Prospects for With Profit Bonds

Re: With-Profit Roulette

Hi Karen,

Thanks for these pieces. They're very interesting.

I'm assuming they're articles from UK newspapers. Do you have permission to copy them? Otherwise, I think Askaboutmoney could be in trouble.

Regards...Liam
 
Trouble

Hi Liam,

Trouble from whom?

I do not have permission. The articles are from an Industry Journal that anyone can access.
 
Re: With-Profit Roulette

<!--EZCODE BOLD START--> The articles are from an Industry Journal that anyone can access.<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->

That may be so but some sites are a bit anal about content being copied and posted elsewhere and, in some cases, even links to content other than their home page being made. Ridiculous, I know but you need to refer to the terms and conditions of any particular site before copying extracts or linking. :rolleyes
 
Re: Trouble

Hi Karen,

Can you post the name(s) of the journal(s) from which the articles were extracted?

Thanks...Liam
 
Roulette

Better delete the posts then. Could someone do the honours?
 
Unbelievable Pedantry

Please, no-one delete Karen's useful postings.

There is a wholly incredible pedantry about some of the Moderators' interpretation of copyright laws, on a power with Mithrandir's discourses on the meaning of advice.

To successfully pursue a copyright case would involve three steps:

1) Proof that it was indeed copy. If the words are near enough the same then this stage would be fairly straightforward. I think that is where the aforementioned pedantic moderators (PMs) stop. There are two further steps however in the legal process.

2) Who does one sue? The Internet? The service provider? AAM? The anonymous poster, Karen? Our Founder?

Worst case scenario is, of course, Our Founder. Still one step to go.

3) What are the extent of the damages? How many sales of Money Marketing were lost as a result of the postings?

Really, PMs, think about it. Is Money Marketing really going to sue Our Founder along these lines. Get a grip or else divert your energies into counting how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.:rolleyes
 
Go easy with the sarcasm

As it happens, I agree. Although Karen is infringing on the copyright of the publisher, I figured if we simply acknowledged the source of the piece, the publisher <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> probably<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> wouldn't bother pursuing it.

Hence my question above.

It's easy to anonymously sit back and accuse a Moderator of pedantry, when you're at no risk whatsoever. I'd rather be seen to be pedantic than run the risk of an equally pedantic publisher taking a pop at Brendan Burgess, as the recognised owner of this site.
 
Re: Unbelievable Pedantry

Ok then Rumpole - Here's the alternative...

Can you come out behind your mask of anonymity and send Brendan your name, your address and a little note accepting personal responsibility for any damages & legal costs that could arise out of any such case, unlikely as it may be?

Then I'll be happy to leave Karen's comments up.

Cheers - RainyDay
 
Burgers

No one told me Burgers make you fat! So I'm afraid I'm going to have to sue.

Sue
 
Relax folks, please...

Hi everyone

Looks like I may be like the Cork subs yesterday, joining the fray after all the action is over. That said, I fear we're all getting a little carried away here.

Firstly, after all, this is a non-profit making site - we cannot be accused of ripping off someone else's work for commercial gain.

Secondly, we're talking newspaper or periodical articles here - not exactly something that, in itself, has any potential to generate massive amounts of ongoing income for the copyright holder, so I don't know what concrete basis they would have for suing AAM or Brendan for anything other than token damages.

Thirdly, Karen's postings were informative and interesting and IMHO should stay as they are until and unless we hear more. Remember, if we get continually get paranoid about alleged copyright breaches, then people will be less willing to post anything on AAM.

Fourthly, if anyone complains that their copyright is breached (by whatever post), then any of the moderators can remove a post within minutes.

Fifthly, why not let Brendan decide how to deal with the issue. Theoretically its Brendan who has ultimate responsiblity for any issues or problems (of whatever hue) caused by AAM so whatever he says on copyright should be the last word.

Sixthly, RainyDay, I would have thought that "a little note accepting personal responsibility for any damages & legal costs" would be totally unenforceable in law,

Finally, this was a good thread before we started getting sidetracked. Let the (informed) debate continue...

That's my tuppence-worth, anyhow...

Tommy
www.mcgibney.com
 
would be totally unenforceable in law

Hi Tommy - You're probably right in practice - However, I'd still be very interested to see if Rumpole feels strongly enough on this issue to come out of the closet & bear personal responsibility for the outcome?
 
Re: Does it really matter?

Will I lose any sleep over it? No....

Is there an important principle here that could 'really matter' in the future? Yes...
 
Total Indemnity

No problem, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> Rainyday<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->.

My real name is Rupert Murdock c/o News International.

I hereby solemnly swear to indemnify our honourable Founder against any liability arising out of the repeating the content of articles of financial interest on AAM ( I make an exception of the Examiner simply to deter publication of the self serving commentary of one of its well known Cork contributors).

BTW, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> Rainyday<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, have you any views on the main substance of this thread as to whether there is or is not a "Black Hole" at Hibernian which should caution prospective investors from leaping into the seductive "win-win-never-lose" pretentions of Celebration Bond (or any other WPB for that matter) at this point of time?

As I understand the defence so far, it resembles the "shoot the messenger" attacks against our aforementioned Cork commentator. Anyone who attacks WPBs is either mischievous, opportunistic or suffering from <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> schadenfreude<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->.

Schadenwhat?? It means taking pleasure at the misery of others. Is this not a clear admission that indeed WPB providers are in a miserable and parlous state. I would suggest that prospective policyholders are somewhat indifferent as to the motivation driving those who are delivering the dire warnings. The real issue for them is are these warnings justified. What do <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> you<!--EZCODE ITALIC END--> think <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> Rainyday<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->?

(BTW if in expressing an opinion, <!--EZCODE ITALIC START--> Rainyday<!--EZCODE ITALIC END-->, you in anyway incurr damages from those whom it might offend, I hereby extend the above indemnity to your good self).
 
Canada Life With Profit Bond

Canada Life have closed for the above.I wonder will any others follow ?
 
Canada Life

To clarify Bedlam's post
Canada Life have closed for lump sum investments into the With Profit fund.
It remains open for regular premium savings and pension business
 
Re: Canada Life With Profit Bond

Hi Rumpole - I appreciate your good humour (genuinly). As it happens, I really don't feel that I can add any value to the original discussion on the 'black hole' issue.
 
With Profit

With Canada Life taking a lead on getting out .... any bets on how long it takes the rest to jump ship ?
 
Canada Life Press Release

This is how CL announced their decision:
<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote>Quote:<hr> "<!--EZCODE BOLD START--> Canada Life Unitised With Profit Bond<!--EZCODE BOLD END-->

Following a sustained period of poor equity market performance, it is inevitable that unitised with profit bonus rates will need to fall significantly from their current levels, unless there is a strong market rally.

In light of this, Canada Life is temporarily closing its Unitised With Profits Bond to new entrants.

Commenting on the change, Brenda Dunne, Appointed Actuary with Canada Life said 'As I indicated at the Society of Actuaries conference in April, strong equity market returns are required to support the current bonus rates in the market. Since then, equity markets have fallen further, making bonus rate cuts inevitable for all providers. Unless markets recover significantly before the next bonus declarations early in 2003, bonus rates will need to be 3% or lower.

Pensions business will not be impacted to the same extent, due to the longer term nature of this business. With Profit Bonds have provided policyholders with valuable guarantees, and have also insulated policyholders from the current volatility in equity markets.'
-ends-
August 29, 2002"<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END-->

As a Press Release, I presume its reproduction here on AAM is in keeping with the recent clarification by Brendan on copyright.

Anyway, more power to CL for having the courage to do what they see as right. New business isn't everything.
 
Re: With Profit

Hi DuBois

Thanks for posting this. As a press release, I assume that they want as much puclicity as possible.

I didn't see this in the newspapers anywhere. Maybe it's one for Niall Brady on Sunday

Brendan
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top