Royal London negative projection over next 7 years

bostonerimus

dunstonh said:

They do show the probabilities (what % of the population understands those properly I wonder?) 

1% ?

According to the FCA, most of the population don't understand percentages.

Would that be three quarters or closer to 75%?

billy2shots

bostonerimus said:

dunstonh said:

They do show the probabilities (what % of the population understands those properly I wonder?) 

1% ?

According to the FCA, most of the population don't understand percentages.

Would that be three quarters or closer to 75%?

I would say only 55% of people I come across understand percentages. The other 55% don't..

Albermarle

 Same should have been done for these ones that glue themselves to motorway gantries IMO. Put a policeman each end to stop anyone going up to feed them, and let the weather encourage them to descend.

I noticed they have stopped since the unusually mild weather has now changed to something more wet and chilly !

help50

Thanks for the various replies. Someone asked what the pension is invested in, it's the Moderately Adventurous Tracker Lifestyle Strategy.
There has been discussion about the word projection etc, what about the statement in their assumptions which go along with their estimated value in 7 years, "The value of your investments will grow by -0.2%". Again, is that just meaningless, everything's down the toilet, things will change etc. If they state this as an assumption, is that not pretty pants? And if it is, is there anything I can do about it? Thanks again.

dunstonh

There has been discussion about the word projection etc, what about the statement in their assumptions which go along with their estimated value in 7 years,

It is not an estimate.  It is a synthetic example projection if all the assumptions were to be met, that is what it could be.

If they state this as an assumption, is that not pretty pants?

The assumptions are pretty pessamistic and a long way off long term averages.   However, the intention was to encourage people to pay more in and show it in todays spending power.   

And if it is, is there anything I can do about it? 

Ignore it and use more reasonable assumptions.

sandsy

dunstonh said: The FCA control the assumptions used in the projections.     And remember that the -0.2% is net of inflation which itself is an assumed figure that is nowhere near reality.

The FCA control the assumptions on some projections.

But the OP said this was an annual benefit statement so it may have been prepared using the FRC's assumptions instead. There's some subtle differences although it seems the differences will get much larger next October.

woolly_wombat

How old is this RL policy?

Could it possibly come with any valuable hidden legacy benefits such as a guaranteed minimum pension (GMP) or a guaranteed annuity rate (GAR)?