Norwich Union - Reattribution

alared

beccus wrote: »

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.

Thanks for the input.

£9 million is just too much to pay for an ad campaign.
Most of it,will no doubt, be going to these overrated already rich "stars".

And will Joe Public be any wiser at the end of it

---

I doubt it.

Anyway we are digressing.
NU, Aviva, decided it would be a great idea to get their grubby hands on the orphan funds but now it seems it wasn`t so lucrative as first thought,so now they`re trying to weadle out of it.

They are not the only ones.
The Pru done a U turn sharply when they too realised they wouldn`t get enough out of it either.

dunstonh

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

No I didnt. You made that up by picking a few things out and attaching your own made up bits to it.

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.

Sometimes I do. Sometimes I dont. It depends on what the person wants. I have never described fee basis as keeping the commission. Again, that is something you have made up.

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.

Doesnt seem to stop people like you taking little bits of information and then using them out of context, or in a completely different way to what was meant or just making things up.

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.

Luckily, most of the regulars know the position and see you as having this mental problem with IFAs and using me as the target.

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?

Why? What has it got to do with this thread? I havent changed the way I work either. I also dont employ salesmen. So, what point would there be other than for you to misrepresent that information and continue your rant.

earlgrey_3

dunstonh wrote: »

No I didnt. You made that up by picking a few things out and attaching your own made up bits to it.

So what exactly did you mean when you said you wont take on someone with a track record of earning under £100k?

Why? What has it got to do with this thread? I havent changed the way I work either. I also dont employ salesmen. So, what point would there be other than for you to misrepresent that information and continue your rant.

Why not be open and honest about your fee-structure? If you make it quite clear and open then it's on record and there is nothing to misrepresent. Why this need to conceal it?

jem16

earlgrey wrote: »

Why not be open and honest about your fee-structure? If you make it quite clear and open then it's on record and there is nothing to misrepresent. Why this need to conceal it?

Dunstonh has done nothing but be open about his fee-structure on this board. Try reading his posts instead of slagging him off.

Just for the record - what bad experience have you had with IFAs? Why the need to conceal it?

dunstonh

So what exactly did you mean when you said you wont take on someone with a track record of earning under £100k?

It means that they have to have a track record of earning over £100k. What part of that is difficult to understand?

It is expensive and time consuming to have advisers attached to your firm. There is no point taking on someone with a poor track record in either business levels or compliance. Perhaps you have to understand business management to follow that. However, in simple terms, if you take on say 3 advisers and need an office and at least one PA to run the office etc, then you are looking at about £30,000-£40,000 a year. If you want them to have access to the usual software then you can add another £10k-£15k p.a. Would you want to take on those costs without making sure that the person is capable of turning in an income that is sufficient to not only cover the costs but also make a profit for both you and themselves?

Why not be open and honest about your fee-structure? If you make it quite clear and open then it's on record and there is nothing to misrepresent. Why this need to conceal it?

I have been. Its only you that seems to have an issue with it. Both in understanding and making things up about it. If I post it again, you would just continue to misrepresent it and post your lies.

EdInvestor

There is a big problem in the structure of the financial advice industry;

+At the bottom end there is reasonable provision for those in debt and who need help with benefits and related issues via the voluntary agencies and the debt counsellors.

+At the top end the IFA system and the stockbrokers can deal cost effectively with high end investors both on a fee paying basis and a hybrid commission and fee system.This is why their advice is always skewed to higher rate taxpayers.

+But the system breaks down for people in the middle - ie the majority.IFAs are not value for money on a commission basis for small and medium investors as it is not worth their while dealing with relatively small amounts of money.Debt and benefits counsellors have no expertise in private pensions or investment.

The result is that many middle range and younger people end up being sold rubbish by the banks - or are outside the investment industry altogether focussing on housing and saving only.

It is better IMHO for people in the middle range to spend a little time acquiring some DIY experience, it's not rocket science and it's the only way really to obtain any value for money. Locating a decent IFA (may not be easy) becomes more useful once you are in the high rate tax bracket and have lump sums to invest.

Palm_Centro

Bet it wont. NU projections have been understating the real returns for most endowments.

Geoffo_M

earlgrey wrote: »

So what exactly did you mean when you said you wont take on someone with a track record of earning under £100k?


Why not be open and honest about your fee-structure? If you make it quite clear and open then it's on record and there is nothing to misrepresent. Why this need to conceal it?

I think you should stop being abusive to dunstonh. Over the years, his posts have helped hundreds of posters. The last thing this forum needs is to lose someone of his expereince.

jem16

Geoffo_M wrote: »

Over the years, his posts have helped hundreds of posters.

The number of thanks he has confirms that.

The last thing this forum needs is to lose someone of his expereince.

I agree.

alared

...but NU has some good news at last

Delays - and doubts --have beset the 'reattribution' process involving Norwich Union's with-profits fund.

But the insurer insists the deal is progressing and eligible policyholders who choose to swap some of their rights in exchange for a windfall should receive cheques by summer.

NU's parent company, Aviva, announced in 2006 that it was committed to carving up a vast pool of assets - then valued at £5billion - that had accumulated in NU's with-profits fund over decades. The ownership of this money is questionable.

While the company wanted to pocket the lion's share, policyholders, represented by Clare Spottiswoode, have fought for the biggest possible slice for themselves.

But the process has been dogged by controversy, with some critics claiming that such deals should not be allowed at all.

Last July, Aviva and Spottiswoode announced a compromise that would see £1billion shared among one million policyholders, triggering average cash payments of £1,000.
Last October, as panic swept the markets, doubts surfaced over whether the deal would proceed at all.

But last week NU said the next phase, where eligible policyholders will receive letters telling them how much their windfall would be, would take place in the next 'few months'.

Still dragging their heels

---

this has been going on for nearly FOUR years now.
Notice who`s getting the "LION`S SHARE" from all this.

Anyone buying any financial product in this climate should think long and hard.
Most people`s endowment sold to them years ago wont even pay off their mortgage.