Norwich Union - Reattribution

dunstonh

Do you work for NU or Aviva?

Dont be silly

I'd assume yes in the sense that they are the ones who pay him but not directly.

Although that comment from Earlygrey trumps it in stupidity.

Do you agree that they should waste £9 million on a name change?

Name changes by most companies are expensive nowadays. I have already said I dont like the name change.

Don`t you think they should just get on with the pay outs?

No. I would prefer them to focus on financial solvency at this time.

Market conditions may stop the pay outs but market conditions won`t stop the squandering of £9 million on an advertising campaign!

If you are a shareholder then make your complaint. If not, then you dont have a say in the issue. £9 mill is a drop in ocean when you compare it to their budgets on a range of things. Remember this money will also double up as an advertising campaign.

earlgrey_3

dunstonh wrote: »

Dont be silly
Although that comment from Earlygrey trumps it in stupidity.

Would you care to explain? Do they not pay you and/or the self-employed salesmen your firm employs commission or are you saying you would never flog their products?

dunstonh

Would you care to explain? Do they not pay you and/or the self-employed salesmen your firm employs commission or are you saying you would never flog their products?

You just make things up to be confrontational. So, there is little point explaining as you will disregard it or twist it to suit your own anti-IFA agenda.

earlgrey_3

dunstonh wrote: »

You just make things up to be confrontational. So, there is little point explaining as you will disregard it or twist it to suit your own anti-IFA agenda.

So you have enough time on your hands to be abusive but insufficient time to justify your claims or apologise. I think we can therefore assume what I said was correct and you were simply blustering in order to mislead.

Are you as misleading or abusive to your clients as you are on this board?

(I'd point out that it isn't just me concerned about the abuses by IFAs using commission-only salesmen like yours. I understand that the Financial Services Authority will be outlawing the way companies like yours have been until now describing themselves as IFAs while selling on on commission by 2012. http://www.moneyweek.com/personal-finance/need-unbiased-advice-youll-be-lucky.aspx )

dunstonh

So you have enough time on your hands to be abusive but insufficient time to justify your claims or apologise. I think we can therefore assume what I said was correct and you were simply blustering in order to mislead.

I have nothing to apologise for. You are an idiot. Plain and simple. You make things up and you take snippets of information and twist them to mean something else. Your posts about my business model are a complete misrepresentation and outright lies. You are in fact a complete liar and you repeat his lies to suit your anti IFA stance.

I understand that the Financial Services Authority will be outlawing the way companies like yours

My company is not being outlawed and this is just an example of the sort of misinformation and lies you have been posting.

earlgrey_3

My company is not being outlawed and this is just an example of the sort of misinformation and lies you have been posting.

Nor did I say it would be. However, as I believe I said, your practice of being paid commission directly by the supplier of the products you sell will be outlawed if you intend to continue calling yourself an IFA.

Again you are being deliberately misleading and that should tell anyone all they need to know about you.

There are already very good IFAs who, unlike your firm, have salaried advisers and charge only on the basis of work done rather than being paid conmmission by the product suppliers. See http://www.nomonkeybusiness.co.uk/why_we_are_different/

'Don't be fooled by the ubiquitous label 'fee-based': if portfolio-based fees can only be collected by offsetting commissions received, then commission bias between products is not removed - “it is only by persuading people to part with real money that an adviser can claim to be truly independent”: FT, 30 October 2006'

dunstonh

However, as I believe I said, your practice of being paid commission directly by the supplier of the products you sell will be outlawed if you intend to continue calling yourself an IFA.

That is incorrect. The method of remuneration I use is either direct fee or hybrid fee. The latter was called customer agreed remuneration by the FSA although they are renaming it in the next draft. They are the methods I use and will continue to use beyond 2012 and they fit exactly with what the FSA want.

Again you are being deliberately misleading and that should tell anyone all they need to know about you.

You are the one that invented me working on commission basis.

There are already very good IFAs who unlike your firm have salaried advisers and charge only on the basis of work done rather than being paid conmmission by the product suppliers

You know nothing about me or my firm and yet you make all sorts of accusations. That says more about you than me.

alared

It was NU,in the first place, that brought up the idea of a redistribution of the "orphan funds",simply to get their grubby little hands on the cash.
Having dragged their heels for over three years we are still no nearer getting a pay out.
They are obviously trying to welch on the deal because they are not getting enough out of it and "market conditions" is as good as reason as any.

To waste £9 MILLION in a name changing exercise at a time of belt tightening and economic downturn is typical of the whole financial sector`s "two fingers up to everyone" and "I`m all right Jack" attitude.

When my WP bond comes up for it`s 10 years in 2010 and with no MVA tied to it,I`ll be getting out,payout or no orphan fund payout.

I said all along that it would be doubtful that the redistribution would actually happen and they were not to be trusted to fulfill it,seems I wasn`t far off the mark.

[Deleted User]

I can't comment on the redistribution as I work in the general insurance side of the business, but we have put together a Q & A around the rebranding which can be found here: http://www.aviva.co.uk/customers.html

In answer to your comment about the current climate can I point to the part that says:

We've been building the Aviva brand around the world since we first introduced it in 2002. It's the brand known by customers in over 20 countries and has enough recognition for us to be able to change the Norwich Union, Commercial Union and Hibernian brands to Aviva.

Although rebranding costs money, the savings we'll make by marketing one brand instead of four more than make up for it. Becoming one brand means we'll get maximum value out of our marketing budget and means we can share our learning and expertise across all our markets.

earlgrey_3

dunstonh wrote: »

You are the one that invented me working on commission basis.

No, you are the one who admitted that you use self-employed commission-only salesmen and said that you only take them on if they have a track-record of commission earnings of £100K pa.

You have also said in earlier posts that you rebate the initial commission but keep the annual trail commission. In more recent posts you have said you now offer to charge on what you describe as a "fee basis" by keeping the commission instead of the fee.

That's the trouble with putting it down in writing on a forum like this, it's all there in the database for anyone who wants to see. It's not so much the way you work that should be a concern but that you are so ready to mislead and deceive.

Dunstan, don't you understand that what anyone expects from an adviser is basic honesty and all your misleading claims will be noted by anyone with any sense and have them running in the other direction. Trying to bully people off the board by calling them liars just won't work.

If you really have now changed the way you work would you like to set down for the record exactly and transparently what your fee structure is, how your salesmen are now remunerated and whether they are now salaried or self-employed? Do you have a problem with doing that?