Related provisions for MCOB 7.6.12
Example 8 |
|
Term extends beyond retirement age and policy reconstruction |
|
Background |
|
45 year old male non-smoker, having taken out a £50,000 loan in 1998 for a term of 25 years. Unsuitable sale identified on the grounds of affordability and complaint raised on 12th policy anniversary. |
|
It has always been the intention of the complainant to retire at State retirement age 65. |
|
Term from date of sale to retirement is 20 years and the maturity date of the mortgage is 5 years after retirement. |
|
Established facts |
|
Established premium paid by investor on policy of original term (25 years): |
£81.20 |
Premium that would have been payable on policy with term from sale to retirement (20 years): |
£111.20 |
Actual policy value at time complaint assessed: |
£12,500 |
Value of an equivalent 20-year policy at time complaint assessed: |
£21,300 |
Difference in policy values at time complaint assessed: |
£8,800 |
£4,320 |
|
Basis of compensation |
|
The policy is reconstructed as if it had been set up originally on a term to mature at retirement age, in this example, a term of 20 years. The difference in the current value of the policy actually sold to the complainant and the current value of the reconstructed policy, as if the premium on the reconstructed policy had been paid from outset, is calculated. The complainant has gained from lower outgoings (lower premiums) of the actual endowment policy to date. In calculating the redress, the gain may be offset against the loss unless the complainant's particular circumstances are such that it would be unreasonable to take account of the gain. |
|
Redress generally if it is not unreasonable to take account of the whole of the gain from lower outgoings |
|
Loss from current value of reconstructed policy less current value of actual policy: |
(£8,800) |
Gain from total lower outgoings under actual policy: |
£4,320 |
Net loss: |
(£4,480) |
Therefore total redress is: |
£4,480 |
Redress if it is unreasonable to take account of gain from lower outgoings |
|
Loss from current value of reconstructed policy less current value of actual policy: |
(£8,800) |
Gain from total lower outgoings under actual policy: |
Ignored |
Therefore total redress is: |
£8,800 |
Additional Information |
|
If the policy is capable of reconstruction, the complainant must now fund the higher premiums himself for the remainder of the term of the shortened policy until maturity. In this example the higher premium could be £111.20. However the firm should provide the complainant with a reprojection letter based on the reconstructed policy such that the actual monthly payment required to achieve the target sum could be even higher, say £130. The reprojection letter should set out the range of options facing the complainant to deal with the projected shortfall, if any. |
Example 9 |
|
Term extends beyond retirement age: example of failure to explain investment risks |
|
Background |
|
45 year old male non-smoker, having taken out a £50,000 loan in 1998 for a term of 25 years. Unsuitable sale identified on the grounds of affordability and complaint raised on 12th anniversary. |
|
It has always been the intention of the complainant to retire at state retirement age 65. |
|
Term from date of sale to retirement is 20 years and the maturity date of the mortgage is five years after retirement. |
|
In addition, an endowment does not meet the complainant's attitude to investment risk and a repayment mortgage would have been taken out if properly advised. |
|
Established facts |
|
Surrender value (on the 25 year policy) at time complaint assessed: |
£12,500 |
Capital repaid under repayment mortgage of term to retirement date (20 years): |
£21,000 |
Surrender value less capital repaid: |
(£8.500) |
Difference in outgoings (repayment - endowment): |
£5,400 |
Cost of converting from endowment mortgage to repayment mortgage: |
£200 |
Basis of compensation: |
|
The surrender value of the (25 year term) endowment policy is compared to the capital that would have been repaid to date under a repayment mortgage arranged to repay the loan at retirement age, in this example, a repayment mortgage for a term of 20 years. The complainant has gained from lower outgoings of the endowment mortgage to date. In calculating the redress, the gain may be offset against the loss unless the complainant's particular circumstances are such that it would be unreasonable to take account of the gain. The conversion costs are also taken into account in calculating the redress. |
|
Redress generally |
|
Loss from surrender value less capital repaid: |
(£8,500) |
Gain from total lower outgoings under endowment mortgage: |
£5,400 |
Cost of converting to a repayment mortgage: |
(£200) |
Net loss: |
(£3,300) |
Therefore total redress is: |
£3,300 |
Redress if it is unreasonable to take account of gain from lower outgoings |
|
Loss from surrender value less capital repaid: |
(£8,500) |
Gain from total lower outgoings under endowment mortgage: |
Ignored |
Cost of converting to a repayment mortgage: |
(£8,700) |
Therefore total redress is: |
£8,700 |
- (1)
The main provision within the definition of alternative debenture arrangements that seeks to ensure that only instruments that display the characteristics of a debt security can be alternative debentures is set out at PERG 2.6.11CG (5). It provides that the amount of additional payments under the arrangements must not exceed an amount which would, at the time the bond is issued, be a reasonable commercial return on a loan of capital. Where the return is not fixed at the outset, it is the maximum possible amount of the additional payments that must be considered in deciding this question. The following example demonstrates how this condition should be approached.
- additional payments under the arrangements would exceed a reasonable commercial return on a loan of the capital.
Further, where the return is not fixed at the outset, it is the maximum possible amount of the additional payments that must be considered. Here, the issue terms of the sukuk impose no upper limit on the amount of the periodic distributions: a sakk holder subscribing 1,000 may, in a year, get back 200 or 2,000 or nothing depending on the rental market. The maximum potential return is clearly in excess of a reasonable commercial return on a loan of 1,000; and
- the arrangements have not been admitted to an official list or admitted to trading on a regulated market or recognised investment exchange (see PERG 2.6.11CG (6)).
- (2)
If, in the above example, investors returns were capped at 500 per sakk per year, then this is the amount that must be considered in deciding whether the return exceeds a reasonable commercial return on a loan, even where the amounts actually received turn out to be far lower.
- (3)
In applying the reasonable commercial return test, the sakk should be compared to a hypothetical loan to the issuer on similar terms and carrying similar risks. For example, a conventional security convertible into shares will normally carry a lower rate of interest because the conversion right has a value. The return on an exchangeable or convertible sakk should be measured against the return on an equivalent exchangeable or convertible debt security.
- (4)
The risk to investors in sukuk may vary slightly from that of a conventional bond in some instances. This may be due to the fact that sukuk holders only have recourse to the bond assets or some other structural feature which results in the risk profile being higher. In such instances it may be justifiable for the rate of return to be slightly higher than that of a conventional loan.
- (5)
As with any financial instrument, the pricing of sukuk will depend on the issuers view of the market at the time of issue and reasonable commercial return may vary depending on the issuer and the economic circumstances prevalent at the time of issue.
Example ABC Ltd is a property development company. It wishes to increase its portfolio on a short-term basis. It issues 5-year sukuk to investors and uses the proceeds to buy the head lease of a commercial property. The rental income from the lease is distributed to investors in proportion to their holdings without a cap on the level of return. After 5 years, the head lease is sold on at a profit and the proceeds shared between investors. In this example, the investors participate directly in the success or failure of the underlying property business. The sakk is not really in the nature of a debt instrument. It is unlikely to be an alternative debenture as: |