Norwich Union - Reattribution

dunstonh

I can only reiterate that if NU had got on with it,when they first thought it was a brilliant idea, four years ago, to grab the lion`s share of the "orphan fund" then the current payment deferment wouldn`t have arisen.

The current value is back to around 2005 prices so if they paid it out now or back in 2005 it really wouldnt have made much difference to the value. The
peak was about 18 months ago.

It would be nice to know when the peaks are but no-one has that ability until years later when they have the benefit of hindsight.

The real problem was that Ms Spottiswood and the NU representatives spent more time arguing and not enough time negotiating. We dont know enough to say who dragged it out the most but its fair to say that how it was reported was a bit like two oil tankers trying to race each other round a twisty circuit.

Using the hindsight comment, it does seem strange that a fixed price was agreed on rather than a percentage based price. If it was percentage based they could pay out now based on current values and not be required to go back to the drawing board.

alared

The truth of the matter is that Ms Spottiswood did too good a job and wasn`t the easy pushover that NU was hoping for.

dunstonh

alared wrote: »

The truth of the matter is that Ms Spottiswood did too good a job and wasn`t the easy pushover that NU was hoping for.

Yeah, she did a great job. How long did it take and how much are you getting?

alared

I would have been getting,I assume, the average payment (although no figure has been given) but because NU has now reneged on it`s promise

---

a lot less and a lot longer to wait for it.

dunstonh

How can it renege when the agreement stated that the figure could be revised if the FTSE fall below 5000?

You have a stange opinion on valuing assets.

Elmer_Dudd

A cynic would say that the Norwich 'Walter Willis' Union have floated this reattribution as an incentive for policyholders to keep paying their premiums and not cash them in or make them paid up.;)

I could not possibly comment:cool:

Elmer

alared

At present anyone trying to cash in their policies face up to a 20% MVR.
Property fund policy holders can`t cash in for at least 6 months.
And nearly all endowment policies won`t cover the mortgages they were taken out to do.(unless payments were greatly increased to cover the shortfall)
Hardly a glowing performance from these financial companies and hardly a recommendation for anyone to consider putting any money with them ever again.

dunstonh

alared wrote: »

At present anyone trying to cash in their policies face up to a 20% MVR.
Property fund policy holders can`t cash in for at least 6 months.
And nearly all endowment policies won`t cover the mortgages they were taken out to do.(unless payments were greatly increased to cover the shortfall)
Hardly a glowing performance from these financial companies and hardly a recommendation for anyone to consider putting any money with them ever again.

Stockmarket drops over 40% and NU charge an MVR of 20% whilst also still paying the 4.25% bonus. That does seem like a glowing recommendation.

Your problem is that you seem to think that investments work like savings.

alared

dunstonh wrote: »

Your problem is that you seem to think that investments work like savings.

Your problem is when you produce the growth forcast of these products, you use figures from the past to show the future,thus creating a false picture to an investor.

dunstonh

alared wrote: »

Your problem is when you produce the growth forcast of these products, you use figures from the past to show the future,thus creating a false picture to an investor.

Another incorrect assumption. The growth rates on illustrations and projections are set by the FSA. These figures are actually quite realistic and tend to reflect the performance you would expect over the long term.