Norwich Union - Reattribution

dunstonh

I offered the two posters the facts and options

You have opinions but the problem is that they appear clouded by anti NU bias which basically sees you slate NU at every opportunity. Whether its valid to or not. Its fine to have a go at them when they are in the wrong but you would be blaming them for it raining if you could.

and as usual tried to make out that the MVR wouldn`t be anywhere near 20%.

I dont understand what you are saying there. I checked back on the thread and see that it was another poster that mentioned that. They also said that they personally had not seen any at 20% and that was back in January before the final MVR added to date. So, they were almost certainly right at the time of posting.

If you chart the NU with profits fund alongside the NU balanced managed fund you will see that the returns are almost identical over the long term. The Balanced managed fund zig zags with the markets but the WP fund is a smoother line. As balanced managed funds took a hit for around 25% before they started to recover, a drop in the 20% range is now possible on the WP fund. Things have improved a fair bit since the MVR was last increased so there is a good chance that if the current recovery in the markets is sustained, the MVRs will reduce or be offset by increased in the terminal bonus

alared

dunstonh wrote: »

You have opinions but the problem is that they appear clouded by anti NU bias which basically sees you slate NU at every opportunity.

More claptrap from you.
I have had a WP policy with NU since 2000,so how can I be biased against them?
I could have withdrew "an income" at any stage but chose to keep the whole of my money invested.


My grouse is the way NU has handled the "orphan fund" fiasco,which they initiated.

Not many people even knew such a thing existed and couldn`t of cared less about it.
If NU,once they stated their intentions, had simply "got on with it" instead of dragging it out, 5 years it will have gone on if they finally settle it next year,then I and a great number of policyholders would have been far happier with them.

dunstonh

I have had a WP policy with NU since 2000,so how can I be biased against them?

I dont know why you are biased against them but the content of your posts clearly suggest you are as your comments are not balanced and assume NU are wrong in every single case.

If NU,once they stated their intentions, had simply "got on with it" instead of dragging it out, 5 years it will have gone on if they finally settle it next year,then I and a great number of policyholders would have been far happier with them.

Yes they would. But whom dragged it out. Many believe, and the evidence is there to suggest they are right, that CS dragged it out just as much as NU did. She has to take some responsibility for not negotiating a percentage based figure but instead arranging a fixed amount that was subject to change if the FTSE100 fell below 5000. The assets have a daily value so it makes more sense to have agreed a percentage of that daily value. It doesnt take much common sense to see that.

missile

I was shocked to learn how much CS was paid for her services and very disappointed at her failure to provide policy holders with any information, other than a rehash of NU statements.

alared

missile wrote: »

I was shocked to learn how much CS was paid for her services and very disappointed at her failure to provide policy holders with any information, other than a rehash of NU statements.

Nothing shocks me anymore what these "financial experts,advisors,company directors,bankers,etc." get paid after the "fred the shred" fiasco.

If CS wasn`t employed then someone else would have been at just the same amount of money.
The financial industry is all about greed and making as much as they can as quick as they can and never mind the consequences.

missile

Seems there might be some light at the end of the tunnel > http://ft.fundtransfer-norwichunion.com/ve/ZZoUh75eh6574B59c
Roll on June

mike88

My 10 years is up in July and I have the option to withdraw all my funds free of the MVA. If I keep the policy going the MVA will apply again but I will be given credit for the 10 years that the policy will be in place. This means that the MVA will be low if I withdraw at a later date.

The advice on here seems to be to take my money and run but I'm unsure whether I shall benefit from the Reattribution given that the payment is not due until November. My guess is that I won't.

These policies are so mind boggling complex I shall never buy one again. I'm still unsure what to do.

Geoffo_M

mike88 wrote: »

My 10 years is up in July and I have the option to withdraw all my funds free of the MVA. If I keep the policy going the MVA will apply again but I will be given credit for the 10 years that the policy will be in place. This means that the MVA will be low if I withdraw at a later date.

The advice on here seems to be to take my money and run but I'm unsure whether I shall benefit from the Reattribution given that the payment is not due until November. My guess is that I won't.

These policies are so mind boggling complex I shall never buy one again. I'm still unsure what to do.

Mike, it looks like they are going to tell us our Reattribution amounts in June. The MVA on your 1999 policy is 16%, scroll down to Page 7 here

http://adviser.norwichunion.com/product-literature/files/pr/press_release.pdf

so if 16% of your policy is more than the benefit from Reattribution (which I imagine it will be), then it's worth getting out in July. However, I'm now wondering if you would be allowed to agree in June to your Reattribution figure in June AND then still get out in July getting the best of both worlds? Might be worth a phone call. That would be good. In a way, you're lucky in that you should have a month to make up your mind. But not as lucky as alared & I whose 10 year anniversaries are next year.

lisa76

I have an endowment with NU, I took it out in 1999, so just over 10 years ago. I pay £42.95 a month. Could anyone give me a rough guide as to how much I am likely to get with this reattribution offer?
Also I am thinking about cashing it it and paying if off my mortgage, do I have to wait until I get my payout?
Thanks in advance

chromehorse

My guess is that you'd be near the low end (min) offer of £200 but I don't know.

As a policyholder I feel I have been abused by Norwich Union and sadly let down by Clare Spottiswoode. She has basically swallowed everything that NU have tossed her way. Our baseline interest in the Inherited Estate is a 90% share. She was completely ignored by NU when they announced their special distribution; she made a weak submission to TSC, her pleas about mis-selling have been trashed by NU with FSA support, her first 'good in all repsects' deal was for £1Bn - or less than 50% of the residual value of the Inherited Estate; she was totally passive when NU tore up that deal; and this latest conditional deal is about half the value of the first deal. I have written to her asking if she would accept a fee reduction to 10% of the £250,000 pa which policyholders will be paying if there is a reattribution.

NU have recently revealed that the Inherited Estate is not a discrete sum at all, it is the balance of funds left in the With Profits Funds after they have removed large sums for their own mis-selling compensation; NU staff pensions etc; and after they calculate the cost of guarantees. Yet they carry on depicting it as some kind of separate surplus 'pot' which doesn't belong to policyholders. This is deceit on a massive scale.

To find out more go to the Norwich Union Policyholders Google group at

http://groups.google.com/group/norwich-union-policyholder-reattribution?lnk=srg