AVIVA's MVR ate my profit

browniej

2sides2everystory wrote: »

a link to a Key Features PDF which you surely must have in your hand :rotfl:.

She has already said she has this document. Don't let the facts get in the way though.

They have allowed absolutely zero tolerance for the fact you might easily have been given a document that is indeed headed Key Features but which is an early version that got changed,

Unlikely given that we have seen the KFD issued January 2006.

or is the wrong version.

Which is why I have asked her several times to provide this document and still hope that she will.

ellenGB

Doc in link is same as mine and I can now see where it is listed. thank you for taking the time to point it out. Very kind of you. I DO need to go to specsavers. Apologies. I was wrong. It is listed. I saw the criteria in the T & Cs explaining when they would be applied and when they would not. I interpreted that to mean that it would not be applied automatically, as confirmed somewhere else in my documentation. So my impression of MVR was at odds with yours and I accept that yours was more realistic than the blurb in the AVIVA document. Always happy to admit I was wrong so yes, I was wrong to state that the key features made no reference to MVRs. I am therefore very fortunate that it's £20 at the moment.

Again, apologies. How many times did I read over that? Argggh. (Still, I didn't write a fairy tale. 99% was accurate.)

Will slap wrist anyway and some money will go to a deserving charity.

Have been sunbathing and studying so hence have not looked at private messages in the past hour or so.

browniej

opinions4u wrote: »

Even now, I remain confused as to who sold this product.

Is it me? Have I overdone the chocolate?

Ellen, was the seller:

a) An Independent Financial Adviser
b) A financial adviser in a bank or building society
c) A purchase you made directly with Aviva
d) Some other sort of seller

If (d) please exand!

or

e) An IFA now but at the time of sale worked at Aviva as a tied financial adviser ( EllenGB did say earlier that her adviser used to work for Aviva).

ellenGB

Re my IFA, he's recommended a lot of products/funds over the time I've known him and on the whole, I've done well. He liked the NU bonds in 2006/7 because of performance, my situation, need for diversified portfolio etc. I think I've still got an AVIVA fund in my current portfolio. An OEIC though. (He's keen on property). I have the impression, right or wrong, that he's trying to find the appropriate products for me. I became worried about American OEICS a few days ago and phoned him to see if he felt it wise to reduce exposure. And he had a hard time persuading me about property.

ellenGB

PS You can have IFAs working for banks, can't you? I had one who worked for mine. He liked Prudential. Had to complete lots of forms before he'd do anything, in line with regulations.

browniej

ellenGB wrote: »

Doc in link is same as mine and I can now see where it is listed. thank you for taking the time to point it out. Very kind of you. I DO need to go to specsavers. Apologies. I was wrong.

Thank you Ellen for saying this.

(Still, I didn't write a fairy tale. 99% was accurate.)

I think the problem arose as you were convinced that you were right and others who knew the product knew you were not.

Unfortunately each time they asked for information to clarify what was going on, you accused them of calling you stupid, being disrespectful et etc. Each time you did this, you then added extra bits of information which you genuinely thought helped but looked like you had changed your story.

There are many posters on here who give up their own time freely to help others in an area that can be very difficult to understand. I have benefited from that help myself. However they can only do so if they have all the facts and any questions to ascertain those facts should not be seen as a slur.

browniej

ellenGB wrote: »

PS You can have IFAs working for banks, can't you? I had one who worked for mine.

No Ellen - in most cases you cannot.

Banks have FAs - i.e. Financial Advisers - who are only able to recommend products from their own range. Usually only a dozen or so.

IFAs are not connected to anyone and can offer products from the whole range - usually thousands.

Did your adviser work for a bank at the time?

2sides2everystory

Browniej, what kind of IFA should be avoided?

First shouldn't it be understood that actually there are far fewer ultimate providers of certain types of product e.g. Aviva is a conglomerate of what was NU, CU, Morley, GA Life ?

Then shouldn't it be understood that a ruthless commercial relationship exists between an ultimate provider and the IFA business producers? I mean many smaller IFAs are surely denied agencies with some larger ultimate providers unless they produce a minimum amount of business ? And then they might have to use middlemen who take a cut ?

It isn't an open for all who qualify academically as IFA's to instantly start doing business with who they like is it?

And aren't many of the funds heavily tied up in devices/funds offered by largely bank owned organisations e.g. Black Rock ?

And were not most of the current batch of IFA's originally reps from the larger organisations who saw some opportunity to take clients from their employer's grasp and set up on their own ?

There isn't a school / university for IFAs that produces unbiased IFAs. It's just the university of life that turns out a mixed bunch isn't it?

ellenGB

My current IFA (who arranged the NU bonds) works for a city firm. His current business card says independent financial advisor. I have not kept older cards. I thought, wrongly, that I had an IFA working for Lloyds Private Banking. However, just found his old card and there's no independent. He's FA. He actually didn't offer me any Lloyds products. My bank manager did though. FA told me that he had access to whole of market.

Going back to the IFA, he checked my finances, advised on inheritance tax, advised how much I needed to keep in cash, and knew what I had in my bank. On that basis, he suggested the NU bonds.

My story changed as my information changed. It evolved and I updated. It may well have confused and I apologise if I wasn't clear, but it was the truth. I was accurate, I noticed the criteria (we have those in my work) though with respect to that one thing, I was clearly blind. So the story did change as info changed. I relied on my IFA who felt that the MVR was high and didn't understand why it was still being applied, given the criteria. I was in no position to argue. It wasn't stupidity. Just lack of specialised knowledge. I trusted my IFA.

Agree that I'm sensitive to suggestions of stupidity and dishonesty etc. First comes from history of dyslexia and accusations as a child. Second from seeing scientists who are not as objective as they should be and rewrite history, hype etc. I don't wish to be like them. As I noted before, an achilles heel. Or two.

Thank you to all who tried to help.

browniej

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Browniej, what kind of IFA should be avoided?

One who does not back up his recommendations with research.

And then they might have to use middlemen who take a cut ?

An IFA provides financial planning - that is what you pay them for.

Of course they may use a product where the product provider has charges.

And were not most of the current batch of IFA's originally reps from the larger organisations who saw some opportunity to take clients from their employer's grasp and set up on their own ?

That's real life. You don't start at the top - you have to work up to there.