Norwich Union - Reattribution

dunstonh

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

You may not be aware of the news but markets went down last year. There are no magic beans for them to buck that trend.

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.

Thats just being silly.

alared

dunstonh wrote: »

Thats just being silly.

For the other 1.3 million savers with NU-branded plans, including Diane Doorbar, 58, and her husband, Michael, from Biddulph, Staffordshire, the outlook is unremittingly bleak.

Their £69-a-month mortgage endowment was mis-sold to them in March 1988 by an adviser who subsequently went bust. Because they took out their plan before regulation, they have not been able to claim for mis-selling.

The plan was supposed to clear a £28,000 mortgage at maturity in 2013 when Michael, a lorry maintenance worker, will be 65.

In their March 2008 statement, they were told their plan would mature at a value of £21,700, even if the underlying investments grew by a healthy six per cent per year until 2013.

Based on NU's latest figures, that will now be revised down. Michael said: 'I don't blame NU, because it wasn't them who misled us, but the returns are shocking.'

dunstonh

None of that has got anything to do with the subject.

Wsb5tails

baby_boomer wrote: »

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?

This made me laugh, reminded me of my time working for Royal Mail and the weeks I spent rebranding all my stationary to say Consignia, not to mention the cost, only to undo all the work a short time later.

Myrmidon_J

alared wrote: »

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

[Etc.]

Is this a quote from the Daily Mail?

alared

Myrmidon_J wrote: »

Is this a quote from the Daily Mail?

No it`s a quote from me.

If you took the trouble to read through the whole thread you would see whom I`m talking about.:D

This is an open forum for debate and not a slanging match.
Obviously different opinions are expressed and not everyone is correct 100% of the time.

Basically these boards are for helping one another and not for smart asses.

If the cap fits

---

Myrmidon_J

alared wrote: »

No it`s a quote from me.

If you took the trouble to read through the whole thread you would see whom I`m talking about.

I have taken the trouble to read the whole thread.

But I agree with dunstonh - if all asset classes (and therefore the underlying assets of the fund) fall, it is somewhat ridiculous to expect that large bonuses will be declared.

A 'With Profits' fund is not fully guaranteed, so its value will fluctuate in line with the market. In the toughest ever trading conditions (according to most informed observers), it is likely to "fluctuate" (go down) quite a bit.

Sorry!

alared

It`s funny how over the last eight years these WP companies have made massive profits and should have added above average bonuses to allow for one bad year.
WP bonds were designed to be "low risk" because of the smoothing effect which I have just pointed out.

If you have had eight good years and only one bad how can one bad year make so much impact as it has done with massive cuts in final and yearly bonuses.

They don`t seem to be short of cash for advertising a non event which is costing them NINE MILLION POUNDS.
Ringo Starr must be laughing all the way to the bank,whilst at the same time people who were deliberately mis-sold endowments,so IFA`s could pocket the fees,find that on maturity,they haven`t got enough to pay off their mortgage.

dunstonh

It`s funny how over the last eight years these WP companies have made massive profits and should have added above average bonuses to allow for one bad year.
WP bonds were designed to be "low risk" because of the smoothing effect which I have just pointed out.

The profits of the company are not linked ot the profits of the fund apart from financial solvency.

If you have had eight good years and only one bad how can one bad year make so much impact as it has done with massive cuts in final and yearly bonuses.

Because there hasnt been 8 good years. in that eight year period you have had 3 bad years and 5 good. However, the losses in those 3 bad years has cancelled out the good.

They don`t seem to be short of cash for advertising a non event which is costing them NINE MILLION POUNDS.

Product and brand advertising takes place with many companies. NU have advertised every year for decades.

Ringo Starr must be laughing all the way to the bank,whilst at the same time people who were deliberately mis-sold endowments,so IFA`s could pocket the fees,find that on maturity,they haven`t got enough to pay off their mortgage.

its comments like that which show your prejudice and prevent you from being taken seriously.

alared

3 bad years cancel out 5 good

---

very convenient

Isn`t Ringo being paid then?