Pearl Endowment & Promise - Help!

defender_of_the_weak

The problem with pearl is that the promise is only that and may well be broken at some future date. Having dealt with Pearl in various capacities since 1996 I think my opinions of their management and business practices amount to a little more than unsubstantiated opinion.

The salesforce had to go because they were costing more to run than they were bringing in from new business. This was down to a culture of churning whereby policies were replaced on the flimsiest of logic, they even produced a guide to when this was acceptable (I wish I had kept a copy).

I am cynical enough to believe that the promse will be withdrawn and when people try to complain they will be told 'you had a letter in 2003/4/5 why did'n't you complain then, sorry your case is time barred'. Maybe they have made me tooo cynical

As for the use of redress, you do not try and turn the sum into 40,000 by investment, you use the surrender value and redress to reduce the mortgage amount. This would leave approx 16,000 to repay. Redirect the amount paid in premiums and maintain the current level of payment to the mortgage company and this should in theory clear the loan, which is what people wanted in the first place

dunstonh

For reference, I have 5 ex Pearl "area managers" as introducers and have "reallocated" about 15 million pounds worth of funds out of Pearl. They are one of the easiest firms to justify leaving as the data on all fronts is just so negative towards them.

One research report states:
[of the sale to Hugh Osmand] - "In railway vernacular, this marks the final chapter in these companies' [Pearl & NIP] decline from mainline express trains to being sold for scrap."

[of future prospects under ownership of a venture capital company] - "Companies such as these are not charities and have been formed to make money out of closed funds, not to plough hundreds of millions into them to plug gaps left by the previous owner's deficiencies in strategy and investment"

"Bonuses cannot get any lower, service has plummeted and the funds are at least part of a group that has made a conscious effort (and written out a large cheque) to acquire them"

[summary] - "Whether or not clients should stay in these funds remains one driven by individual considerations, the decision being a function of time to retirement, the presence of GARs, lack of MVR guarantees, client attitude to risk, state of health (if any protection benefits involved) and so forth. With Profit clients with some years to go and no contractual incentive to stay put should, however, at least consider their options.

At a recent presentation, O&M said that Pearl are on a list of 10 companies where you should be getting money out. They also commented that Pearl is one of the easiest to justify given all the deficiencies.

It is unusual to find anyone supporting Pearl nowadays.

hedgehunter_2

Shall we get bach to the original question of whether Teigny should stick or twist. His options are as I described.

This forum is not about you justifing your advice to other policyholders particularly when that advice to surrender and reinvest or to transfer out has obvious benefits to an IFA. Each situation needs to be assessed individually rather than the decision being made on sweeping generalisations and assumptions.

If DOTW has advised clients to leave Pearl on the assumption that the promise will not be paid, he may have to answer for that advice in the future.

dunstonh

Each situation needs to be assessed individually rather than the decision being made on sweeping generalisations and assumptions.

Normally I would be with you 100% there. You have only recently joined so wouldnt know the number of threads I have posted on saying exactly what you are saying.

However, in this case, it's Pearl. You are talking about one of the worst insurance companies out there.

If DOTW has advised clients to leave Pearl on the assumption that the promise will not be paid, he may have to answer for that advice in the future.

Not likely. A bird in the hand is certainly worth 2 in the Pearl bush.

defender_of_the_weak

I dont advise, I am an independent complaints specialist. We only present the facts and allow people to make an informed decision. We have actually had people refuse to accept the offer of redress and cancellation in favour of keeping the promise. Bizarre but true.

hedgehunter_2

Hmm, i dont think I can do much about you dundtonh, you seem to only have fixed views and the same old IFA mantra. Perhaps that is why you and Maybe cannot agree on anything, she seems to have some original thought.

DOTW, is an independent claims specialist the same as a third party ambulance chaser?

I agree that you should stick to the facts of Teigneys question you seem unable to do this

Bizarre but true

dunstonh

It's rare to come across someone so pro Pearl. You have to be an employee to be so negative towards those that point out Pearl's shortcomings.

And no, you will not change my views on Pearl and I have ample justification and information to support those views. Of course, if you feel there is information available that bucks the trend then please feel free to say it.

hedgehunter_2

I am not pro Pearl, I am pro Teigney continuing with his policy in the circumstances he describes, for the reasons i have stated

Teigny_2

I've had the offer on the table for about nine months and have been completely perplexed about what to do. Its good to see some healthy discussion and opinions - thanks.

Can someone help me explian this one:
My surrender value in July 06 was £16,048.
I've just got an updated surrender value this week at £20,890.
Premiums paid during this time £677.

A good return for a years' indecision??

Teigny_2

I've just checked with Pearl & they have confirmed that the new cash-in value of 20.8k does not include the compensation amount.