Endowment update: payouts still falling

vinno65

dunstonh wrote: »

The consumers Association (Which?) and the media all promoted endowments as being the best option in the 80s and early to mid 90s. You better not trust the consumer groups either then.

The consumer groups foolishly believed the hype. But it wasn't the consumer groups who miss-sold the products, it was the financial services industry which now has a lower reputation than estate agents justifiably so

regards Vinno

dunstonh

one doctor out of thousands, misselling illegal charges in the financial services industry, rife!

80% of financial advisers have never had a complaint according to the FOS. Hardly rife.

The consumer groups foolishly believed the hype. But it wasn't the consumer groups who miss-sold the products, it was the financial services industry which now has a lower reputation than estate agents justifiably so

I would love to know the occupations of some of these posters. We obviously have a lot of posters whose occupation is saint.

Consumer groups are there to look out for the consumer. They didnt believe the hype. They, like everyone else, didnt see the shift in circumstances coming. We speak now with the benefit of hindsight.

vinno65

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

I know a lot of people have claimed to be 'a bit thick' in order to claim for so-called endowment mis-selling. I don't believe they are as thick as they claim. I think most endowment policyholders were fully aware that they were investing their money and were not paying off a home loan.

They were not as thick as they would like the ombudsman to think they are.



GG

well that's alright then well done, problem solved hurrah!

Vinno

vinno65

Mr_helpful wrote: »

You say no one knew the risk and that they were taking an investment. Did no one read a Key facts document. The first page told them it was an investment and they could get back more or less.
You seem to condone this selective memory and thickness (lying) just to claim compensation

It's not good enough to say people had key facts documents so they must have been aware. At the point of sale it is the advisors duty to inform you verbally of all the key facts. In most cases of miss-selling at the point of sale people were told that that so long as they kept up their payments then they will pay of their mortgage and have a nice tax free lump sum, there was no mention of the possibilities of shortfalls. This is why people didn't read their key facts documents as they trusted that what they had been told was the truth. They trusted the advice they had been given. Why would they read a complicated document when they believed that the complicated document had just been explained to them by the advisor!

It's not good enough anymore to say "you should have read the small print"

regards Vinno

vinno65

EdInvestor wrote: »

You're not kidding!The incompetence and recklessness of these companies knows no bounds. :mad:

Here's the latest, featuring the largest one, Norwich Union:

Lifestyling? Err, sorry, we forgot to do it

It's becoming more and more obvious that you'd have to stark raving bonkers to entrust your hard-earned to this shower.

I am sick of Telegraph readers believing everything they read!!

HeHe Vinno

vinno65

dunstonh wrote: »

Yes and churning is one of the few genuine miss sells however I didnt and have never had a claim upheld against me plus it doesnt get away from the fact that all your beloved newspapers whose financial columns you believe as if gospel were saying Pearls with profits were the best thing since sliced bread. And that included the authoritive money management as edinvestor calls it. Why are you not going after the Mail, express, telegraph, times, sun etc for bad advice?

Who was telling these papers that they were the best thing since sliced bread and who provided the figures to back up these statements and did anyone in the financial services industry tell them that actually if the country switches to a low inflation low interest economy then they might infact be worse than mouldy bread?

[/QUOTE]
Did anyone? did anyone know the stockmarket would halve its value?[/QUOTE]

I thought one of the major selling points of endowments was that they were low risk in that "smoothing" would offset the impact of major market changes over the term?

[/QUOTE]
Endowments were doing perfectly well until the regulaters stepped in perhaps you should blame them[/QUOTE]

I thought it was the stock market crash that caused the problems, no wait it was the regulators, hang on it was the cancellation of miras, oh sod it, have a banana I'm not losing money!

regards Vinno

tightwadman

Major reason for the Endowments failure yet to be mentioned is simply this..

These companies have slashed terminal bonuses. They were designed to add a terminal bonus at the end of your savings term and I am sure many people like myself were informed this would be a 100% bonus. Who is paying that now? Nobody!

Coupled to that take in the panic when the companies started dumping stockmarket investments too late and then re-investing in much more cautious and lower yielding funds like gilts - result virually NO growth and so now annual bonuses cut to virtually nothing so our policies are not adding any decent annual funds to the sum already gained and the terminal bonus is therefore badly affected no matter what rate it is. End result is a policy that fails to do what it said it would do on the tin ie smooth out the savings by putting away money in good years to make up for any shortfall in bad years.

I am seriously planning on taking legal action for negligence in the small claims court when my policy finally coughs up. From a predicted and expected sum of £100,000 form 25 years saving I may only get £30,000. I know I can only claim £5000 but it will be worth the small amount of effort.

I too will never ever trust any financial advisor again and thanks to resources like this website I can make my own informed financial decisions. Needless to sy the advisor who sold me my policy cannot be traced! He did get his big wedge though for selling me the policy - a policy I did not actually need!

Financial Advisors - pah HUMBUG!

vinno65

Mr_helpful wrote: »

Maybe
Can you explain why the number of complaints was so limited before the end of the 90s. Surely the people who bought their policys in the 70's and 80's had just as much chance of being mis sold. In fact it was more likely as training was not as good as it is today..

You are a mortgage advisor so I really think you should have some sort of a clue or at least give up your job and stop advising people.
Of course people who were sold their policies in the 70's and 80's were miss-sold.They were told that their endowments would definately pay off their mortgage and provide a tax free lump sum and up until the late 90's endowments did exactly that. So they were incredibly lucky that market conditions allowed their endowments to succeed, that and excessive terminal bonuses paid out using the money from newer endowments.
I was told exactly the same thing i.e if i pay my premiums then my mortgage will be paid off and I would have a lump sum. No mention was made of shortfalls. Imagine my surprise then when in 2000 I recieved a letter from my provider stating than in all likelehood not only would I not recieve my lump sum but also my mortgage won't be paid off either and it was up to ME to make up the shortfall.
It was at that time that I and hundreds of thousands of people like me found out that they had been duped hence the flood of complaints. It really isn't rocket science.

Mr_helpful wrote: »

The FSA and government (both tory and Labour) has passed the buck on these problems...

While the financial services industry has held its hands up and accepted the blame like the troopers they are!

Mr_helpful wrote: »

Complexity is not a ground for complaint...

Quite right.Do you have any examples of complaints being upheld on the grounds that endowment are complex?
Complaints are upheld on the grounds that the risks inherent with endowments partly due to their complexity are not explained at the point of sale

Mr_helpful wrote: »

If you had in writing a brochure promising one thing and it didnt make it yes I agree a mis sale but in reality they are few and far between. If the endowments were not off target how many complaints would there be?...

Unfortunately the brochures do not reflect what people were told at the point of sale, apart from a few that I have seen that did actually show comparisons to two brothers for example, the stupid one who took out a more expensive repayment mortgage and the cool clever one who took out an endowment that was not only cheaper but he could either pay off his mortgage years early or keep it till term and enjoy the benefits of a tax free lump sum!! Yes they do exist.
If endowments were not off target there would be no complaints because the FSA would probably not have forced the life companies to issue reprojection letters so no-one would be any the wiser about the possibility of shortfalls

regards Vinno

vinno65

dunstonh wrote: »

80% of financial advisers have never had a complaint according to the FOS. Hardly rife..

As I have pointed out in many posts before Dunston most endowments weren't sold by IFA's. And IFA's do not make up the majority of the financial services industry. Only the other day we had the whistleblower programme about a bank's staff miss-selling accounts and switching customers who weren't even aware that they had been switched, just so the salesperson could get commision! So the statement miss-selling is rife in the financial services industry is valid. The statement that most doctors may be murderers is trite.

[QUOTE=dunstonh;4728413
I would love to know the occupations of some of these posters. We obviously have a lot of posters whose occupation is saint..[/QUOTE]

I am a telecoms engineer and have never ripped off or duped any of the customers I have come into contact with in my life.

regards Vinno

EdInvestor

vinno65 wrote: »

Of course people who were sold their policies in the 70's and 80's were miss-sold.They were told that their endowments would definately pay off their mortgage and provide a tax free lump sum.....I was told exactly the same thing i.e if i pay my premiums then my mortgage will be paid off and I would have a lump sum. No mention was made of shortfalls.

Pretty well everyone I've ever spoken to with an endowment problem reports that this is what happened to them too.They were told there was no risk of not being able to pay off the mortgage itself - the only potential risk was to the size of the tax free lump sum.

Hence I reject mr helpful's claim that people are lying when they claim they were missold.