AVIVA's MVR ate my profit

dunstonh

darkpool wrote: »

Imagine a policy holder getting a policy valuation from Aviva and actually expecting to get that money!!!! what a carry on, everyone knows insurance companys make these figures up.

shocking, OP should really be paying Aviva for the hassle of giving her money to her IFA in commission.

Yeah, that is helpful to no-one except the ignorant who prefer to whine and troll rather than understand.

darkpool

dunstonh wrote: »

Yeah, that is helpful to no-one except the ignorant who prefer to whine and troll rather than understand.

OP get's a valuation of her policy, yet it turns out the policy isn't actually worth as much as the valuation. if these valuations are worthless i think policy holders should be told. surely we can all agree that would be in the clients best interest?

these inflated policy values really only serve the interests of the IFA and insurance companies.

how can dishonest valuations be good for the long term survival of the investment industry? it just makes people trust financial institutions less

dunstonh

OP get's a valuation of her policy, yet it turns out the policy isn't actually worth as much as the valuation. if these valuations are worthless i think policy holders should be told. surely we can all agree that would be in the clients best interest?

The surrender value is lower but not the current value (that is paid out on death)

these inflated policy values really only serve the interests of the IFA and insurance companies.

How?

how can dishonest valuations be good for the long term survival of the investment industry? it just makes people trust financial institutions less

How is it dishonest when it is doing exactly what it is meant to do?

The fact you dont understand it and don't want to understand it doesnt make it dishonest. It makes your comments dishonest though.

darkpool

dunstonh wrote: »

The fact you dont understand it and don't want to understand it doesnt make it dishonest. It makes your comments dishonest though.

I think the problem is i understand these products toooo well.

I'm just surprised that a consumer website lets IFAs spout the IFA line.

Why did they stop calling these things endowment policies? is it because of the bad press of endowment misselling?

magpiecottage

darkpool wrote: »

I think the problem is i understand these products toooo well.

Really - then why do you say:

darkpool wrote: »

Why did they stop calling these things endowment policies? is it because of the bad press of endowment misselling?

They invest in similar funds but anybody who really understands them knows that they are quite different products.

dunstonh

I'm just surprised that a consumer website lets IFAs spout the IFA line.

What IFA line? You mean facts rather than the biased misinformed stuff you are posting? It's a shame that some people are so biased in their negative views that they let it cloud their judgement.

This is a consumer website and surely its far better to help people understand than to give them cuddles and agree with everything they say and blame others even where there is no wrong doing.

Why did they stop calling these things endowment policies? is it because of the bad press of endowment misselling?

They have never called the fund an endowment policy. Its an investment fund, not a tax wrapper.

An endowment policy could hold a with profits fund but then it could hold unit linked funds. Indeed, some could hold shares, ETFs, ITs etc as well. Much the same as most tax wrappers.

jem16

ellenGB wrote: »

Well, I think that insinuations that I have not been accurate in my description of the info I had around the time I took out of the bond, ergo, I'm lying, is distressing,

I am sorry that you think I am getting at you - and yes I do realise it's me you're referring to. It has never been my intention at all.

However there are quite a few inaccuracies in your description on this thread which only covers one week that it is perfectly possible that you do not clealry remember events that happened 5 years ago. This is very easy to do when one is angry or distressed over an amount that you expected and which will not be realised should you withdraw now.

I did exactly the same 9 years ago when I started a complaint when a Life Assurance Policy did not pay up what I thought it should based on my memory from around 18 years prior to that. However once I had calmed down I realised that it had done exactly what it said it should have done and having remembered more of the conversation with the adviser I realised I was wrong and withdrew the complaint.

If you look through this thread and really read your posts carefully you will see where you change the story a bit each time;

i.e. The FOS can only empathise then later they have taken your case on, you received no literature but in previous posts (No 72) you actually quote the MVR info from the literature you say the IFA gave you, in Post 40 you mention the policy that you were sent.

Ellen I wish you well and hope that it all turns out for you. However I do at least ask that you take on board some of the comments and pointers on this thread as they have been made to genuinely help you, especially this one which, given the fund you say you have, sounds very interesting.

dunstonh wrote: »

One question I do have is that the guaranteed element of the Inflation proof version of the fund did not have an MVR charged. The standard version did. Here is also a copy of the letter sent out on 5th anniversary:
http://www.aviva.co.uk/adviser/product-literature/view-document.cgi?f=samplecustomerletter.pdf

In the notes that accompanied that sample letter, it says:
The Inflation Protected Guarantee is not affected by any Market Value Reduction or final bonus. The cash-in value without the guarantee may be affected by any MVR.

jem16

ellenGB wrote: »

Jem16, I hope that you read posts more carefully because if you had, you would not have written the last post. It's completely inaccurate.

I give up!

My last post was entirely accurate as everyone here but you can see.

browniej

ellenGB wrote: »

Jem16, I hope that you read posts more carefully because if you had, you would not have written the last post. It's completely inaccurate.

Sorry EllenGB but there are inaccuracies in your posts as jem16, magpiecottage and Loughton Monkey have all pointed out.

Everyone here has tried to help you but you seem to be attacking that help - why?

browniej

ellenGB wrote: »

I wrote that I had no information five years ago as to likely amount of MVR (e.g. 5%)

The exact amount is never going to be known - it's impossible.

Info in booklet seems to indicate that no MVR should be applied now and certainly not £1000.

From your own post.

ellenGB wrote: »

Other booklet referred to possible MVR in case of 'large and sustained fall in the stock market' or 'after a period where investment returns are regularly below the level we normally expect'

I can't see where that indicates no MVR should be applied now. That seems to be your interpretation of it which unfortunately differs from reality.

Doc from net yesterday refers to good perfermonance.

Can you post a link to that please?

Now the FTSE is falling, AVIVA have a reason to apply the MVR using their criteria.

I don't think Aviva apply their MVR on a day-to-day basis.