Are Norwich Union Crooks? - What gives them the right to mess with With Profits?

hedgehunter_2

PeterBaker

Hmm,

Don't think I can help you much. Your not listening, and know best

peterbaker

hedgehunter wrote: »

PeterBaker

Hmm,

Don't think I can help you much. Your not listening, and know best

Hmm HH. I wonder why I know best and why you tried feeding us the suggestion that there was some reasonable technical explanation - could it be because I have lived longer and seen how the financial services industry has decended into a den of iniquity, and you on the other hand haven't yet?

hedgehunter_2

I am not going to argue with you, I have stated the position regarding the proposed reattribution and whether you agree or disagree with that position is of little concern to me.

The Financial Services Industry is one of the most heavily regulated industries in the UK, and the proposed reattribution will not proceed unless there is a recommendation from the Policyholder Advocate, a majority vote by the policyholders, and it is approved by the FSA and the Courts.

You are free to continue to believe in a conspiracy theory if you wish.

peterbaker

Now I know you are on another planet, HH.

The Financial Services industry is ridiculously lightly regulated in the UK principally because Gordon Brown told the City that he believed in light touch regulation a few years ago, and they very gleefully took his inch of concession and made it a mile.

What conspiracy theory are you talking about?? :rolleyes:

I am talking about old-fashioned greed, dishonesty, ineptitude and nepotism ... with the exception of course that in 2008 all these things are executed by the Financial Services industry with alarming regularity and with breathtaking gall.

dunstonh

The Financial Services industry is ridiculously lightly regulated in the UK principally because Gordon Brown told the City that he believed in light touch regulation a few years ago, and they very gleefully took his inch of concession and made it a mile.

The FSA is one of the worlds most powerful regulators.

It does a heck of a lot. Unfortunately, it lacks direction and focus and is run for the benefit of the banks.

guardian8

If Norwich Union does put its reattribution to a vote then you should know that it is NOT a majority vote. If you vote NO then your money will stay where it is and you'll receive a 90% share of any future distribution. If you vote YES then you give up your right to any future distribution in return for a one-off cash payment. No one is making you do anything....

peterbaker

And who are you guardian8? A one post wonder I see.

No matter. I think we can see where you come from.

You seem to be telling me that Norwich Union wastes money by sending out reams and reams of junkmail to its policyholders about bloody crazy ideas by unscrupulous backroom boys who have no concept of how to make a With Profits fund perform brilliantly for the policyholders. Instead they know how to please their AVIVA / Commercial Union / General Accident / Norwich Union paymasters by bribing the great uneducated British jam today mob on their books into signing away their rights to a properly performing contract. which in the process would damage the fund for those of us with brains in our heads??

I think AVIVA's actions are despicable. It is the business of the gutter. Crawl back where you belong.

Careful_with_that_Axe

If you're happy and you know it clap your hands!

hedgehunter_2

Guardian8 is correct that if reattribution is proposed then you will have the choice to accept what is on offer or reject the offer and still retain an entitlement to any future distribution of the estate providing you remain eligible at that time.

You won't look so smart if you elect to reject any offer only to find that the estate is not distributed until after you have transfered out or commenced your pension.

A correct one post wonder, is better than someone who has an irrational unwillingness to face facts, and believes that anything can be acheived by shouting that the world is against them and it is all unfair.

Grow up

peterbaker

Hedgehunter - neither you nor guardian8 or anyone else here has bothered to define the new jargon "reattribution' properly, nor to justify it.

Bullsh|t baffles brains, doesn't it?

If you simply Google for the word 'reattribution', then it is evident that the word is 100% new jargon for use by a select few operators in the UK financial services industry who have developed an opportunity to exploit a loophole against policyholders. Principally these Google hits are of the deliberately anonymous-sounding AVIVA, its very trusted named subsidiary Norwich Union, and With Profits products originally sold under the other very trusted names of Commercial Union, and I suppose General Accident. It's meaning could only be properly understood by the ner-do-wells who are trying to exploit the concept to divert gains from policyholders funds into their own or their paymaster's pocket. To the layman, reattribution in this context only means one thing, ... bribe. That should be a warning in itself. I see some commentators have referred to it very slapdashedly as a windfall. That is extremely misleading.

As you keep returning here hedgehunter, and you now dare to warn me that won't look too smart if I reject the bribe, I can only assume that either you are commenting here very unwisely or in mischief, or you are as bent as those intent on offering the bribe.

So if you do come back, then perhaps you would kindly qualify your interest before you mislead affected policyholders further.

I am also very puzzled now by the post by guardian8. The choice of username is interesting. I wonder if what we witnessed here yesterday serves under the heading 'policyholder consultation'.