Norwich Union - Reattribution

Myrmidon_J

alared wrote:

If you want your money out be prepared to lose 20% of your policy`s value is what the above means.

These products are a "busted flush" and should really be withdrawn for sale.

I've not yet seen an MVR reach 20%.

Besides which - especially in the case of the Prudential - insurance companies are generally pretty decent in applying MVRs.

If you'd chosen the same underlying investments or mirrored the asset allocation in the form of a Unit Trust, you'd have lost the money straight away.

I'm really quite fed up with people !!!!!ing about MVRs - the policy is designed to ensure that all policyholders receive a fair deal. I suppose some people just like to pull the wool over their own eyes.

Of course there are some 'With Profits' turkeys. But the Pru have been solid for years - as has NU (to a lesser extent, I would argue) - so why tar all providers with the same brush?

dunstonh wrote:

I guess that article you read is making guesses of a possible future rather than an actual future. Just like Liverpool supporters well tell you that they will win the league this year.

On a lighter note...

Tch!
I had so much respect for you until I saw this.
The title is ours...

[/self-delusion]

alared

Since my CGNU WP Bond was taken out 8.5 years ago,I would have done just as well putting it in a fixed rate or even a high interest savings account.
Where I could of more or less have accessed my money at any time without losing up to 20% as the result of a MVR.

The coming weeks will show more cutting of yearly and final bonuses and no reprieve from the MVR.

alared

Myrmidon_J wrote: »

I've not yet seen an MVR reach 20%.

So Standard Life's 100,000 bondholders, for instance, face average MVRs of between 12 per cent and 22 per cent if they cash in their bonds. At Legal & General, where there are 150,000 bondholders, MVRs range from zero to 23 per cent. Norwich Union's bond MVRs vary between 13 per cent and 22 per cent. Prudential, the best provider in terms of investment returns, is applying average MVRs of four per cent with a maximum MVR of 11 per cent.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1082317/Can-survive-MVR-massacre--How-escape-savage-penalties-profits-bonds-sold-low-risk.html

dunstonh

Since my CGNU WP Bond was taken out 8.5 years ago,I would have done just as well putting it in a fixed rate or even a high interest savings account.

All the ones on my books are averaging just over 7.5% p.a. net.

The coming weeks will show more cutting of yearly and final bonuses and no reprieve from the MVR.

The annual bonus appears unchanged based on information available at the moment and January values are up on December.

I have no issue with the MVR as its common sense and to be expected.

alared

Surprise Surprise
NU slashes ALL bonuses and cuts the amount for the redistribution payment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1120736/Norwich-Union-carnage-hits-bonuses-special-fund-payout.html

Plunging values of shares, property and other assets have hit millions of savers holding Norwich Union's with-profits plans.

The carnage has also wiped out the benefit of special payments being made to one million policyholders as part of the reorganisation of the funds' 'surplus' cash.

dunstonh

alared wrote: »

Surprise Surprise
NU slashes ALL bonuses and cuts the amount for the redistribution payment.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1120736/Norwich-Union-carnage-hits-bonuses-special-fund-payout.html

Plunging values of shares, property and other assets have hit millions of savers holding Norwich Union's with-profits plans.

The carnage has also wiped out the benefit of special payments being made to one million policyholders as part of the reorganisation of the funds' 'surplus' cash.

That article is actually reporting events that happened about 3 weeks ago and have already been discussed on the forums. It is not another cut. It is the same one but with delayed reporting in this case.

chromehorse

NO - not new but Richard Dyson is justified in drawing attention to the fact that if you look at the Special Distribution payment - itself a hotly contested set of arrangements which punish people whose policies are ending, and acts as a further disincentive to those with the temerity to leave NU - in the context of this year's awful bonuses - then it's pretty clear that NU are paying for the distribution (our money remember) by slashing bonuses.

The reattribution scam should be thrown out - 90:10 NOW!

dunstonh

Whilst you say the bonuses are awful, I would have to counter that they are actually very good considering that 2008 saw awful performance on the three main asset classes they invest in. They cannot buck the trend and any expectation they can is unrealistic.

baby_boomer

After the recent bonus cuts at Norwich Union, I first read the headline as "retribution" :eek:.

No wonder they are changing their name to Aviva.

BTW one of their ads is unfortunate.

Leningrad to St. Petersburg.
But the full history is
St Petersburg to Petrograd to Leningrad and back to St Petersburg

Maybe Aviva will once more crave the solid, reassuring name of Norwich Union?

alared

I can`t see how certain people can defend the indefensible.
A cut is a cut, it`s not an increase.

WP Bonds,endowments and even pensions from these companies are a total waste of money.
They`ve had there day long ago and the commission has been raked in and many of these products were mis-sold.
Many people now find at the end of their endowment term,there`s nowhere near enough in their pot to pay off their mortgage.

Yet another example of greed from the financial industry.
Products were never really sold for suitability but for fat commissions.
The pidgeons are yet again coming home to roost.