Equitable Life with profits pension / takeover.

greatgimpo

Out, out, out and another provider lined up ready without the need for a 'financial adviser'.

Scot_39

No mention of turn out - but on the face of it 94% could easily be described as "overwhelming". Hopefully this 94% should be enough to secure court approval - but nothing is guaranteed.
Whilst I am happy with the result - many of us now face additional decisions - the difficulty of deciding where and how to invest the uplifted funds - so I am by no means gloating. Ideally I would have hoped to remain.

I am not happy with the management of the society over the last few years - or for their performance during this operation. To me they have had their head too focused on the scheme and stuck in the past - and have failed to adjust the annual bonus rates and the capital distribution in a timely fashion to protect the society in the event of a vote "against" the scheme - given the evidence of the rapid drop in SCR solvency measure - as per the recent Chief actuaries supplementary report.

Although the numbers are not quite fatal - the tighter measure of solvency coverage - the SCR reported to the PRA - rather than the management's own 'adjusted' one - has dropped from circa 200% in 2018 annual report - to around 159% in December 18 - to 120% in June. No figure for Sep2019 given yet ( it should be coming - probably in time for the court case in 3 weeks I expect - but if follows the even lower gilt rates since June - could be even worse.)
The management uses an adjusted one - which is much higher - at 175 in June - but I know which one I would put more faith in - to guide me to safely access my funds - given the sum of cash involved.

After reading the latest reports - I was worried a vote against would either mean

making a clean break at my transfer or GIR value - much lower (£10's of thousands ) than my uplift
OR
facing an ongoing game of chicken - hanging on for GIRs as the solvency of the society evolved ( maybe it can recover / maybe not ) or simple membership decay with time forced an early closure - before younger members might be in a position to lift benefits.

But as I say many of us now face equally difficult decisions - assuming court approval - where, how and when to invest the released funds. So although we will probably get the uplift - there is a price to be paid.

Maffo65

greatgimpo wrote: »

Out, out, out and another provider lined up ready without the need for a 'financial adviser'.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.
Utmost do not force you to use a financial adviser, you select the investment options of your choice among those available.

If you are referring to JLT, that is a free service arranged by EL which policyholders are under no obligation to use.

There has to be another reason for you to switch to another provider, surely?

pafpcg

Maffo65 wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]Considering all the due diligence done by EL and the overwhelmingly positive result, I very much doubt the High Court would not approve.[/FONT]

If the turnout was low then the Court might not be so enthusiastic. I note that Equitable gave no turnout data.....

[The press release with the figures is here: www.equitable.co.uk/media/65470/news-release-post-policyholders-meeting-and-egm.pdf ]

New_World_Man

Whatever the turnout, might the court take the view that those who failed to vote simply showed an indifference to the outcome.

I don’t think an abstention can be considered as a vote against, although there may be an argument that abstention favours the status quo.

Transparency surely requires the turnout to be confirmed. I imagine the court would demand to know.

POPPYOSCAR

Maffo65 wrote: »

I'm not sure what you mean by that.
Utmost do not force you to use a financial adviser, you select the investment options of your choice among those available.

If you are referring to JLT, that is a free service arranged by EL which policyholders are under no obligation to use.

There has to be another reason for you to switch to another provider, surely?

Nothing ambiguous about that post.

The poster has done the work himself that is all.

I am another one who will be out at the earliest opportunity.

POPPYOSCAR

pafpcg wrote: »

What ruffles my feathers is the frequent references by Equitable-appointed experts to how content they are about the communications between Equitable and the members. Yet the Equitable are issuing a steady dribble of new information on their web-site (some of it, as you have pointed out, highly relevant to the members' decision-making) and yet making no effort (that I'm aware of) to bring it to the attention of the members. OK, posting out flyers is expensive, but they could have set-up an opt-in email alert system, or are there alerts on Facebook which I'd never see?

I agree.

It has not been handled correctly at all.

cronshd

Maffo65 wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]At this stage, how many posters are thinking of sticking with Utmost, and who is planning to switch to another provider?
[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]

If it goes ahead I intend to switch to HL, where I have an account. I know the platform, how it works and I am happy with the service. I was pleased to see that HL are already in the game, so hopefully it will be reasonably smooth. However, with these kinds of things (transfers of significant amounts of money) it is always the detailed step by step process to get your funds to the destination which is the most important (and often neglected by the involved parties).

Any thoughts?

Scot_39

Perhaps it was just a natural aversion to the fees they charge - or simply the hangover from the poor reputation some had - old commission only terms where at least some IFAs could have been biased by the sales commissions when recommending products.
(My first thought on the top deal - for all that money - is a risk the HL Advisors advice simply push towards their Vantage SIPP product? And I already have one )

Whilst a good IFA can perhaps earn you more - or simply give you access to a wider set of deals - maybe even lower charges - it is unlikely that many of the members of the ELWP society - could easily justify the minimum fees these people ask for - on the back of their ELWP pot in isolation.
B28.2 averages are only around £15K after uplift - particularly the AVC members whos sums are reportedly even lower ( possibly 5K AVC , 25K full personal after uplift according to parts of the press)
The £50/£95/£345 minimum HL figures are subsidised - by upto £450 pounds - but I have heard of quotes from IFA's running into several thousands.
I have chosen my own fund mixes in the past and will just choose my own at Utmost or elsewhere - along similar lines - but chosing a more defensive mix as older now. At least then I only have myself to blame if and when it goes wrong - and it has sometimes. Perhaps I shouldn't - but IFA's do not have a crystal ball to see into the future either.

I think the idea behind the £95 sort of deal though was a nice thing to build into the scheme - as it could be useful to some members ( this £95 after £350 subsidy ) - at least if nothing else to give them some reassurance on their own thought process or clues as to how to make their own decisions - espcecially if members have never done so before.
Indications from the supplementary reports etc - suggest take up to date has been lower than expected. Perhaps this uptake will accelerate now after the vote "for".

Maffo65

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

I am another one who will be out at the earliest opportunity.

And you have every right to do so.

I'm just trying to work out what to do myself, and would be interested to find out why some posters are planning to leave Utmost asap.

The poster I replied to earlier did not clarify that, I thought he meant that he was planning to leave because Utmost force policyhoders to use their advisers, which is clearly not the case.

What are your reasons, if I may ask?