Liverpool Victoria in serious trouble

They must be as I've just received a statement on my "With Profits"
holding from them showing a 1.5% increase between 6 July 2005 and
2006.

Now let's compare that with my Weslyan "with profits" holding for the
same period which rose a very creditable 21.3% in the same period.

Now the main reason I went with these companies was because they are
mutual and I figured there's a chance (maybe snowball's chance) of a
demutalisation windfall.

Any comments.

Liverpool Victoria suck.

Jim

Re: Liverpool Victoria in serious trouble

"Jim" <> wrote in message
news:
> They must be as I've just received a statement on my "With Profits"
> holding from them showing a 1.5% increase between 6 July 2005 and
> 2006.
>
> Now let's compare that with my Weslyan "with profits" holding for the
> same period which rose a very creditable 21.3% in the same period.
>
> Now the main reason I went with these companies was because they are
> mutual and I figured there's a chance (maybe snowball's chance) of a
> demutalisation windfall.
>
> Any comments.
>
> Liverpool Victoria suck.
>
> Jim

I'm not sure if you're comparing apples with pears there Jim.

I've no experience of Weslyan, but would be extremely surprised if they
declared a 21.3% bonus rate, they simply wouldn't in the current climate. I
can only assume that if you are reading this from their literature that you
are looking at what the underlying fund returned, not what is actually being
distributed. You may possibly be looking at the effects of market value
adjustments coming down.

The 1.5% that Liverpool Victoria paid is pretty run of the mill for with
profits funds at the moment, and more than a lot of companies are paying.
This is a reflection on the fund, the not company.

Regards,

Matt.

Re: Liverpool Victoria in serious trouble

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 08:52:38 GMT, "Matt Robertson"
<> wrote:

>
>"Jim" <> wrote in message
>news:
>> They must be as I've just received a statement on my "With Profits"
>> holding from them showing a 1.5% increase between 6 July 2005 and
>> 2006.
>>
>> Now let's compare that with my Weslyan "with profits" holding for the
>> same period which rose a very creditable 21.3% in the same period.
>>
>> Now the main reason I went with these companies was because they are
>> mutual and I figured there's a chance (maybe snowball's chance) of a
>> demutalisation windfall.
>>
>> Any comments.
>>
>> Liverpool Victoria suck.
>>
>> Jim
>
>I'm not sure if you're comparing apples with pears there Jim.
>
>I've no experience of Weslyan, but would be extremely surprised if they
>declared a 21.3% bonus rate, they simply wouldn't in the current climate. I
>can only assume that if you are reading this from their literature that you
>are looking at what the underlying fund returned, not what is actually being
>distributed. You may possibly be looking at the effects of market value
>adjustments coming down.
>
>The 1.5% that Liverpool Victoria paid is pretty run of the mill for with
>profits funds at the moment, and more than a lot of companies are paying.
>This is a reflection on the fund, the not company.
>
>Regards,
>
>Matt.

Beg to differ Matt.
Straight from my Wesleyan (Stakeholder With Profits) statement:
value 5 Apr 2006, vs 6 Apr 2005. The increase is 21.8% !!!!
And of course the accompanying letter was singing their own praises
about their wonderful performance. Fair enough

So well done Wesleyan; Liverpool Victoria definately suck.

Jim

Re: Liverpool Victoria in serious trouble

In message <>, Jim
<> writes
>Beg to differ Matt.
>Straight from my Wesleyan (Stakeholder With Profits) statement:
>value 5 Apr 2006, vs 6 Apr 2005. The increase is 21.8% !!!!
>And of course the accompanying letter was singing their own praises
>about their wonderful performance. Fair enough
>
Something strange here.. Wesleyans Bonus rate for 2005 was largely
unchanged. Their literature shows that the value of the w/profits fund
rose 21.3% which is remarkably similar to the figure you quoted in your
original post but, of course, this is NOT the bonus rate.

If the value of your fund has changed by that amount then there must be
some other variable that has changed between the two fund values (i.e.
contributions, or a removal of MVA etc.,) that you have not mentioned.

Can you quote the actual figures?

>So well done Wesleyan; Liverpool Victoria definately suck.
--
John Boyle

Re: Liverpool Victoria in serious trouble

"Jim" <> wrote in message
news:
>
> Beg to differ Matt.
> Straight from my Wesleyan (Stakeholder With Profits) statement:
> value 5 Apr 2006, vs 6 Apr 2005. The increase is 21.8% !!!!
> And of course the accompanying letter was singing their own praises
> about their wonderful performance. Fair enough
>
> So well done Wesleyan; Liverpool Victoria definately suck.
>
> Jim
>
>

I'm sorry fella, but unless you've paid a significant amount into the fund
into it, 'your' fund value has not increased by 21.8% over the last year,
it's just not going to happen in the current climate, if ever.

Again, it's apples and pears, I'm not 100% sure what you're looking it, but
it's not like for like and I'd be surprised it the actual value of the
Wesleyan fund had increase by much more than 1.5% over the last 12 months.
Maybe you are reading the underlying fund growth, very little of this would
have been passed on to investors. When you've got the correct figures, I
suspect your initial reaction would be that they both 'suck'.

Regards,

Matt.

Re: Liverpool Victoria in serious trouble

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:00:36 GMT, "Matt Robertson"
<> wrote:

>I'm sorry fella, but unless you've paid a significant amount into the fund
>into it, 'your' fund value has not increased by 21.8% over the last year,
>it's just not going to happen in the current climate, if ever.

The FT All Share numbers are -

6/4/5 2,483.84
5/4/6 3085.93

giving +24.2%, add dividends of ~3% gives ~27%.

and the IPD index of commercial property gives a total return of ~20%



so you'd expect fund growth of 20-27%

I have to confess to having little interest in these obscure
investments, but why does the 'current climate' mean that this isn't
being passed on ?

Daytona

Re: Liverpool Victoria in serious trouble

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:00:36 GMT, "Matt Robertson"
<> wrote:

>
>"Jim" <> wrote in message
>news:
>>
>> Beg to differ Matt.
>> Straight from my Wesleyan (Stakeholder With Profits) statement:
>> value 5 Apr 2006, vs 6 Apr 2005. The increase is 21.8% !!!!
>> And of course the accompanying letter was singing their own praises
>> about their wonderful performance. Fair enough
>>
>> So well done Wesleyan; Liverpool Victoria definately suck.
>>
>> Jim
>>
>>
>
>I'm sorry fella, but unless you've paid a significant amount into the fund
>into it, 'your' fund value has not increased by 21.8% over the last year,
>it's just not going to happen in the current climate, if ever.
>
>Again, it's apples and pears, I'm not 100% sure what you're looking it, but
>it's not like for like and I'd be surprised it the actual value of the
>Wesleyan fund had increase by much more than 1.5% over the last 12 months.
>Maybe you are reading the underlying fund growth, very little of this would
>have been passed on to investors. When you've got the correct figures, I
>suspect your initial reaction would be that they both 'suck'.
>
>Regards,
>
>Matt.

I started this thread decrying LV's pitiful performance, but it seems
to have morphed into proving Wesleyan's stellar performance !

Checking my records:
I threw £3600 (£2808 cash) into Wesleyan's Stakeholder Plan in Feb
2004.

Latest Statement says:
Policy value at 6 April 2005 3985.50
Policy value at 5 April 2006 4854.59

Now for a little bit of humble pie on my part (only a little). A
closer look reveals the Wesleyan contribution was into the "managed
fund". But before you say "yeah, yeah, yeah.", the letter accompanying
my statement clearly states:
"Wesleyan has maintained a major commitment to equities (ie company
shares) and property for many years and the level of equities in the
With Profits fund is significantly above the industry average. This
was again a major contributor to an excellent investment return of
21.3% (before tax) on the WITH PROFITS FUND in 2005."

[That is the statement that led me to my posting. I now get the the
feeling you are going to say: "OK their investments returned 21.3%,
but probably not all was passed on." I don't know, but one would
expect a heck of a lot more than 1.5%]

So, is it lies, damned lies and statistics ?.

Even with the government mandated "safer" investments of With Profits
funds, 1.5% is a pitiful joke. Further shouldn't it have been
"smoothed" much higher. Better than spending it on cricket
sponsorship!

Maybe someone knows the actual amount Westeyan passed on in bonuses on
WP.

I'm not ready to retract my statement about LV's WP performance.

Jim



>

Re: Liverpool Victoria in serious trouble

In message <>, Daytona
<> writes
>On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 13:00:36 GMT, "Matt Robertson"
><> wrote:
>
>>I'm sorry fella, but unless you've paid a significant amount into the fund
>>into it, 'your' fund value has not increased by 21.8% over the last year,
>>it's just not going to happen in the current climate, if ever.
>
>The FT All Share numbers are -
>
>6/4/5 2,483.84
>5/4/6 3085.93
>
>giving +24.2%, add dividends of ~3% gives ~27%.
>
>and the IPD index of commercial property gives a total return of ~20%
>
>
>
>so you'd expect fund growth of 20-27%

But this is a 'With profits' fund and the 'fund growth' and the 'annual
bonus' are quite different things (and in any event only 72% of the fund
is in equities.)
>
>I have to confess to having little interest in these obscure
>investments, but why does the 'current climate' mean that this isn't
>being passed on ?

because it is a 'with profits' fund.

These should help :




%20Accounts%202005.pdf

--
John Boyle

Re: Liverpool Victoria in serious trouble

In message <>, Jim
<> writes
>
>I started this thread decrying LV's pitiful performance, but it seems
>to have morphed into proving Wesleyan's stellar performance !
>
>Checking my records:
>I threw £3600 (£2808 cash) into Wesleyan's Stakeholder Plan in Feb
>2004.
>
>Latest Statement says:
>Policy value at 6 April 2005 3985.50
>Policy value at 5 April 2006 4854.59
>
>Now for a little bit of humble pie on my part (only a little).

No, it should be three whole pies at least. That was a crucial error,
which is way we didnt believe you.
>A
>closer look reveals the Wesleyan contribution was into the "managed
>fund". But before you say "yeah, yeah, yeah.", the letter accompanying
>my statement clearly states:
>"Wesleyan has maintained a major commitment to equities (ie company
>shares) and property for many years and the level of equities in the
>With Profits fund is significantly above the industry average. This
>was again a major contributor to an excellent investment return of
>21.3% (before tax) on the WITH PROFITS FUND in 2005."
>
>[That is the statement that led me to my posting. I now get the the
>feeling you are going to say: "OK their investments returned 21.3%,
>but probably not all was passed on." I don't know, but one would
>expect a heck of a lot more than 1.5%]
>
>So, is it lies, damned lies and statistics ?.
>

None, you just got confused.

That was a HUGE mistake to make.
>Even with the government mandated "safer" investments of With Profits
>funds, 1.5% is a pitiful joke. Further shouldn't it have been
>"smoothed" much higher. Better than spending it on cricket
>sponsorship!

No, the links I pasted into my reply to Daytona should help you with the
concept of 'With Profits'.
>
>Maybe someone knows the actual amount Westeyan passed on in bonuses on
>WP.

For pensions : Traditional With profits = 0.3% bonus (yes, that is POINT
THREE OF ONE PERCENT). (and that is the sum assured, not the fund value)
and for Unitised With profits : 4%..(before the application of their
management charge!) Some of their classes of their with profits business
had a NIL bonus.

Their mainstream business bonus rate was just 1%.
>
>I'm not ready to retract my statement about LV's WP performance.

Despite their Bonus for pensions being 3%?

So let me get this right, despite seeing that you are comparing the
performance of a horse with that of Toothpaste, and despite not knowing
what Wesleyans actual bonus was, and without knowing what Liverpool
Victoria's was, this is a remarkable assertion.


bsite250205.pdf#search='liverpool%20victoria%20bonus%20with% 20profits%202
005'

Finally, if you want to compare managed funds over one year then
Wesleyans Managed Fund did 13.24% in the year to 1/6/06 whilst Liverpool
Victoria's did 17.51%.
--
John Boyle

Re: Liverpool Victoria in serious trouble

On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:44:54 +0100, John Boyle
<> wrote:

>In message <>, Daytona
><> writes

>>I have to confess to having little interest in these obscure
>>investments, but why does the 'current climate' mean that this isn't
>>being passed on ?
>
>because it is a 'with profits' fund.
>
>These should help :

It doesn't explain why 1.5% is considered reasonable. This given the
long run equity growth of 8%. Does the annual bonus get stuffed in
gilts or something ?

Daytona

Re: Liverpool Victoria in serious trouble

In message <>, Daytona
<> writes
>On Sun, 16 Jul 2006 18:44:54 +0100, John Boyle
><> wrote:
>
>>In message <>, Daytona
>><> writes
>
>>>I have to confess to having little interest in these obscure
>>>investments, but why does the 'current climate' mean that this isn't
>>>being passed on ?
>>
>>because it is a 'with profits' fund.
>>
>>These should help :
>
>It doesn't explain why 1.5% is considered reasonable. This given the
>long run equity growth of 8%. Does the annual bonus get stuffed in
>gilts or something ?

Can I preface my reply by saying I HATE With Profits, and have been
saying so for as long as I have been posting to this group, so these are
just facts and not me trying to justify them.

If you read the links I gave one of them gives a reasonable explanation
of how With profits funds 'smooth' returns over many years. So whilst
you say 'a long run of equity growth' it isnt all that long and it came
after a longer run of falls.
--
John Boyle