norwich union wth profits reattirbution

I feel its daylight robbery.... and the "impartial" policy holder advocate is paid by Norwich Union?.... Can anyone tell me why this considerable fund should be "reattributed" (stolen and given to shareholders possibly) when the inherited fund has been built up by with policyholders money invested in the market and should therefore be "attributed" back to them as bonuses, in the way it was described in the terms and conditions of the fund when I signed up. We have been waiting years for the market to pick up and MVA's to disappear and reasonable returns to come back, but have we seen any as yet?... NO Norwich Union we havent!! Comments please.... especially if its someone who works for Norwich Union!!

Reply to
biggirlsblouse
Loading thread data ...

"biggirlsblouse" wrote

"Stolen" from whom? Who do you think it belonged to before?

Reply to
Tim

It belongs to the withprofits policyholders to which it would have provided a fair bonus instead of the poultry returns we have all had...and still continue to have..of course leaving enough for the fund to operate in bad times for the "smoothing effect" and return to the company (and the shareholders, of which by the way I am one) a fair and reasonable profit, not taking it away to "develop future business". That what the normal profit is for.

Reply to
biggirlsblouse

Sorry...spelling mistake...that should be paltry...not poultry. I am hungry and about to eat a chicken salad!

Reply to
biggirlsblouse

"biggirlsblouse" wrote

Why do you think that?

"biggirlsblouse" wrote

But bonus is declared through a (usually 90/10) "gate", isn't it?

"biggirlsblouse" wrote

Eh? "Developing future business" is surely one of the best things to use the inherited estate for, which would then benefit both shareholders *and* policyholders when the profits from that new business is released...

Reply to
Tim

Well I have to say that if it is 90/10 gate then we have been shortchanged for at least 3 years!... because the amount of bonus over my entire 10 years investment has hardly achieved RPI (if you include the bonus as compounded)

Reply to
biggirlsblouse

"biggirlsblouse" wrote

Eh?

"biggirlsblouse" wrote

That's not inconsistent with a 90/10 gate, is it?

Reply to
Tim

In message , biggirlsblouse writes

I dont follow that at all. Can you explain further? I dont see what RPI has to do with it.

Reply to
John Boyle

It's a shame that this perfectly decent question about 'orphan funds' is being side-tracked (deliberately?) by irrelevancies. The fact is that the orphan funds have presumably been built up by over-deductions from policyholders in the past. Short of tracking these people down and handing them some extra dosh, it does seem a sensible question what should happen to the money. Giving it to the shareholders does not seem a particularly good idea, particularly as it will simply encourage company management to withhold still more money in future. In a 90-10 fund, I cannot see that shareholders should, in any case, get more than 10% of the orphan funds allocated to them.

Reply to
GB

In message , GB writes

No,

I was responding to a point made by the OP. Like you, I could see what his point was in relation to the thread, and was questioning his reasoning as well...

Reply to
John Boyle

The money should have been given to the policy holders by increasing bonuses IMHO.

However the shareholders will get most of them just as with AXA.

M
Reply to
Mark

Bear in mind that these funds come from more than one life office, e.g. Commercial Union and General Accident, both of which include many names from the past. I think you'll find that the greater part of the distribution will be allocated to policyholders. The proposed distribution of funds relates only to the funds of those offices, now known as CULAC and CGNU and would take place when the relevant life funds are merged with the main NU life fund.

Have a look at

formatting link

Norwich Union life and pension policy holders had their rake-off when the NU was "demutualised" some years ago, by means of a share distribution.

Reply to
®i©ardo

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.