Aviva/Norwich Union Section 32 Buyout policy holders?

bigadaj

saver861 wrote: »

No, I understand why they don't put charges up front - every financial situation is different and it would be nigh impossible. If they put a fee up front then that is what is stuck in the customers mind and if the work is over and above that and fees are higher, then the customer is disappointed.

A builder will do an estimate - they say rough guide of £1k per square metre but actually so much depends on other factors that such rough guides can be considerably out.



You miss my point. I think there essentially three types of people - 1) such as my wife who would not be able to diy at all, 2) those who are very up to date and savvy with all matters financial and 3) those like myself who are above average in general understanding but might not be aware of all the pitfalls. I think the third group has the more difficult decision as to whether to employ an IFA or not.

So someone with say a £200k portfolio could get burned if they don't know enough. They still could if they are very proficient in financial matters but its more likely they will be aware of the risk.

Those that have no clue are entirely in the hands of the IFA.

Fair enough, then those in type 1 should shop around, and those in type 3 should educate themselves sufficiently or pay for an ifa, shopping around as well.

There are many complicated things in the world, general knowledge about investments and financial risks and personal taxation doesn't come anywhere close to being complicated in the grand scheme of things.

saver861

bigadaj wrote: »

There are many complicated things in the world, general knowledge about investments and financial risks and personal taxation doesn't come anywhere close to being complicated in the grand scheme of things.

Yes - but academic capacity is not equal.

Personally I'm fully aware of financial risk and investment, what I would be less clear about is the potential of underlying funds etc. You can take a shot of course! As with IFA's etc, its not necessarily that the have a better judgement of those same investments, but they may well have a better ear to the ground. So, its not all about just the knowledge of investing - there are lots of compounding factors.

bigadaj

saver861 wrote: »

Yes - but academic capacity is not equal.

Personally I'm fully aware of financial risk and investment, what I would be less clear about is the potential of underlying funds etc. You can take a shot of course! As with IFA's etc, its not necessarily that the have a better judgement of those same investments, but they may well have a better ear to the ground. So, its not all about just the knowledge of investing - there are lots of compounding factors.

I'd argue that you don't need to understand too much.

By employing an ifa you are laying for their time, knowledge, software and experience but this is overkill for many. It's like saying you want a suit and going to savile row rather than John Lewis.

Want you are really paying is insurance, as he is insured for any gross errors he makes and it ensures people don't put their entire pot into Russian futures or Brazilian banana commodities.

For most people with basic savings and a long time horizon then the oft quoted fettered fund of funds are perfectly adequate, higher equity versions of vanguard lifestrategy, black rock consensus or l & g multi index will do most things for most people. Whether they want side finds to play with or not.

saver861

bigadaj wrote: »

I'd argue that you don't need to understand too much.

Thats true to an extent. However, I have an inquisitive mind so I like to know as much about something as possible prior to making a decision. Sounds obvious, but its the scientific detail behind the numbers. Then you get into the scenario, the more you know the more you realise how much you don't know.

bigadaj wrote: »

By employing an ifa you are laying for their time, knowledge, software and experience but this is overkill for many. It's like saying you want a suit and going to savile row rather than John Lewis.

But there are some advantages to that ... they might be able to filter out some of the pitfalls etc that the regular Joe can't do so easily.

bigadaj wrote: »

Want you are really paying is insurance, as he is insured for any gross errors he makes and it ensures people don't put their entire pot into Russian futures or Brazilian banana commodities.

True, that said, I'd rather not be relying on getting my dosh back from the insurance.

How successful have cases been?

bigadaj

There is no science, economics is the dismal science and it's more psychology than anything tangible and truly scientific. As you are no doubt aware historic performance is no guide to the future, but to a large extent it's all we've got to go on, just make sure it's over a decent time period as short term outperformance is often just that.

If you want to pay an ifa do so, if you don't then do it yourself. I can't understand your view it is bizarre, no ifa will credibly claim that he can outperform sensible, diy investing the major pitfalls are straightforward and just down to simple research, common sense and a basic understanding of maths.

Cases have been won against ifas and they have to have pi insurance. However this is not a blanket guarantee, it would have to be demonstrated that the ifa had acted recklessly, nit undertaken sufficient due diligence e and or invested at a level that was beyond the risk tolerance of the client. The problem with this is that there is an inherent bias to investing at a lower risk, which would then potentially harm long term returns.

The insurance would have to pay out if the regulator deemed the ifa was at fault.

towag

Advice on getting advice..... I was right though.... Average about 150 quid an hour....

https://www.moneyadviceservice.org.uk/en/articles/guide-to-financial-adviser-fees

saver861

bigadaj wrote: »

There is no science, economics is the dismal science and it's more psychology than anything tangible and truly scientific.

Yes I'd go with that to a large extent - equally though that means it becomes a bit of a pot luck thing.

bigadaj wrote: »

As you are no doubt aware historic performance is no guide to the future, but to a large extent it's all we've got to go on, just make sure it's over a decent time period as short term outperformance is often just that.

I'd go with that too ..... and clearly the time frame is key. Anything shorter than 5 years rule is asking for trouble. However, as someone gets older then that changes the investment strategy as the years may not be there to recover from a crash.

Thats much at where I am at ... working out how best to invest/save/put under the mattress/ etc etc for my remaining years.

bigadaj wrote: »

If you want to pay an ifa do so, if you don't then do it yourself.

I already do some DIY myself. I do the SIPP for the £3,600 non earner, which nice tax man contributes £720. So that is a bit of playing around money.

I think the point I'm making is that is what point an investment or fund choice becomes an informed decision versus pot luck.

I can look at funds on HL and see the various holdings, sectors, etc. Thus assessing the viability of those holdings then starts to feel pot luck rather than informed.

Glaxo, Legal and General, Reynolds American v Imperial Brands, PepsiCo, Stryker Corp.

I know of some of those companies and some I have not heard of. So choosing funds with these holdings either becomes a research project or effectively it is lucky dip. It is at that point I would assume an IFA's suggestion, or even HL's promoted products, would have had a better analysis of these holdings, sectors etc than I could provide on my own.

towag

Anyways getting back to the original thread...

When an insurance and pensions giant is found seriously wanting...
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2554472/Four-million-savers-short-changed-Aviva-compensation-Insurers-323million-bill-merger-blunder.html

And does this...
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2566539/Aviva-threw-retirement-plans-disarray.html

Yet can easily do this...
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-3514805/IN-MONEY-Aviva-chief-executive-Mark-Wilson-handed-3-1m-pay-rise.html?login#readerCommentsCommand-message-field

It makes one seriously contemplate what kind of morals and ethics Aviva really have when it can treat a multitude of policy holders in such a cruel, cold and shoddy way.
When you find out from Aviva that they have no intention of paying out their Norwich Union section 32 pension policy holders at the benefit retirement date stated in their policies..... By Aviva's "calculations" of "insufficient funds".... Only to get a paltry "guaranteed minimum pension" at SPA (65), no lump sum and the loss of 5 years probably much needed income and they wonder why multitudes of policy holders complain?.... Yet Aviva's assets exceed the New Zealand economy... Yet just one month of CEO Mark Wilson's annual pay out would more than easily pay for the pension of one of these policy holders. I think most ordinary decent people would come to the conclusion that it's unethical, shoddy and downright obscene!!..... So Aviva, its CEO and those below him profit at what cost???

WBCPB

towag wrote: »

When you find out from Aviva that they have no intention of paying out their Norwich Union section 32 pension policy holders at the benefit retirement date stated in their policies..... By Aviva's "calculations" of "insufficient funds".... Only to get a paltry "guaranteed minimum pension" at SPA (65), no lump sum and the loss of 5 years probably much needed income and they wonder why multitudes of policy holders complain?.... Yet Aviva's assets exceed the New Zealand economy... Yet just one month of CEO Mark Wilson's annual pay out would more than easily pay for the pension of one of these policy holders. I think most ordinary decent people would come to the conclusion that it's unethical, shoddy and downright obscene!!..... So Aviva, its CEO and those below him profit at what cost???

So has nothing changed since the upheld complaint from Mr Harris,i would imagine that many other policyholders across all providers would have exactly the same documents with the "one sentence missing",maybe a class action to the Pensions Ombudsman would sort this injustice once and for all?

Regards

dunstonh

,i would imagine that many other policyholders across all providers would have exactly the same documents with the "one sentence missing"

Every provider will have their own T&C. Every provider will have multiple versions as T&C are not static but change over time.

maybe a class action to the Pensions Ombudsman would sort this injustice once and for all?

Start by looking at facts and not assumptions. Go around all the providers and ask them for their T&C on all versions of their product. Don't assume as assumptions do not cut it in law.