move into that.

magpiecottage

jem16 wrote: »

I just get the feeling that the IFA is probably blameless.

I think so too - I missed the ref to a KFD because she kept harping on about other documents.

jem16 wrote: »

Which she is further trying to delete as she is on here right now deleting posts. The post numbers you refer to earlier do not now match up.

That goes some way to confirming that what she (incorrectly) claimed I accused her of might actually be true.

If I were her IFA and knew what she had done on this thread I would be ditching her as a client.

This bond is not, in my view, a particularly good product but it is not a toxic investment.

On the other hand, many IFAs have found, to their cost, that there is such a thing as a toxic investor.

magpiecottage

darkpool wrote: »

you didn't say that at the start of the thread.

I was trying to explain why EllenGB did not have a case against Aviva, not why she might have one against her IFA.

jem16

magpiecottage wrote: »

That goes some way to confirming that what she (incorrectly) claimed I accused her of might actually be true.

Have you read the newly edited Post 1? Or I should say newly oft edited Post 1 as it has changed several times in the last 15 minutes or so.

ellenGB wrote: »

Arranged by a person who was very knowledgeable about what were then 'Norwich Union' bonds.

snip


The Key Features do not mention MVR at all.

Seems odd.

If I were her IFA and knew what she had done on this thread I would be ditching her as a client.

He is now being referred to as "Arranged by a person who was very knowledgeable about what were then 'Norwich Union' bonds." Seems a bit of an odd way to describe an IFA you are supposed to have a good relationship with.

This bond is not, in my view, a particularly good product but it is not a toxic investment.

The Portfolio Bond itself was actually one of the best 5 years ago but only if used in the correct way. My Portfolio Bond ( no with-profits funds though) has increased by 31% in 5 years.

jem16

ellenGB wrote: »

The Key Features do not mention MVR at all.

So my KFD on the same bond issued February 2006 mentions the MVR on Page 4.

Yours issued in May 2006 does not mention the MVR.

Current KFD dated 10/2010 mentions the MVR on Page 2.

I'll leave the readers of this thread to draw their own conclusions from that.

2sides2everystory

I am sick to death of seeing so called professionals and other mischief makers on MSE heaping scorn on consumers who have been diddled.

With Profits funds have been plundered and are still being plundered by companies like Aviva and AXA. What is worse, they are creating a website full of indecipherable Ts&Cs to confuse the hell out of any interested consumers and to manufacture evidence for no other reason than to defend future complaints which are inevitable and part of their design.

Look at this goobledegook http://www.aviva.co.uk/adviser/product-literature/view-document.cgi?f=gn16214c.pdf

Why did Aviva really mess with WP creating such a mishmash of Old and New ? Rationalisation? Don't make us laugh. They are doing exactly the opposite.

Why has the OP been busily modifying her posts? Because she was threatened in this thread by mischief makers who indicated plainly that they wanted Aviva to have some ammunition to deny her complaint. That is really sickening.

A distinction in complaint handling ? Yeah right. Come back when you are a QC or a High Court Judge and we might be impressed.

I have lost patience with those of you who sometimes post something worthwhile amongst your thousands of posts. Just lately I would say that the damage you do to the consumerist cause far outweighs any interesting stuff you may have posted.

You are not being nice to other moneysavers.

Get thee gone.

dunstonh

The portfolio fund KFD (reference: IN50 002) dated 01/2006 has the following paragraph in it:

We may apply a market value reduction if you take money out of our with-profit funds. This would reduce the quoted value of the amount taken out. This is most likely to happen following a large or prolonged fall in the stock markets or after a
period where investment returns are regularly below the level we normally expect. This is explained in more detail in the ‘Guide to Investment in our with-profit funds’ booklet.

There were also further documents specific to the with profits fund ranging from a single flyer summarising key positive and negatives, a slightly more detailed version and a full version. Basically catering for those that want to know a little, a bit more or the full works.

I am sick to death of seeing so called professionals and other mischief makers on MSE heaping scorn on consumers who have been diddled.

I knew I had you on my ignore list for a reason from earlier threads. shame on me for opening your post to take a peek. Your posts are completely negative of any institution even where there is no wrong doing. Completely lacking in balance.

If there is wrong doing then it should be addressed. However, where there is no wrong doing then there is no point being anti-establishment just for the sake of it.

I have lost patience with those of you who sometimes post something worthwhile amongst your thousands of posts. Just lately I would say that the damage you do to the consumerist cause far outweighs any interesting stuff you may have posted.

You are a good example of the bad side of this site. You don't want to help people. You just want to be negative all the time. The damage you do the consumerist cause far outweighs any interesting stuff you may have posted.

talexuser

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Why has the OP been busily modifying her posts?

Because it's become very clear in the course of the thread they didn't add up in the first place!

jem16

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Why has the OP been busily modifying her posts?

Trying to hide her tracks it seems. Someone who doesn't have anything to hide doesn't do this.

Because she was threatened in this thread by mischief makers who indicated plainly that they wanted Aviva to have some ammunition to deny her complaint. That is really sickening.

What's really sickening is the amount of abuse those posters have been subjected to simply by disagreeing with her.

Aviva didn't uphold or deny her complaint - they simply told her the true value of her MVR after they had reviewed those MVRs for every single customer.

2sides2everystory

It is a beautiful Saturday afternoon on an Easter weekend. I know why I am here. Why are you here ? Is something wrong such that the beauteous outside is not accessible to you right now ?

Perhaps I am wrong - perhaps you are laying on a beach with a Super Mega Amoled or jogging through bluebell woods with some futuristic head-up display that responds to you winking at links ?

Nope - I don't think so.

Maybe you are here slaving at the keyboard out of some sense of duty to spread your version of righteousness and would rather be outside with your family but can't because this vulnerable thread is an extension of your manhood ?

No?

So are you here for your own entertainment acting like barking dogs leashed within reach of the gates and premises being questioned in this thread?

Well take it from this reader that you are doing no good and you are not entertaining tricked consumers looking for solidarity and useful advice that enables them to save and protect their money. Like the 20th Century Essex and elsewhere phenomenum, seeing dogs leashed at other gates is something I find rather sad i.e. that such places still exist.

MVRs are a confidence trick just like that graph you pointed us at jem16. There were always more than enough smoothing funds available for the biggest troughs without having to create a new device called MVR. The sufficient funds were called inherited estate. Only problem is that companies like Aviva have successfully put up fences around huge chunks of it, slamming the door in the face of consumerist campaigners, and are now confident that they and their bedfellows have got away with maintaining the fences long enough to do what they want with WP. That's why I said earlier that they should no longer be permitted to call these funds "With Profit". They turned them into some other very shoddy 'product' long ago. They are not guardians for the remaining fundholders. They'd buy us all off cheaply if they imagined they could get away with it. They'll be trying again shortly.