Anyone with a 25 year endowment which matured recently ?

silvercar

Arkers wrote: »

Is it just Royal London that are relatively poor maturity values?(obviously I know all about the projected shortfall red letters etc). One or two of the other posters seem quite happy with the values, and they do seem reasonable with all things considered.

I have an old GA/CGNU/ now Aviva policy due to mature next year, and although not cast in stone I have spoken to Aviva, and fingers crossed the final figure looks better then expected at the moment. This includes an MEP, does anyone have a recent experience of an old NU policy paying out and how it performed. DH has a Standard LIfe policy due in approx 18 months which doesn't appear to look as good. I would be interested in this too.

Arkers x

We had a Legal & General policy that was a low start up version. A few years in, the advice was that it wouldn't perform well. In the end it achieved 98.5% of the initial expected payout. We had a standard life one that matured 2013 that only got about 60% of expected payout. We have a standard life one due in 2018 that is looking bad, but there is a large MEP with it....

Go figure.

Voyager2002

BirnamBear wrote: »

Just curious as I have one with Scottish Widows which matures a year from now which was for 40k.

Remember 24 years ago the RBS telling me that I would double my money !! Oh to be so young and naive again

Guessing I will get 25/26ish k back.

FWIW I had one for £42K with Scottish Amicable that matured earlier this year. The shortfall was only about £8K. In fairness, the IFA who sold it to me was very cautious about what it might eventually give and debunked the suggestions in the media that it might turn out to be a crock of gold.

makemesumdosh

I have a 25 year CIS endowment which matures in 2019. I pay just under £70 a month and the return was supposed to be £40,000. Sum assured was £18600 give or take a few quid. I have my concerns on what I may get but have obtained some figures from Royal London which relate to terminal bonuses.
these figure relate to original sum assured and don't include the bonuses which have been added (just over £5.500)

2016 - £72 per £100
2015 - £62 per £100
2014 - £62.80 per £100
2013 - £54.10 per £100
2012 - £49.90 per £100

How do these bonuses compare to policys with other companies.
Going by 2016 declaration a 72% terminal bonus plus the bonuses added to the original policy will only leave me a few grand down

istanbul20052016

TrickyDicky101 wrote: »

How much was your mortgage originally when you entered the endowment? I note the passage you quote says "20% of the amount of mortgage" and not "of the value at the time of the endowment" so maybe that accounts for the difference between what you think should have been transferred and what actually was?

Thank you for your reply, the mortgage was for £62400, the same as original endowment target, so only a shortfall of £36864.78. My argument was that the fund value was approx £20000 and Royal London transferred the whole amount in 12 months from the Managed fund to a Deposit fund, as if my fund was going to reach the £62,400 by maturity. So this completely ruined any chance of growth at all during the last 5 years, when it should be appreciating markedly.
The Managed fund, which it was transferred from achieved between 2011-2016 a growth rate of +59.9%, whereas the Deposit fund, where all my funds were transferred to achieved between 2011-2016 a loss of -0.3%.
Therefore you can see why I am so angry with Royal London, I would therefore never recommend them to anyone else.

istanbul20052016

dunstonh wrote: »

2016 was a good year but the period from 2012 to 2015 was less and included a nothing year and a negative year. However, to get returns related to the stockmarket, you have to be invested in the stockmarket and you were not fully invested that way.



Probably as the error benefited you financially rather than cost you.



This is a very easy decision for the FOS to make. Automatic risk reduction on investments is common place on fixed timescale investments. This would be in their published terms and it would only have taken the FOS 5 minutes to check with them.

The FOS would have access to your complaint, their response and any supporting material. It shouldnt take them long with an easy complaint like yours.

Also, The FCA do not allow complaints about investment returns. Any complaint on that basis would just result in a check that the right processes were carried out.



Doesnt matter. However, if you insist on it being correct, I am sure they will be prepared to accept the money you are willing to pay them back rather than keep the extra you have received.



They are not getting away with it because you are better off because of their error. Yes, they made a mistake by shortening the risk reduction period but you are better off because of it.

Thank you for reply, but I think you may of misunderstood, I cannot see how I benefited at all.

The Managed fund, which I was originally in achieved the following from 2011-2016.
2011-2012 +18.7 %
2012-2013 +8.9%
2013-2014 +3.6%
2014-2015 +4.4%
2015-2016 +14.5%

From the first transfer in 2011 to Maturity in 2016, Managed fund achieved +59.9%

However during the same period 2011 to 2016 the Deposit fund where Royal London transferred the whole of my fund to, achieved a LOSS of -0.3%.

So I am baffled how I have benefited from Royal Londons financial expertise.

£1930 return over a full 25 year period is shocking to say the least.

At least you acknowledge that Royal London has made a mistake, but they are not prepared to admit it.
Any ideas anybody, what I can do next??
As Royal London should not be allowed to get away with it.

dunstonh

The Managed fund, which I was originally in achieved the following from 2011-2016.
2011-2012 +18.7 %
2012-2013 +8.9%
2013-2014 +3.6%
2014-2015 +4.4%
2015-2016 +14.5%

From the first transfer in 2011 to Maturity in 2016, Managed fund achieved +59.9%

However during the same period 2011 to 2016 the Deposit fund where Royal London transferred the whole of my fund to, achieved a LOSS of -0.3%.

So I am baffled how I have benefited from Royal Londons financial expertise.

The risk reduction should have occurred over 5 years. You said they did it over a shorter period. So, you remained in the higher performing fund longer than you should have done. So, you were better off because of this. Had they moved you into the deposit fund over a longer period, you would have had lower returns.

Any ideas anybody, what I can do next??

Give up.

You are complaining about an error that has resulted in you having more money. So, its a non-event. Had the error resulted in you getting less, they would have to put that right.

As Royal London should not be allowed to get away with it.

They are not getting away with anything. The error in timescale on risk reduction made you better off.

a complaint about investment returns is not allowed. Unit linked funds allow you to change them as you see fit. Otherwise they will stick to the process agreed when taking out the plan. You took out a plan with risk reduction in later years. That is what happened. You were free to change out of that at any time should you or your financial adviser decide otherwise. You cannot complain that returns were better on other funds as that is a hindsight decision. Plus, risk reduction is not about maximising returns. It is about protecting what you have built up when you have insufficient time left to recover form a market crash. Statistically, risk reduction results in lower returns in most periods.

silvercar

dunstonh wrote: »

The risk reduction should have occurred over 5 years. You said they did it over a shorter period. So, you remained in the higher performing fund longer than you should have done. So, you were better off because of this. Had they moved you into the deposit fund over a longer period, you would have had lower returns.

OP said the funds were moved at the start of the period, not the end. So they were moved over a shorter period, but that period was earlier rather than later. So they sat doing nothing for longer.

However on my policy Royal London switched 63.15% in October 2011, £12705.69, out of a total of £20119.86. The following year in October 2012, the rest of my funds had been transferred into the SL Deposit fund. By transferring all of the funds , this decimated any hope of future growth.

APRIL61

Standard Life 25 Year Endowment (April 92) matured on Monday, money in account today.
Paid £73.92 monthly to cover a £54,000 Mortgage.Total paid in £22,176.
Received £45,217.
Did not try to claim any mis-selling compensation.
Mortgage paid off 10 years ago but kept as savings. Feel quite pleased as payouts seem better now than a few years ago.

Fifefamily

Has anyone had a Norwich Union /Aviva low cost endowment policy mature lately? Have one due out May 19, pay £35.04/month and meant to cover £25000. Have adjusted mortgage to part repayment to cover shortfall of approx. £5000 but worried it may be a larger shortfall!

dunstonh

Fifefamily wrote: »

Has anyone had a Norwich Union /Aviva low cost endowment policy mature lately? Have one due out May 19, pay £35.04/month and meant to cover £25000. Have adjusted mortgage to part repayment to cover shortfall of approx. £5000 but worried it may be a larger shortfall!

Aviva had dozens of policy types over the years. They also did Conventional with profits, unitised WP and unit linked.

Also, each endowment has its own investment period. You would need one that matches yours to get a realistic idea.

Finally, every plan has its own target growth rate. There would be no point someone telling you theirs hit target if their target growth rate was 3.6% but yours was 7.7%.

Look at your statement and the middle figure is likely to be the ballpark figure with the potential for the MEP to be added on top of that (if yours is a plan that qualifies for it).