Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
crashmonitor

Equitable Ponzi Scheme

Recommended Posts

This is how I see it.

The scheme paid out incredible annual bonuses of up to 20% during the eighties and nineties and these were funded from new joiners.Most of those in receipt of annuities have taken incredible gains.My father who paid a lump sum of just £5,000 in 1983,has already taken £30,000 in lump sum and annuity payments and if re-invested his return would have been £50,000 and counting ,plus further returns while he is alive.

Meanwhile I invested £8,000 in the late eighties and nineties and the fund is yet to reach £12,000,having been slaughtered to fund the annuities .

And f**k me the annuitants are baying for compo,whilst those that paid for their ride like me will probably receive sod all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is how I see it.

The scheme paid out incredible annual bonuses of up to 20% during the eighties and nineties and these were funded from new joiners.Most of those in receipt of annuities have taken incredible gains.My father who paid a lump sum of just £5,000 in 1983,has already taken £30,000 in lump sum and annuity payments and if re-invested his return would have been £50,000 and counting ,plus further returns while he is alive.

Meanwhile I invested £8,000 in the late eighties and nineties and the fund is yet to reach £12,000,having been slaughtered to fund the annuities .

And f**k me the annuitants are baying for compo,whilst those that paid for their ride like me will probably receive sod all.

As another victim of this Ponzi scheme (it was a company pension scheme so I got well rogered - I couldnt even swap out of it until the company decided to years after the dam had burst), I sympathize.

I anticipate getting no compensation, as it was all clearly my fault.

:angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is how I see it.

The scheme paid out incredible annual bonuses of up to 20% during the eighties and nineties and these were funded from new joiners.Most of those in receipt of annuities have taken incredible gains.My father who paid a lump sum of just £5,000 in 1983,has already taken £30,000 in lump sum and annuity payments and if re-invested his return would have been £50,000 and counting ,plus further returns while he is alive.

Meanwhile I invested £8,000 in the late eighties and nineties and the fund is yet to reach £12,000,having been slaughtered to fund the annuities .

And f**k me the annuitants are baying for compo,whilst those that paid for their ride like me will probably receive sod all.

Methinks you are right re its potential Ponzi nature, but that is why the directors went to the HOL to get a rebalancing of entitlements between guaranteed annuitants (like it seems your dad) and the rest (seemingly like you), and failed (and remember its a mutual so one member's gain is another member's loss).

Although with hindsight anyone can see that those guaranteed annuities were unsustainable once interest rates slipped back to their long run average, at the time those policies were written it was not spotted by either the society's directors or, crucially, the regulator. What is being argued here, as I understand matters, is that those potential annuitants, like yourself, who lost out because you had to pay the guaranteed annuitants (the likes of your Dad), should be compensated by the state for its failure to properly regulate this society. You should be supporting this compensation as you are likely to be one of the potential recipients (I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for compensation though.................)

Edited for clarity

Edited by bagsos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Methinks you are right re its potential Ponzi nature, but that is why the directors went to the HOL to get a rebalancing of entitlements between guaranteed annuitants (like it seems your dad) and the rest (seemingly like you), and failed (and remember its a mutual so one member's gain is another member's loss).

Although with hindsight anyone can see that those guaranteed annuities were unsustainable once interest rates slipped back to their long run average, at the time those policies were written it was not spotted by either the society's directors or, crucially, the regulator. What is being argued here, as I understand matters, is that those potential annuitants, like yourself, who lost out because you had to pay the guaranteed annuitants (the likes of your Dad), should be compensated by the state for its failure to properly regulate this society. You should be supporting this compensation as you are likely to be one of the potential recipients (I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for compensation though.................)

Edited for clarity

Not yet an annuitant,my £12,000 fund would perhaps give me an annuity of around £400 per year when I reach 55,but I would draw the lot(less tax) under the HM Revenue small fund rules(currently at £15,000 I think).

However,the fact that my father invested around the same amount after allowing for inflation but did three times as well as an annuitant, illustrates who walked off with the Society's assets and it is these jackpot winners who are now courting the sympathy of the press.

Somebody gained and you can bet those annuitants that are asking for compo before they cop it have already had more than their share and raped the funds of the suckers like me at the bottom of the Ponzi.

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not yet an annuitant,my £12,000 fund would perhaps give me an annuity of around £400 per year when I reach 55,but I would draw the lot(less tax) under the HM Revenue small fund rules(currently at £15,000 I think).

However,the fact that my father invested around the same amount after allowing for inflation but did three times as well as an annuitant, illustrates who walked off with the Society's assets and it is these jackpot winners who are now courting the sympathy of the press.

Apologies if I have misunderstood the case but I thought that the compensation being sought was on behalf of those who lost out, possiblyn like you, rather than those who won big time, like your Dad. I think this is why the government put such heavy caveats on their offer of compensation, so the likes of your Dad did not suddenly think they too were entitled to it.

If its any consolation I set up a Retirement Annuity Contract with someone who hasn't gone bust, but has now disappeared (Royal Insurance) in the late 1980's and when I had to get the thing valued for my divorce, it turned out to be worth less than the aggregate of my contributions. Absent the tax relief I would have been better sticking the money in the bank. Almost made me swap my pension into a buy to let SIPP, but GB put the dampers on that, luckily!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't worry the taxpayer has deep pockets a few more billion won't matter.

However it shouldn't have happened, but whilst the gravy train is rolling no one cares.

Yep ironically now we are really in the s**t the Government is more likely to pay up.The reins have been let loose and the attitude is may as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not yet an annuitant,my £12,000 fund would perhaps give me an annuity of around £400 per year when I reach 55,but I would draw the lot(less tax) under the HM Revenue small fund rules(currently at £15,000 I think).

The current limit for trivial commutation is 18k, but that has to be the total of your entire pension benefits and this can not be done before age 60

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Methinks you are right re its potential Ponzi nature, but that is why the directors went to the HOL to get a rebalancing of entitlements between guaranteed annuitants (like it seems your dad) and the rest (seemingly like you), and failed (and remember its a mutual so one member's gain is another member's loss).

Although with hindsight anyone can see that those guaranteed annuities were unsustainable once interest rates slipped back to their long run average, at the time those policies were written it was not spotted by either the society's directors or, crucially, the regulator. What is being argued here, as I understand matters, is that those potential annuitants, like yourself, who lost out because you had to pay the guaranteed annuitants (the likes of your Dad), should be compensated by the state for its failure to properly regulate this society. You should be supporting this compensation as you are likely to be one of the potential recipients (I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for compensation though.................)

Edited for clarity

This just looks like another unfunded pension, i.e. compensate those alive today and let future generations pay for entitlements and annuities which will never be affordably paid to them.

I say ENOUGH!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The current limit for trivial commutation is 18k, but that has to be the total of your entire pension benefits and this can not be done before age 60

Possibly different rules for different types of pension.Mine is a personal pension scheme and I am under the impression 'commutation ' is allowable at 55,was 50 until the rules changed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Possibly different rules for different types of pension.Mine is a personal pension scheme and I am under the impression 'commutation ' is allowable at 55,was 50 until the rules changed.

You're quite right in theory, but try to get the money out and see what happens. We have been trying to get my husband's money out of one for three years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
. What is being argued here, as I understand matters, is that those potential annuitants, like yourself, who lost out because you had to pay the guaranteed annuitants (the likes of your Dad), should be compensated

Edited for clarity

Apparently not.Today's Guardian.......

''Cooper told MPs that compensation would be based on the extent of a policyholder's losses and their ability to make up those losses from other income.She suggested that those WHO HAVE ALREADY RETIRED WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO RECEIVE PAYOUTS THAN THOSE STILL IN WORK.''

I don't think she gets it.The company went bankrupt because it gave all the jam to existing annuitants and there was no money left .Equitable pensioners must be laughing all the way to the Bank,they have bankrupted the company from having received too much already(Equitable didn't go under because of investment performance) and their impossible promises are to be re-instated.

So the annuitants who for the most part have had returned tenfold their original investment(my dad being one)are to be compensated at the expense of late joiners who have had a virtual zero return from being milked by annuitants.

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apparently not.Today's Guardian.......

''Cooper told MPs that compensation would be based on the extent of a policyholder's losses and their ability to make up those losses from other income.She suggested that those WHO HAVE ALREADY RETIRED WOULD BE MORE LIKELY TO RECEIVE PAYOUTS THAN THOSE STILL IN WORK.''

I don't think she gets it.The company went bankrupt because it gave all the jam to existing annuitants and there was no money left .Equitable pensioners must be laughing all the way to the Bank,they have bankrupted the company from having received too much already(Equitable didn't go under because of investment performance) and their impossible promises are to be re-instated.

So the annuitants who for the most part have had returned tenfold their original investment(my dad being one)are to be compensated at the expense of late joiners who have had a virtual zero return from being milked by annuitants.

You seem to have only just realised that most "investments" are justa huge Ponzi scheme.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest sillybear2
This is how I see it.

The scheme paid out incredible annual bonuses of up to 20% during the eighties and nineties and these were funded from new joiners.Most of those in receipt of annuities have taken incredible gains.My father who paid a lump sum of just £5,000 in 1983,has already taken £30,000 in lump sum and annuity payments and if re-invested his return would have been £50,000 and counting ,plus further returns while he is alive.

Meanwhile I invested £8,000 in the late eighties and nineties and the fund is yet to reach £12,000,having been slaughtered to fund the annuities .

Pensions are nothing more than ponzi intergenerational wealth transfer schemes, in your case it wasn't even abstracted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You seem to have only just realised that most "investments" are justa huge Ponzi scheme.

The ability of a ponzi scheme to do any real damage is realistically limited by the force that can be used to coerce involvement in it. Most ponzi-like schemes have zero ability to use force to coerce participation and so aren't really much of an aggregate concern. An exception is the real estate market, where the force that can be used to coerce participation is theoretically unlimited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Possibly different rules for different types of pension.Mine is a personal pension scheme and I am under the impression 'commutation ' is allowable at 55,was 50 until the rules changed.

The retirement age for personal pensions is 50, it will rise to 55 in 2010. The age in which you can commute you pension under the triviality rules is 60.

See

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/manuals/rpsmmanual/rpsm09104910.htm

Edited by vbm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 285 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.