The Mighty Quinn - Revisited

Huh ????

Wow, you're waa-aay too Machiavellian for me, Madge ... why are all you guys so adversarial - if I'm glad you say something, then you must be wrong ?

All I meant was that I was glad you had clarified your earlier remark, and that your point about "rip-off charges" was aimed at the industry as a whole.

Ever thought of leaving the insurance industry and going into politics ?

Non-commission SSIA

Hi Irish Lifer,

You mentioned the non-commission SSIA with Irish Life as one of the best products available a couple of times above.

How do I go about getting a non-commission SSIA from you?

Thanks in advance.

Re: Non-commission SSIA

The only source of nil commission SSIA products of which I am aware is labrokers

Brendan

what a giggle

Sorry Irish Lifer, I've been away on hols. Part of which was looking to buy property. DIRECTLY. For the record I've NEVER, in 22 years recommended a client to invest in a collective investment that invests exclusively in property. I think it should be bought directly on a geared basis, and plenty of it too! ( Neither did I recommend Eircom, funnily I recommended readers not to buy Eircom, and go for a diversified Telecom fund instead, including Irish Life's, Heavens to mergatroid!)

And I've nothing against your employer. I've nothing for it either, just like any other product supplier to independent intermediaries. Property funds however were largely constructed and sold after the growth cycle was over, selling on the back of historical data. But fashion led funds are nothing new, and this has happened many times before.

The reason however that property is banned as an asset for UCITS is precisely because of its illiquidity, and potential entrapment of investors. That's the point. Don't take it personally. Its not your fault that you work for a PLC whose overarching requirement is shareholder profit, and not necessarily consumer protection. Its called the game, and your view of it will depend on your positioning.

Re: Priestcraft?

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> Mith<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, you frequently criticise contributors for changing the subject. What in the name of the Pope of Rome has property got to do with this thread?:eek

Happy New Year

Happy new year to you too Virus. See second last Irish Lifer post, 2nd Jan above. Hope you've had a virulent Xmas break! Live Mith.

Re: Oops!

Apologies, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> Mith<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, Topics about Quinn Life do tend to ramble off into the most obscure boreens, I missed that one.

Reply to Sammy and Mith

Hi Sammy - any broker <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> might<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> be prepared to do a nil-commission SSIA with you, if you asked them. LA Brokers, as mentioned by Brendan's post, are definitely offering them.

Hi Mith - no problem with you having rational objections to pooled property investment. However, lots of investors don't have enough money (or time, interest, expertise etc) to invest directly, and pooled property funds are a reasonable alternative. Lots of our clients have made good money in pooled property, both long-term and shorter-term - 60% or so over the last three years approx. Certainly, some people invested later in the cycle and have seen little or no growth, although over a relatively short term ... and certainly still better than top of the cycle equity investors.

However, my basic complaint about your reference to us still holds true. If it's pooled property per se you're against, then why not say so, rather than singling out our funds and using the words "an appalling way to do business". It's the way all pooled products do business, and in fact I think we can reasonably claim to have been a lot clearer with our customers than any of the other firms.

Apologies that this thread has indeed gone down a boreen. I won't string it out further.

Product Engineering

I've no problems with the idea that some sales people did a good job in warning investors about traps insofar as they will, without screwing up the sale. No the difficulty is in the construction first day. And in my experience of seasoned investors truly shocked by the way surrender takes place, ie place your order today, we'll encash in 6 month's, and no, we don't quote you any values until then. But if you don't like the size of the cheque you can always give it back to us.

How can you possibly then claim investors have got a return? The only people who made a return are those who had the cop on to get out before the hostages were taken. That doesn't include most investors, whose 'return' is highly questionable.

Had investors been properly warned first day that their money could become hostage like this, surely, it stands to reason they would have chosen alternative investments?

Irish Lifer

have to reply
Irish Life has hoodwinked customers for 30 years, I know, I'm one of them.(on several saving schems)

You save for 20 years and get ZILCH.

Irish Life should carry a health warning

Irish Life

Hi Flash, I have to disagree with a blanket comment that writes off Irish Life, and God knows I've had many occassion to lock horns with the life industry, and usually defended by Irish life in its capacity of dominating the IIF. The company has transformed itself largely, and shed much of the systemic bad practices. It is now managed I believe by a team that would tolerate little from its sales arm that didn't fit todays higher standards.

But it is still digging its reputation out of a deep hole, as is clear from your post. But that's not new, so too are many of UK's life offices for example. Nevertheless, sadly, the Irish countryside is littered with people who share strong views like yours, from the bitter experiences of the past. And that's perfectly understandable.

But todays multi-diciplined Irish Life doesn't carry on like the life office it was in the past. That's not an unconditional endorsement by the way, I still don't like to see Unit Linked Property funds promoted, independent advisors being lured with with trips to Dubai, and the like. Irish Lifes introduction of index tracking was long overdue, even if priced out very expensively. But todays management, while inheriting the baggage of the past, are good at what they do well. Service is one thing, and fund width is another, particularly for pensions business.

Mithrandir's Worldview

God, Mithrandir, it must be a barrel of laffs living with you. In an earlier post on this thread, you said:
<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> Its not your fault that you work for a PLC whose overarching requirement is shareholder profit, and not necessarily consumer protection.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

When you did your Christmas shopping in M&S, did you rail against buying from a plc whose overarching requirement is shareholder profit, and not necessarily consumer service ? When you brought your kids to <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> Lord of the Rings<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, did you rant against the popcorn franchise as a firm (not sure if it's a plc) whose overarching requirement is shareholder profit, and not necessarily consumer interests ?

I've no particular axe to grind for any of the firms discussed earlier in the thread, but COME ON, it's a business world out there. Companies exist to make profits for their shareholders. In a competitive marketplace, that means that have to supply appealing products at worthwhile prices, or no-one will buy them, and they won't make any profits. Why should an insurance comapny be any different to a department store or a popcorn-maker in that respect ?

Independent Comment vs Non Independent

Hi Doggie, no its all about context. Irish Lifer is forced to defend its employer unconditionally. Independent advisors are free to take and dismiss what they wish from all offerings across the market.

My earlier comments were made in that context. Your excerpt, taken out of the context of the thread, appears to imply I disagree with free market thinking. Couldn't be further off the mark there Doggie. As a business person, with a business owner clientbase I'm about as committed to it as any other. But that doesn't translate into accepting everything manufactured by industry, especially when, positionally, I'm supposed to act as the agent of the client.And in my case that has translated into consumer advocate at times. So what?

Much of the barracking i've got in the past is from folk who appear to have a great difficulty in understanding this position. Hell, that's no problem when they are from a DSF background, are tied agents, or Life office management. But when this line comes from 'independent' advisors, one really wonders if the concept of acting as the agent of the client is really just that, a concept, abandoned at the first conflict of interest conundrum.

Even 'Broker' organisations in the past displayed their confusion in role on this critical difference. At one point a leader was to suggest that its members acting as the agent of both the life office and the client! Same source used a Baker baking bread, not disclosing margins to argue against commission disclosure. Heaven help us.

So Doggie, read nothing into my last post, other than an unwillingness to blanket a life office with a 'Don't Buy' label, simply because I don't like one part of what it does. That's simply being independent. Try thinking about it!

Re: Independent Comment vs Non Independent

Hi Dogbert

To compare Marks & Spencer with Irish Life is not fair.

With a retailer, what you see is what you get, more or less. You pay €30 and you get a shirt. It's a fair deal. It's easy to shop around and compare prices. If you can get a nicer shirt somewhere else, off you go.

Buying an investment product is much more complicated. Irish Life and most other life companies sold terrible products on very high commissions to suckers. It was a very unethical business. Charges were hidden and certainly the low early encashment values were not highlighted.

I would guess than most Marks & Spencer customers are happy. Their returns policy is ridiculously generous ( speaking as a shareholder!). There are thousands of complaints against life companies for poor encashment values and misselling of products.

Maximising profit is a fine objective, but not at the expense of people who you are supposedly advising.

Brendan

Free Markets

Hi Brendan,

Okay, my comparison was a little glib.

But you seem to be trying to have it every way ... in <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> the Book<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> you portray buying an investment product as not particularly complicated. Your introduction says it's aimed at people who spend less than a few hours a year on their investments. I spend more time than that buying shirts !!

What is different, surely, is that buying a crap shirt has no long-term consequences, whereas buying a crap pension or investment has.

But my basic point was that in a competitive marketplace, companies have to provide appealing products to survive. They can be either basic products at a relatively low price or very good products at a relatively high price. If they don't do that, then no-one will buy their products and they'll go to the wall.

You and Mithrandir are suggesting, probably correctly, that the old-style insurance/investment market in Ireland was not truly competitive or transparent, and that it was ill-served by advisers. But you seem to agree that the current market is pretty competitive, and that it will be better served by advisers.

So can we agree also that insurance companies, like retailers, airlines, popcorn manufacturers, and everyone else, are entitled to make a profit on their activities ?

Dogbert versus The Boss/Mithrandir

Interesting contest, this.

I have appointed myself the judge. So far I score it 2 all. When the contest seems to have run its course I will declare a winner with a summing up of course. Others can feel free to get on the pitch on which ever side they chose.

Reply to Mith

Grundy - thanks for the encouragement ! As a humble cartoon character taking on such eminences, I feel a bit like Cardiff v Leeds on Sunday. I do promise not to invade the pitch, though.

Meant to reply to Mith last time but forgot. Mith, I'm not certain you got the drift of my post exactly (or maybe I didn't get yours exactly!). I've no problem with consumer advocates, except when they seem to be advocating that companies shouldn't try to make profits. Because that's what companies do. Nor am I either pro- or anti-Irish Life.

My point was that Irish Lifer has nothing to be embarrassed about in working for a company whose overarching requirement (as you put it) is shareholder profit. Because if a mythical AIBer, BOIer, Friends Firster, Canada Lifer, Eagle Starrer, and even {gasp} Quinn Lifer had posted, then that would be true of them too.

As long as the company understands that the only way to make a profit in the long-term is to provide customers with appealing products (as I defined them in my reply to Brendan), then good luck to all of them. If they don't, then a competitive and transparent marketplace, well served by quality advisers, will sort them out.

Yellow Card!

For the sly elbow into Quinn Life.

<!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> Mith<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, careful with your counter tackle or it could be a Red Card for you!

Comment

Sorry fellas, but I don't see this as a match at all. And when I do need a referee, I prefer an expert at my sport. Not soccor.

But anyway the one line extracted from my earlier post appears the one causing the different interpretation. I attempted to clarify already, so I won't repeat myself. But if it does help correctly interpreting the earlier stuff, just ignore the line and read the rest. Love Mith, Capitalist, Self Employed.

Mith taks the Ball off the pitch!

:eek