Equitable Life with profits pension / takeover.

pafpcg

Julian999 wrote: »

In my opinion this process is being conducted the wrong way round. The people with the least experience in the insurance/pension world (i.e. us, the policyholders) are being asked to make a decision that will affect our future income and in so doing relieve Equitable of their responsibilities regarding the safe keeping and growth of our funds. Our current contracts are with Equitable with specified guarantees and safety for our money. It is Equitable who should be telling us that this is the correct way forward and that our guarantees will be maintained even if that means foregoing the uplift, otherwise they should keep looking. What is Equitable's responsibility post transfer if Utmost funds go topsy-turvy?

I support your sentiment. My partner's investment in the Equitable with-profits fund might only be a relatively small part of our overall pension "portfolio", but its guaranteed-never-to-drop-in-value fund has for the last thirty years been a comfort that there'll always be something to help pay our living costs in our dotage! We are reluctant to switch to a market-driven fund - that's where the bulk of our funds are already. I have an idea that we might transfer-out the Equitable fund as soon as the uplift is added, to buy an annuity a few years earlier than originally planned.

However, I'm not sure it's fair to say "It is Equitable who should be telling us that this is the correct way forward". According to the quotes from within the paperwork, "I, and the Board firmly believe that the Proposal is the fairest way forward" (Chairman on page 19) and "The Board believes that the Proposal is the best way of securing the future for our Policyholders ........." (Chief Executive on page 28). What more would you expect? Given that Equitable is a mutual organisation, it has to put this proposal to a vote for all members/policyholders.

But, I agree, the proposal offers only one option (other than outright rejection) which is to switch to a unit-based model and not to offer an option equivalent to the one we selected when we initial started funding at the Equitable. Certainly from the Equitable's perspective, the proposal's purpose is to close itself down and will have absolutely no responsibility to the current policyholders if the Utmost funds ultimately prove to be poor value.

TArquintp

I note that the policy holders meeting is in Westminster (almost opposite Parliament) on November 1st. What are the odds that there will be a mass demonstration that day which might prevent anyone reaching the venue?
I quite fancy going to the meeting but don't want to invest in a train ticket unless I know for sure that the meeting will go ahead. Equitable/Utmost and the Police may have different ideas about the feasibility of going ahead. I emailed the helpline to find out if the risks have been assessed. At a minimum Equitable/Utmost should discuss the issue with the Police and agree a route for accessing the venue. I expect a reply within 2 weeks.

BlondeHeadOn

TArquintp wrote: »

I note that the policy holders meeting is in Westminster (almost opposite Parliament) on November 1st. What are the odds that there will be a mass demonstration that day which might prevent anyone reaching the venue?
I quite fancy going to the meeting but don't want to invest in a train ticket unless I know for sure that the meeting will go ahead. Equitable/Utmost and the Police may have different ideas about the feasibility of going ahead. I emailed the helpline to find out if the risks have been assessed. At a minimum Equitable/Utmost should discuss the issue with the Police and agree a route for accessing the venue. I expect a reply within 2 weeks.

Good point!


I hadn't even thought about this - maybe more of us should email the helpline to raise this query so that it can't be ignored.

MissConception

We all know to our cost that we cannot rely on our shoddy regulatory bodies so to what extent can we believe the terms of this proposal?

It seems to me that we are being asked to give up our guarantees for only an estimated future benefit (ie the uplift). We are already being slightly misled about the size of the uplift as it is based on the non-guaranteed value. So in my case a stated uplift of 74% ir really 26% when calculated properly. That is a much smaller margin of buffer to guard against an outcome where the "74%" turns out to be a big overestimate.

Where are the safeguards?

I applaud anyone who has been able to read this information pack thoroughly and understand it. Personally I think the article in the Times (mentioned in an earlier post) was far too premature being penned all to quickly after the release of the information pack. It might look appealing on the face of it but it pays to be cautious.

Call me cynical if you like but having been with EL for 28 years and lost countless thousands in the value of my pension I have earned the right!

Scot_39

Re help line answers on taking funds - this is news



If you go the utmost website - the pension hub - it suggests that Utmost are in fact currently less flexible than Equitable - only really supporting annuities.




For both 'drawdown' ( think this is as Utmost's "take a flexible income" ) or 'UFLSP' ( as Utmost's - "take number of lump sums" ) style withdrawals - the Utmost website currently says



"You will need to transfer to a different pension provider to do this."





Perhaps Utmost are going to change for us ? ( Perhaps they legally have to ? )




Did anyone get the ongoing flexibility confirmed in writing ?

BlondeHeadOn

I still haven't received my information pack, is this normal? I don't know how long it is taking to send them all out.

BlondeHeadOn

BlondeHeadOn wrote: »

I still haven't received my information pack, is this normal? I don't know how long it is taking to send them all out.

Forget my last post, the EL doorstop has just thudded through my letter box with a seismic shudder.


That's my bedtime reading sorted for the weekend....:o

varne27

Deleted_User wrote: »

1. Wont be worth very much if the company goes bankrupt

2. Ditto if inflation were to exceed 3.5%

3. One can always put money in guilts if he is confident the stocks are about to lose value and the money is needed soon. The yield will be lower but with 68% uplift it would take over 2 decades for the value of guarantees to catch up.

4. And if one’s investment horizon is over 2 decades then a balanced fund should provide over 3.5% average annual return with a high degree of confidence

(The above from Mordko in reply to my previous post)
I see from your previous replies that you are in favour of acceptance. Until I see the fund choice offered by Utmost, the fund charges, management charges & general T&C’s including exit possibilities, I could not possibly share your enthusiasm.
I have other investments that satisfy my appetite for market risk. Many other people will be in the same position. My point is that the existing 3.5% guarantee is Extremely Valuable and not available in any other market today.

In reply to your points:
1) if voted down and Equitable goes bankrupt then ALL markets have collapsed.
2) Why should inflation of 3.5% have a worse effect on the “market” in which Equitable remains invested than it does on markets in general ?
3) The gilt market is currently at record highs. To suggest same as a short term sanctuary is strange advice.

My choice, like everybody’s, will suit my circumstances, after seeing detail of all of the options.
Other than to point out the value of 3.5% guaranteed, I would not presume to advise anybody.,

Haydnjc

I also noticed on my personal illustration that the gauanteed 3.5 percent figure was not displayed for when I retire. Using a quick online calculator the figure was sat between the higher and medium projected new scheme calculations. With nearly 19yrs to go the 3.5 percent gauanteed annual increase is a good return to have. My total uplift is 89 percent probably due to my age. Disappointed that they don't include the guaranteed amount though.

POPPYOSCAR

Scot_39 wrote: »

Re help line answers on taking funds - this is news



If you go the utmost website - the pension hub - it suggests that Utmost are in fact currently less flexible than Equitable - only really supporting annuities.




For both 'drawdown' ( think this is as Utmost's "take a flexible income" ) or 'UFLSP' ( as Utmost's - "take number of lump sums" ) style withdrawals - the Utmost website currently says



"You will need to transfer to a different pension provider to do this."





Perhaps Utmost are going to change for us ? ( Perhaps they legally have to ? )




Did anyone get the ongoing flexibility confirmed in writing ?

I complained to them that this was something that was not at all clear in all the documents sent out(that I could find anyway) and as this is something that a lot of policyholders wanted to know I was surprised it was not covered in the FAQs.

They asked me if I wanted to make a formal complaint.

I said no and they said they would pass on my comments.

I do not think the help line would/could put this in writing but perhaps if enough people question this/ complain Equitable might address this in future correspondence?