Equitable Life with profits pension / takeover.

[Deleted User]

Maffo65 wrote: »

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?

High fees and limited options.

Maffo65

New_World_Man wrote: »

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.

Yes, I agree with everything you said.

I really don't think EL could be faulted if it emerged that the turnout wasn't very high.
They did all they could to make sure policyholders were informed and got their chance to vote, and set high thresholds for the two motions to be passed.

The High Court has to think in terms of due diligence, and I believe EL covered all bases from that standpoint.
Sure, in an ideal world they wouldn't have published their latest reports so close to the voting deadline, but from a due diligence perspective I doubt that would matter.

pafpcg

Maffo65 wrote: »

I really don't think EL could be faulted if it emerged that the turnout wasn't very high.

They did all they could to make sure policyholders were informed and got their chance to vote, and set high thresholds for the two motions to be passed.

I'm not convinced that Equitable did do everything they could to inform policyholders. That's why I'm not surprised that no turnout figures have been published, despite that being a key element in the voting process. The board have held the vote on their proposal, got a result in favour by a wide margin, so why be so coy about turnout? Sadly, it's just another example of not being entirely open and honest with their members.

Maffo65

pafpcg wrote: »

no turnout figures have been published, despite that being a key element in the voting process.

No turnout figures have been published YET.
It's inconceivable that the High Court wouldn't want to look into that.
Do you seriously believe EL would be allowed not to disclose them?

pafpcg wrote: »

Sadly, it's just another example of not being entirely open and honest with their members.

Rather immaterial at this stage, but just out of curiosity: what exactly do you wish they had done differently?

pafpcg

Maffo65 wrote: »

Rather immaterial at this stage, but just out of curiosity: what exactly do you wish they had done differently?

Obviously, publish the number of votes cast and the turnout percentage! They would have had to do this basic arithmetic anyway to check that there had been no ballot stuffing. Not publishing this data seems so petty and defensive - what is the board frightened of? Or do they truly believe that the members "shouldn't worry their pretty little heads about this sort of thing"?

On the overall picture, I see no sign that the Equitable board did much "market research" such as focus groups to find out what information the members would want. The FAQs on the web-site appeared woefully late and barely touched on details or quantification of the numbers. I'd expect that the bulk of questions raised with JLT were common - Equitable could have published regularly the questions being asked and the answers given - that would probably have not only saved members' time & phone bills asking the same questions but also saving the cost of JLT staff in providing the same answers. (We know from the Supplementary Reports that Equitable were themselves analysing the complaints and questions being asked.)

I get the impression that the bulk of what the board circulated to members was the paperwork to convince the High Court to allow the Proposal to proceed. Part A of the Explanatory Booklet was designed specifically for members but it had no depth and lacked the vital links to allow members to find the real detail buried in the Proposal. And whoever allowed to be published the Summary of the Transfer Independent Expert's Report (from Deloittes) in Part B of the Explanatory Booklet needs "re-education" - to spray the text of the report with pointlessly emboldened words made it extraordinarily difficult to comprehend.

And, of course, the big glaring gap in the Equitable's presentation was the answer to: "Well, I'll agree to wind-up the Equitable with-profits fund and see an uplift to my funds, but can I take my funds elsewhere? Are there alternatives to what Utmost offers?" Commercial interest no doubt compelled Equitable to stay silent on any alternative options, but I just don't get the feeling that the Equitable board were wholeheartedly representing the members.

Maffo65

pafpcg wrote: »

Obviously, publish the number of votes cast and the turnout percentage!

As far as your other remarks go, you are clearly entitled to your opinion, and I respect it.
But on this one, it seems to me that you are just belabouring a moot point.

The number of votes cast and the turnout percentage will be disclosed when the High Court has to make its decison. From a practical standpoint, what difference would it make if EL made them known now?

Besides, you seem to be focusing on absolute figures, whereas clearly the High Court will look at relative figures, i.e. how the turnout for this vote compares to every previous AGM vote - and I bet those older numbers are really low.

Personally, I am happy about the way EL is managing this process, delighted with the vote result and fully confident that it'll get approved with flying colours!
:beer:

Joey_Soap

Just thought I'd post an update on my position with EL/Utmost AVC attached to a deferred DB pension. I have written to the trustees today to ask if it is possible to move my EL AVC pot to my SIPP once it is sent across to Utmost from EL. For sure, it's going to be less than GBP 10k as a lump sum so I will very likely ask for it to be paid out as a small pot lump sum. I'll keep you posted.

Thanks.

Soap.

Edited to add - It's just occurred to me, Utmost could actually do the small pot lump sum payout if they chose to cooperate, I guess? No need to do transfer to my SIPP then.

woolly_wombat

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]

I am already in receipt of a small pension from a former employer but still have a few years before I can claim either state pension or the full value of my LGPS pension.

Drawing down my Equitable Life pension will fill the gap nicely - something Utmost can't offer me.

Switching is a no brainer for me.
.

woolly_wombat

woolly_wombat wrote: »

Drawing down my Equitable Life pension will fill the gap nicely - something Utmost can't offer me.

Correction:
Drawing down my Equitable Life pension will fill the gap nicely - something Utmost can't currently offer me, but 'Utmost Drawdown' is apparently under development, according to the ELAS website.

Scot_39

woolly_wombat wrote: »

Drawing down my Equitable Life pension will fill the gap nicely - something Utmost can't offer me.

If you want drawdown (flexi-access drawdown) - then no - but if you just want to lift your funds over a few years - or even 100% immediately - then Utmost does offer UFPLS - as EL currently do - from day 1. See
https://www.equitable.co.uk/micro/whatcani.htm


Both techniques offer the ability to withdraw partial or even I suspect all funds (subject to potential higher tax on larger amounts ) - but to draw down on your pension funds over a few years - the primary difference comes down to tax for most people.
Drawdown (in the current form - flexi accesss drawdown ) gives access tax free to upto 25% of the total pot on day 1 for those who want it - then the remaining 75% is taxable whenever lifted ( but you can take less - and save some of your 25% tax free for later). UFPLS is 25% tax free / 75% taxable on every withdrawal.
UFPLS has a transition guarantee - free before / free after - drawdown does not - and may be chargable at market rates - have Utmost or EL commented on cost yet ?
Drawdown used to potentially add more work for pension providers - and most do charge for it - but then most charge for UFPLS ( but then don't charge 1.5% AMCs for years upfront ).