AVIVA International With-Profit Bond

fairleads

dunstonh wrote: »

Please provide facts to back that up.

Pru are the most successful provider of this type of investment and their returns have been very consistent over the years. So, your opinion is the complete opposite of the general position of Pru policyholders.

Be fair Dh, 4.476% p/a for 10 yrs is not enough reward for tying one's cash up for 10 yrs in a WP bond.
Further, a Pru WP pension has returned 6% p/a for 20 yrs which, you must admit, is not quite as good as the 12% you're making on your SIPP.

parcival

Ditched a Pru WP policy last summer after 9 years without an MVR, a healthy terminal bonus and well over 5% pa return.

Had similar policies with Aviva and Standard Life - got out of both without MVR but overall poor returns.

If you have these types of 'investments' you have to watch them like a hawk and be prepared to get out when they are doing as well as possible.

darkpool

parcival wrote: »

Ditched a Pru WP policy last summer after 9 years without an MVR, a healthy terminal bonus and well over 5% pa return.

Had similar policies with Aviva and Standard Life - got out of both without MVR but overall poor returns.

If you have these types of 'investments' you have to watch them like a hawk and be prepared to get out when they are doing as well as possible.

tbh, considering what inflation has been over the last 9 years i don't consider 5% a year as anything special.

dunstonh

tbh, considering what inflation has been over the last 9 years i don't consider 5% a year as anything special.

Given the investment returns of the last 9 years, 5% a year net is not bad going on low risk investments with an element of capital security. It has beaten savings accounts.

An adviser has hit out at Prudential after it said it will levy a 20 per cent market value reduction on a member’s with-profits fund if the money is switched to a different Pru product.

Even "one of your own" is moaning about them.

One example. Wow, that must make them all bad. Also, I think the adviser is being unreasonable as well. Whatever way you look at it, the policyholder is drawing the money out. So, if there is an MVR on the plan at that point then why shouldnt he pay it?