Friends Life: must be computer error?

agarnett

Today is Wednesday, right? Hows it compare with last Wednesday in the grand scheme of things?

Blue_Parrot wrote:

... the woman on the phone on Monday said the fund was worth £12,917.28, but this has turned into £12,666.17 on the paperwork

A day, three days, stretch it to four days if you like ... so what ? Why are we even discussing these daily differences in a pension plan? Might it be because modern pension fund managers take absolutely zero risk themselves? If so, any idiot could be a pension fund manager. When I started in financial services nearer 40 years ago now than 35, fund managers were highly intelligent reliable sorts. What are they now?

Who cares whether the FTSE reduced by 2% ? My net worth didn't drop by 2%. Certainly my pensions haven't. Every time I query what I am told they miraculously seem to leap forward in value by thousands not backwards by hundreds. That's because they do not vary daily with markets. They remain shielded in various ways that financial advisers seem unable thesedays to understand or rarely want to talk about.

Since when was the FTSE an accurate barometer of how well managed investments perform?

dunstonh wrote:

You are asking generally low knowledge call centre staff to interpret requests from generally low knowledge consumers and get it right every time. That isn't going to happen.

You clearly are condoning low knowledge call centre staff as acceptable. Why the hell don't you do and say something about that, instead of dismissing it as business as usual?

Those low knowledge call centre staff are often as clever as you and me (and we aren't all that are we dunstonh, RichandJ, gatgetmind or maybe some of us think we are?), but the big difference is that those call centre staff are given no access to the full information they need to comprehensively navigate their own company's products and to advise customers of their contract options. Furthermore they seem to be given less than zero incentive to try to find out more.

And RichandJ, for the record, it has long been my general understanding that the word you used to describe me is a vulgar term for female genitalia - do you really expect to be taken seriously when you dare to use dullard's language like that to describe a fellow MSE'er?

dunstonh wrote:

Everybody signed up for the performance they get.

Well that's very illuminating, I'm sure. It tells us more about attitude to mere customers than it does about the real nature of financial services contracts, does it not?

... and if the markets go down, that means your value goes down too.

It may come as a surprise to you, given how much you seem to have forgotten about how the industry once managed the ups and downs of the markets on behalf of the lion's share of its ordinary customers, that once upon a time the companies we are discussing prided themselves on their smoothing abilities, and actually if you know where to look, they still do - except rarely for the benefit of ordinary customers.

gadgetmind

Yes, excellent returns without any of that risk and volatility nonsense; that's all we're asking for! I'm going to write a long rant to The Daily Mail, immediately if not sooner.

dunstonh

Why are we even discussing these daily differences in a pension plan?

Because you seem to think that investments should not go down as well as up despite that being the first risk warning you see.

Might it be because modern pension fund managers take absolutely zero risk themselves?

They will invest exactly within the remit of the fund and the risk level set for that fund.

Since when was the FTSE an accurate barometer of how well managed investments perform?

Its a good indicator for UK equity. In the absence of any information about how it is currently invested and just a statement about a small loss in a short period, then a comment about how global markets fell by that amount in that period helps inform the OP as to why that could be.

You clearly are condoning low knowledge call centre staff as acceptable. Why the hell don't you do and say something about that, instead of dismissing it as business as usual?

You really like making things up don't you. Where do I say that I condone low knowledge.
Unlike you, I have to deal with these low knowledge staff on a far more frequent basis. However, I also understand the economics and reasons behind it. Understanding why is not the same as condoning it.

Well that's very illuminating, I'm sure. It tells us more about attitude to mere customers than it does about the real nature of financial services contracts, does it not?

You mean, people getting what they agreed to is a bad thing?

It may come as a surprise to you, given how much you seem to have forgotten about how the industry once managed the ups and downs of the markets on behalf of the lion's share of its ordinary customers, that once upon a time the companies we are discussing prided themselves on their smoothing abilities, and actually if you know where to look, they still do - except rarely for the benefit of ordinary customers.

You are massively out of date. The vast majority of investments are not done that way. That model worked in an era of less volatility, high inflation, less consumer protection, no regulation and no transparency. Shocks to the markets would be localised and could be absorbed against other assets. Today, the globalisation of markets doesnt allow that as much. Plus, the credit crunch was a good example of all asset classes going bad at the same time. It is a failed model that cannot work cost effectively today.

Most investments are conventional unit linked. They are risk rated and will suffer a typical volatility range according to their remit.

gadgetmind

dunstonh wrote: »

You are massively out of date. The vast majority of investments are not done that way. That model worked in an era of less volatility, high inflation, less consumer protection, no regulation and no transparency. Shocks to the markets would be localised and could be absorbed against other assets..

Hmm, are we talking about "with profits"?

dunstonh

gadgetmind wrote: »

Hmm, are we talking about "with profits"?

I am.

My assumption is that Alf thinks that all pension funds are with profits. Whereas the majority are conventional unit linked.

I suspect Blue Parrot is on unit linked given the price movements that occurred that week. Although it could be a with profits fund with an MVR. Current value and transfer value may then be different (and early commencement would use the transfer value and not the current value).

gadgetmind

dunstonh wrote: »

My assumption is that Alf thinks that all pension funds are with profits. Whereas the majority are conventional unit linked.

Doubts were setting in a mere six words into that sentence!

As it happens, he's previously poured scorn on (inter alios!) with profits so I'm puzzled as to what's behind his current rant.

agarnett

You really like making things up don't you. Where do I say that I condone low knowledge.
Unlike you, I have to deal with these low knowledge staff on a far more frequent basis. However, I also understand the economics and reasons behind it. Understanding why is not the same as condoning it.

You clearly do not understand why, else you are as bad as those who wish to keep the level of knowledge imparted to customers at such low levels. There is no valid economic model that says that intelligent staff must be kept in unthinking ignorance.

I have already said that many of the call centre staff are as capable as you or I. But they are not employed to be capable or knowledgeable. They are employed as an insulative layer between the company required to perform and the customer expecting performance.

I have a letter from these crooks refusing transparency on the basis of commercial sensitivity. Transparency lays bare their game.

You say I am massively out of date, perhaps you mean along the lines of dinosaur analogies I have endured in the past. Yes I am out of date if you mean I do not seem to accept that business as usual has moved on.

Business as usual in 2015 is fraudulent. Business as usual in 2015 sees fraudulent activity "punished" merely by the negotiation of intermittent sops to salve political will which is abysmally weak. Business as usual in 2015 sees the likes of me as a bit of a nuisance should any of my comments gain any traction.

Business as usual sees no-one locked up for fraud and misrepresentation and obfuscation and cheating.

Business as usual sees those making their living in the industry singing the tune dictated by those that provide their wares and means to that living. How long do you think I might last even if I knew as much about investing and was as qualified as you, dunstonh? There is no place for someone like me because knowledge is not required. Tick box compliance is all that is required from a knowledge viewpoint, and then it is purely a matter of head down and achieving whatever KPIs are dictated from the top without fuss or complaint and ideally with frequent public profession of my pride in "what we do" (North Korea style perhaps).

I don't think you rock the boat anywhere near enough to say that you have to deal with these people more than I do and that you understand why. You should try arguing further up the line and find out why massive profits and bonuses are being cornered despite the absolutely p poor performance of our contracts. You should read the company's prospectus to corporate investors, not just its "can go down as well as up" blurb that has to be continually suffered by customers with your willing assistance.

It is one big confidence trick.

You are surely not so blind to global economics that you cannot see that virtually all our money is nothing more than hype manipulated by spin and computers ? Asset classes going bad my a§§! Asset classes don't go "bad" unless they are deliberately driven "bad" by massive interests able to manipulate pricing purely for their own benefit - and of course it is all done by computers without any need for the asset itself to be realised.

Look at the "price" of gold. It is massively underpriced as an asset class yet it is in demand by governments who can afford it. UK and US of course cannot afford it and no-one knows whether we have any left. If it were shown that we have none left, then where would we be ? It is probably no coincidence that Bank of China are right next door to the Bank of England in the City! You can't see what is running on rails beneath the street (and I don't mean Bank Tube!). They probably rent a few pallets from China when they want to show gold in Bank of England vaults, and when everyone has gone home, it gets wheeled back to China in Lothbury!

Look at the currency exchange rate fiascos - all linked to the daily fixed pricing of precious metals which of course has now been denied as something which was wrong but has been discontinued :rotfl:

And if the currency exchanges are "fixed" then what price global equities ?

Obviously it is all massively interlinked in ways which you and I do NOT actually understand because rocket scientists are continually manipulating computer code which dictates the manipulations. Sure big quoted companies can rattle along pretty good in their chosen core businesses without rocket scientists interfering with equity prices directly for long periods perhaps, but equities are just as sensitive to manipulations of course as commodities and currencies.

Neither of us are rocket scientists, now are we? But at least one of us has an appreciation of what rocket scientists are doing, and it ain't rocket science!

They say that the Rothschilds made their original fortune by sowing disinformation about who won at the Battle of Waterloo - something quite topical in this bicentennial year. If that is what they did, that was fraud. Or should we say "well strictly ... but only a little bit ... quite clever really"? Does our current UK business culture support such heists? I think it probably does now as much as it ever did, but today it is of course much more clever and much reliably executed and much more instant. The old-time "smoothing" I alluded to is actually childsplay by comparison.

The manipulation of markets by computer trading is actually a battle of secret intelligence, isn't it?

It is so secret at so many levels that when I asked pointed questions about how my own with-profits pension policies worked I ultimately got told that I would not be given the information I'd specifically requested because it was "market sensitive". I am of course a mere customer. I am not allowed to be truly sensitive to markets. Transparency is denied. If I wish to be sensitive to markets I should buy into modern funds, shouldn't I? Right? WRONG! That would simply make me even more sensitive to market manipulations which no-one understands - not even you, dunstonh. Better perhaps that I stick with my nuisance old funds which retain a link to the fortunes of the providers own shareholders. When shareholders want to achieve billions from the old with-profits fund investments, they have to give me a cut too!

If you think you are actually able to rationalise which assets and which funds are suitable for which investment purpose for your clients then I believe you are kidding yourself that you really understand the why. Yes you are being allowed to spot patterns and rationalise and school yourself in the art as viewed at your level - there has to be something for the little people to hang on to, now doesn't there? Let them eat cake. That's what you are really dealing with. Cake and crumbs ... ?

I suggest you are doing your customers a disservice if you argue otherwise.

Maybe you do understand the bigger picture after all ? That's why I am driven to wonder what causes you to write the way you sometimes do rather than rallying MSE'ers against the manipulation.

Aviva / Friends Life is just about our biggest pensions player now? Their service is awful all round. Large sections of their staff are demoralised by threat of job loss. And who soaks it all up? We do, and apparently you do more than us! Please don't just stand for it! Stand up against it!

dunstonh

You clearly do not understand why, else you are as bad as those who wish to keep the level of knowledge imparted to customers at such low levels. There is no valid economic model that says that intelligent staff must be kept in unthinking ignorance.

Who pays the extra cost of having higher quality staff?

Do they have magic beans in your world or do you prefer the Greece model of spend and dont worry about the consequences

As it happens, he's previously poured scorn on (inter alios!) with profits so I'm puzzled as to what's behind his current rant.

When someone has a chip on their shoulder they take a negative position on everything. So, in this case, if they are in With Profits it is wrong and if they are not in With Profits then they should be.

agarnett

Is that it? Are we now reduced to beans and chips, dunstonh?

You dismiss with-profits as if it is insignificant.

Before we run away with the idea you might be right, can you give us an idea of what proportion of all Aviva/Friends Life pension funds under management are with-profits? Or maybe that's a bit market sensitive?

dunstonh

Is that it? Are we now reduced to beans and chips, dunstonh?

Clearly we are as you want more expensive staffing but havent said who is going to pay for it.

Before we run away with the idea you might be right, can you give us an idea of what proportion of all Aviva/Friends Life pension funds under management are with-profits? Or maybe that's a bit market sensitive?

Aviva's website says they have £246 billion under management. £43 billion is in WP funds across 1.2 million customers.

You dismiss with-profits as if it is insignificant.

it is not insignificant. It is an old fashioned way of investment that is rarely available for new business. It is mostly historic holdings. Not all of it is bad either.

On the other hand, you seem to dismiss unit linked as being insignificant as your posts seem to think that all investments is smoothed when in reality, it is around 1/5th with the UK's largest provider.

it should also be noted that Aviva were recognised as a major With Profits provider back in the day. There are some very big providers out there that have zero in with profits.