Do I not like this!

kidmugsy

In this morning's Tel there's an advert by Royal London directed at customers with Talisman or Hallmark pension plans taken out with Scottish Life between 1985 and 1992. The firm offers these customers the option to give up their Guaranteed Annuity Rates and accept the reward of extra capital being added to their pension pot instead. Who could rationally object to such a proposal?


Answer: anyone who has read on and found that the firm will suggest to the High Court that the planholders should vote as a single group. If that means what I suspect it means - that Jim and Jack could vote that George must give up his GAR - then it seems to me to be a singularly nasty suggestion.

wallpaperman

I think you are being overly suspicious here.


This is a long process that needs High Court approval and is not some under the desk move.


If this goes through, then there will be the option to swap the GAR for an increase to their fund value, but there will be absolutely no compulsion that this must happen, the option will remain for people to simply keep the GAR if that suits their circumstances better.


As long as the offer is fair, and I understand RL are using an independent actuary to ensure this is the case, then it would seem the customer is being given more choice.


These old contracts have no real flexibility in the modern world, and Royal London could argue that they are looking at their customers best interests in offering them more flexibility, especially when the GAR on many contracts will not be able to be accessed until at least 60, sometimes 65.

kidmugsy

wallpaperman wrote: »

I think you are being overly suspicious here.

What's your evidence on the meaning of "planholders should vote as a single group"?

anselld

The proposal document sent out in Feb states that after the high court approval the details of the offer will be published and members may vote for or against or opt out completely.

It is clear that "opt out" means retain your GAR even if others get the capital.

It is not clear (to me at least) what "vote against" means and how it differs from "opt out".

nrsql

I'm guessing members can opt out before the vote and not vote.
Vote for or against or not vote.
Opt out after the vote if it is passed and before it comes into effect.

Or maybe all members whether they are affected or not get a vote (because it might affect the institution) and then if it is passed people affected can opt out.
The vote would just be to see if those that wished to could. The high court ruling would be so that there couldn't be any comeback.

anselld

nrsql wrote: »

I'm guessing

Dangerous!

nrsql wrote: »

Opt out after the vote if it is passed and before it comes into effect.

The timeline on page 6 implies that option to "opt out" comes only before the vote. It then states ...
"in most cases we'll remove the GARs of planholders who didn't opt out".

It seems the turkeys will have to opt out of Christmas rather than voting against.

kidmugsy

anselld wrote: »

The timeline on page 6 implies that option to "opt out" comes only before the vote. It then states ...
"in most cases we'll remove the GARs of planholders who didn't opt out".

A bit like inertia selling, then.

capital0ne

kidmugsy wrote: »

In this morning's Tel there's an advert by Royal London directed at customers with Talisman or Hallmark pension plans taken out with Scottish Life between 1985 and 1992. The firm offers these customers the option to give up their Guaranteed Annuity Rates and accept the reward of extra capital being added to their pension pot instead. Who could rationally object to such a proposal?

Maybe you need to report this to the ASA, here's a link https://www.asa.org.uk/make-a-complaint.html

wjr4

Sorry to open an old thread but it seemed relevant rather than start a new one and basically copy & paste the above! The offers for these pensions have been issued now and I'm quite surprised with some of their offers, an increase of the fund value of between 53%-70%. Now the issue is, how do you actually review whether to keep the GAR or accept the increased fund value?

[Deleted User]

Hello wjr4,
I have received personal offer. Examples are given for various scenarios, with or without GAR annuity or lump sum etc.
Everyone's position and circumstances are different , so it is personal choice which is best if the offer is accepted.
Contrary to fears and concerns expressed here and elsewhere, the scheme OPT-OUT option allows individual members to retain the GAR in event of the changes/proposals being approved.
Regards,
mrwmartin

dunstonh

Now the issue is, how do you actually review whether to keep the GAR or accept the increased fund value?

Either by using an IFA or your own calculations.

Contrary to fears and concerns expressed here and elsewhere, the scheme OPT-OUT option allows individual members to retain the GAR in event of the changes/proposals being approved.

That was always going to be the case. Not sure how people got a different idea