Personal Finance

Warning! Manulife Bank ripping off Manulife One mortgage account customers

  • Last Updated:
  • May 17th, 2017 2:55 pm
Deal Addict
User avatar
Apr 14, 2005
1698 posts
127 upvotes
ManulifePain wrote: We just can't stand the feeling of logging in every day knowing what has happened, so we have decided to jump ship and change to Investor's Group All-In-One. They are holding firm that their rate is prime and will stay that way and reflect that in all agreements.

They don't charge monthly fees, allow you to create sub-accounts and calculate interest in the same way.

M1 says they will let us out for $100.

IF ANYONE KNOWS ANY REASON THAT THIS IS NOT A GOOD IDEA, PLEASE PLEASE let me know.

Thanks.
I cannot imagine any Canadian banking product could be worse than Manulife One, so I'd say go for it! You might also want to ask IG to cover the $100 for switching. I would also frankly demand that Manulife waive the fee given the circumstances, but I don't think they will bother.

Please let us know what your initial experiences are like with the Investors Group account. I also wonder if you'll encounter any additional costs with the changeover such as legal fees or appraisal expenses.

...also, stay tuned in here for the launch of a class action suit against Manulife in which you should still participate.

Congrats on the decision.. I am sure many will follow.
Newbie
Oct 23, 2008
7 posts
1 upvote
mork wrote: I cannot imagine any Canadian banking product could be worse than Manulife One, so I'd say go for it! You might also want to ask IG to cover the $100 for switching. I would also frankly demand that Manulife waive the fee given the circumstances, but I don't think they will bother.

Please let us know what your initial experiences are like with the Investors Group account. I also wonder if you'll encounter any additional costs with the changeover such as legal fees or appraisal expenses.

...also, stay tuned in here for the launch of a class action suit against Manulife in which you should still participate.

Congrats on the decision.. I am sure many will follow.

FYI...Investor's Group is going to cover $1500 in legal and appraisal fees and have told me they will cover the $100 discharge for us from M1.

So far so good.
Sr. Member
Apr 6, 2007
506 posts
60 upvotes
Keep us posted on how it goes with IG.
Jr. Member
Aug 11, 2008
131 posts
ManulifePain wrote: We just can't stand the feeling of logging in every day knowing what has happened, so we have decided to jump ship and change to Investor's Group All-In-One. They are holding firm that their rate is prime and will stay that way and reflect that in all agreements.

They don't charge monthly fees, allow you to create sub-accounts and calculate interest in the same way.

M1 says they will let us out for $100.

IF ANYONE KNOWS ANY REASON THAT THIS IS NOT A GOOD IDEA, PLEASE PLEASE let me know.

Thanks.
This IG AIO is really just National Bank's AIO isn't it?
Newbie
Oct 23, 2008
7 posts
1 upvote
pdurple wrote: This IG AIO is really just National Bank's AIO isn't it?
If you are asking if it is a similar product then I would say, yes. However, National Bank calls their AIO rate "The Bank Prime Rate" which I am extremely uneasy about. It is currently at prime, however, I feel like the wording is risky.

You can see it here http://www.nbc.ca/bnc/cda/productfamily ... 55,00.html

Thanks
Jr. Member
Aug 11, 2008
131 posts
ManulifePain wrote: If you are asking if it is a similar product then I would say, yes. However, National Bank calls their AIO rate "The Bank Prime Rate" which I am extremely uneasy about. It is currently at prime, however, I feel like the wording is risky.

You can see it here http://www.nbc.ca/bnc/cda/productfamily ... 55,00.html

Thanks
Ok, but just to be sure, ask your IG rep if there's a relationship between the IG AIO and the NB AIO. I thought I heard once that IG piggybacks National Bank for this product.
Deal Addict
Feb 9, 2005
4172 posts
20 upvotes
pdurple wrote: Ok, but just to be sure, ask your IG rep if there's a relationship between the IG AIO and the NB AIO. I thought I heard once that IG piggybacks National Bank for this product.
From the IG website:
**All-in-One banking product distributed through Solutions BankingTM Solutions Banking products and services are provided by National Bank of Canada.
Newbie
Oct 23, 2008
7 posts
1 upvote
pdurple wrote: Ok, but just to be sure, ask your IG rep if there's a relationship between the IG AIO and the NB AIO. I thought I heard once that IG piggybacks National Bank for this product.
Yes, I think you are right, but I have asked my IG consultant (who is also a personal friend and very concerned about us and what has happened) to tell me the exact wording on the contract.

I will let everyone know.
Deal Addict
May 28, 2007
1019 posts
68 upvotes
Nowheresville
florch wrote: Shopsmart, you are a troll and apparently a shill for Manulife. I shouldn't even dignify your existence but for the sake of combating your BS so that it doesn't go unchallenged:
It's actually the opposite. But what someone should probably have asked me is: do I hold any Manulife stock?

Personally, I
Sr. Member
Apr 6, 2007
506 posts
60 upvotes
[quote="ShopSmart" post_id="7650233" time="1225493997" user_id="98236"]

Sorry, but I thought that some people had said that their M1 contracts are not the same as other banks. They read as base rate while other RFDers contracts say prime rate. If some of the contracts say prime rate and they
Member
Oct 28, 2008
265 posts
15 upvotes
Courtenay
To determine the profit margin you have to divide the profit by the cost. So, in this case you divide 1.6 by 2.9 and you have a gross margin of 55%. Not so thin, which is why Manulife is always a good investment over a longer period of time












[quote="ShopSmart" post_id="7650233" time="1225493997" user_id="98236"]It's actually the opposite. But what someone should probably have asked me is: do I hold any Manulife stock?

Personally, I
Newbie
Oct 23, 2008
27 posts
[quote="ShopSmart" post_id="7650233" time="1225493997" user_id="98236"]It's actually the opposite. But what someone should probably have asked me is: do I hold any Manulife stock?

Personally, I
Deal Addict
May 28, 2007
1019 posts
68 upvotes
Nowheresville
devilmeister wrote: Shopsmart, I am not an accountant or lawyer so for me it is quite simple.....I don't care whether the bank makes or lose money from my mortgage. When I entered this agreement, I was explicitly told by my FA and Manulife consultant that I would be charged prime. I also have documentation clearly stating the rate I would be charged is prime, not a "man one base rate". If you check page 6 of this thread, you will see copies of documents stating rate is prime. However, I am not currently being charged prime. I did not complain (well, at least not to them) when the prime rate went up because this was our agreement. Now that the rate has dropped, I also expect Manulife to honour it.

It is not a matter of profit.....the monthly cost difference to me is small, but more the principle of standing by an agreement.

You referenced something about due diligence on our part when entering an agreement. Assuming this was done (ie. reading the agreement, asking questions, challenging the responses from the consultants) and your understanding that prime rate would be charged and you have documentation referencing prime rate. Why would I have reason to be suspicious/not trust them?
Since you asked, the reason you should be suspicious and not trust these people is because they have a vested interest in selling this product to you. They're no different from any other person who gains from selling you something like a car salesman, real estate agent, etc. Therefore you have a very strong reason not to trust them.

I saw the cheesy marketing piece by the way but there was no space for a signature or any signature on it. It looks like an old highschool science handout. It was stunningly unprofessional for such a big company. I wonder if someone at Manulife or even outside of Manulife created it themselves and other employees got a hold of it and started copying them and handing it out without it going through any sort of marketing or compliance department.

I didn't see a copy posted of the actual binding contract i.e. the legal documentation that says prime rate with the authorizing client signature(s). Was that document posted somewhere already and I missed it?
Deal Addict
Aug 24, 2002
3569 posts
40 upvotes
Sask
mork wrote: I think I will CC the CEO on any emails I send. I'm sure the "financial crisis" is keeping his inbox pretty full, so might as well keep him in the loop on the backlash from their M1 rate decision. I've been CC'ing the generic manulife_bank@manulife.com on any emails as well just so they can log it in their ticket system to assess the customer-service impact (note: they told me they ask every caller if they are satisifed and they still have a 98% client satisfaction rate!).
I've never once been asked. They probably only ask people who are satisfied. Helps keep the high satisfaction rate if you forget to include unsatisfied customers....
mork wrote: For anyone looking to get your advisors in the loop, the following link lists all of the Banking consultants along with their phone #'s and emails::
http://www.manulife.ca/canada/canada1.n ... k_bcsearch
A week ago my advisor was shocked and sympathetic. Now he's putting it all on Manulife and he doesn't want to be associated.
Newbie
Oct 25, 2008
71 posts
1 upvote
Shopsmart I don't think you are adding anything useful to this discussion.
As for the wording of National Banks AIO it seems pretty clear to me. "The banks Prime rate" is the banks(National bank's) prime rate. How do you think National could turn around and not charge interest at their prime rate with that wording in their contract?

Thanks.
Deal Addict
Aug 24, 2002
3569 posts
40 upvotes
Sask
ShopSmart wrote: So you’re basing your claims on a company to which you have no internal or specific information on data as of June 30.
There's tons of publicly available information. If you want to refute me, post your own info or speculation.
ShopSmart wrote: Regarding your remark about the purchase of a Taiwanese company, I don’t know a lot about the different regulations but I thought I had read that the reason our banks are okay here in Canada is because all of the different lines of business are forced to remain separate. If that’s correct then the arm of Manulife that deals with purchasing mutual fund (investments) companies should not be able to mingle funds related to the banking/lending portion.
Some moderately high ranking Manulife officials tried telling me the reason for them doing this was due to the bad economy and Manulife losing money. Even though I'm fairly sure that's baloney and a smokescreen, let 's assume for the moment there's a shred of truth. So if they are claiming poverty out one side of their mouth, how can they touting the fruit of a spending spree with the other side?

ShopSmart wrote: Maybe someone more knowledgeable could shed light on your logic that since Manulife can afford to buy a mutual fund company in Taiwan, they should be able to re-write your mortgage M1 contracts and write off one 'ten' of a million of dollars.
ShopSmart - it sounds like you are misunderstanding what's happening here. Nobody's saying they have to 'rewrite mortgage contracts". We're saying they should operate the account consistent with how they have operated it since inception, and consistent with how it was promoted, marketed, sold, and serviced.

Also nobody said anything about them taking a "write off" of millions of dollars. A write off is a loss. What we said is that by jacking the rate up, they stand to gain millions of *extra* dollars.
ShopSmart wrote: How wrong do you think you could be on any of these factors given that in your own words, you’ve guesstimated them. On what basis did you get these numbers?
Each factor could vary widely since I guesstimated them. But the interesting thing about big numbers is that if I overestimated one factor it's just as likely I underestimated another one, I'm still going to be in the right ball park. Exact? Hardly, but probably in the right order of magnitude if not closer.

How I came up with this is I used common sense combined with the fact I follow the business news. I used the company's public statement of how many Manulife One accounts they have, as well as their quarterly new balance out number from the Q2 earnings report. Instead of sniping, why don't you offer up an estimate of your own?
ShopSmart wrote: And what about RFD people who are paying prime+1%?
Relevance?

ShopSmart wrote: I thought you said you signed up knowing that you would be paying more for the convenience of bundling your account? Why should you be now be paying less than RFD people who are paying prime+1%?
As I've stated, I'll happily pay what I was told would be the cost. If that's lower or higher than what someone else is paying is irrelevant. What matters is what Manulife said versus what they are now doing.
ShopSmart wrote:The crux of the whole thing Neil is that you had a choice to go with a more ‘reputable’ bank. No one held a gun to your head and said - get a M1 account or else.
ShopSmart - you're being silly. This isn't about people putting guns to heads. It's about a company - Manulife - giving representations about a long term product/service agreement, and then later failing to honor their promises. They are charging more than they led their customers to believe. No guns, just a big company deceiving and ripping off customers.
Deal Addict
Aug 24, 2002
3569 posts
40 upvotes
Sask
timcs wrote: Hi all M1 account holders,

I received a letter from a Carol Ann Levesque, an Ombudsman at Manulife Bank of Canada. The letter is quite long winded, but I will summarise:

There is a long, patronizing paragraph about how banking works that basically states that because of the cost of borrowing funds, they could not afford to lower the Manulife One base rate with prime, as the costs of deposts remain too high.

My thoughts on that are that I don't really care if they make a loss on my product - they entered into an agreement with me and I want them to keep their word...

Secondly they state that the Manulife One bank account has features that other lending products don't have such as bill payment functionality, etc and that with their features and current rate they believe it to be a competitive product.

Two thoughts on this - one is that it does go to the issue of them changing the rate on me, and the second is that I thought that I paid $14 a month for the privaleges of having these extra banking functions in my mortgage...

They go on to state in detail terms of the written agreement that only mentions the Manulife One base rate, and they also specifically mention that the rate at the time I signed was 6.25% .

I am not sure if this was meant to be some kind of threat that they would raise my rate back to this rate if I complained to much, but I actually think that this is counterproductive to their point of view, as it does show that the rate in the agreement I signed is no longer the rate I am paying, and when we look at the history of the changes in the time I have been a customer, they have always been in lock step with the Manulife One prime rate.

It also misses the point that we only agreed to agreed to pay at the Manulife One base rate because of the fact that the banking rep, and Manulife One's own materials defined this rate as being the SAME AS their prime rate.


They also included a customer satisfaction leaflet with details on how to contact the Ombudsman for Banking Services and Investments. I spoke to them this morning on the telephone, and they told me that they don't usually deal with the specific interest rates that have been set by a bank, so that seems like a dead end.

So there you have it... the ombudsman system is not capable of resolving this issue fairly, but is relying on a minor technicality to overcome the major substantive issue of their promise.

Oh wow, I don't have that letter yet. But from your description, this is sounds like an abomination! No reputable ombudsman is supposed to represent things in that way. An ombudsman is supposed to be objective and attempt to work things out between the two parties. They are not supposed to be making excuses for one party like that. This ombudsman sounds as fake as Manulife's promises.
Deal Addict
Aug 24, 2002
3569 posts
40 upvotes
Sask
malbadon wrote: Heh, last week when I talked to Manulife CS they gave me the "actually the response hasn't been that bad, most clients understand M1 wasn't Prime"
To which I said "no, most people don't pay attention to their finances and couldn't tell you what they were paying last month, let alone now"

Hell, whats the standard calculation companies use to determine how changes will affect customer-base?
10% will notice, of which 10% will care enough to voice an opinion, of which 10% will actually take action.

On 40,000 customers thats 40 people. On the earlier estimated 17 million increased cashflow, I guess having 40 customers actually annoyed enough to do something is nothing given the extra $$ they make...
People make fun of lawsuits, but you've well illustrated why they are sometimes necessary, and why large damages are also necessary to get the attention and respect of these monolith giants like Manulife.

Companies like Manulife know they can bully and deceive customers, and a low percentage will have the backbone to take them to the mat for it.
Deal Addict
Aug 24, 2002
3569 posts
40 upvotes
Sask
ShopSmart wrote: You're absolutely right on the above. I think we agree here. Bringing up profitability of the party in question should have no bearing on who was at fault. I think it was Neil that was using this argument to support the fact that Manulife can afford to eat up the difference regardless.
Incorrect. The first few officials I dealt with at Manulife tried claiming profitability as an excuse for their action. I still believe that is false. But since they raised it as a defense, I'm entitled to challenge both points:
a) is the defense even truthful
b) is the defense relevant
ShopSmart wrote: That’s like - if 2 warring spouses went to court and one claimed, he stole $10K from me. On top of it he’s a billionaire so he can afford to pay me back. The latter should be irrelevant but I understand why people
No, it's like a billionaire that owes you money saying "I don't have to pay you because my assets are shrinking." My argument is:
a) I don't believe your assets are shrinking, since all evidence is to the contrary. This goes to show your credibility is lacking.
and
b) Even if your assets are shrinking, you still owe what you owe.

In the extreme event that the billionaire truly is insolvent, and cannot possibly pay you back, then there is precedent that they can claim an inability to pay. I'm open to listening if Manulife can prove they truly cannot honor these mortgages. In fact if I heard they were filing bankruptcy, I'd be expecting and fairly accepting that realistically, they can't keep their word on the mortgage.

But that's nowhere near the case. As I said, Manulife has been and continues to be profitable and viable. Other than their own desire to maximize profits and perhaps drive away lower margin customers, they have no credible claim to insolvency.
ShopSmart wrote:
If they changed the wording of your contract without getting a new signature on the revised contract, that is not ethical at all.
You're fixated on contract, but there's much more to the agreement. There's the sales material, the illustrations, what the sales people said, what the call center reps said, how they ran the account, and so on. The contract is just one part of a much larger overall representation.
ShopSmart wrote:
I don't have a crystal ball about stocks - let's face it - not many people knew exactly what was going to happen financially speaking - but one would hope that any kind of illegal activity or ‘breaking of rules’ whether by an individual or a company doesn't go unpunished.
At the time I opened my account, everyone expected rates to drop, but they didn't. I even underestimated how much discounting there would be on variable rates. But I didn't breach what I promised Manulife. I didn't whine and give them false tales of losing money. I sucked it up and paid extra, since that's what I agreed to.

Now that rates are coming down, Manulife is not behaving in kind.
ShopSmart wrote:
As a consumer, you have a right to protection, I agree, but all I’m saying is that as a consumer, we also have a responsibility to do right by our own self which means doing our homework, reading and asking questions before signing – or else pay for the consequences.

I’d have sympathy for those who were na
Deal Addict
May 28, 2007
1019 posts
68 upvotes
Nowheresville
Neil wrote: There's tons of publicly available information. If you want to refute me, post your own info or speculation.


I'm not refuting you. I'm asking on what basis you are making your statements. It's not in my interest to find out if Manulife's claim about profitability are true or not.
Neil wrote: Some moderately high ranking Manulife officials tried telling me the reason for them doing this was due to the bad economy and Manulife losing money. Even though I'm fairly sure that's baloney and a smokescreen, let 's assume for the moment there's a shred of truth. So if they are claiming poverty out one side of their mouth, how can they touting the fruit of a spending spree with the other side?


I already ventured a possible answer but no one picked up on that. They might be in bad shape because their mortgage/lending side of the business is not doing well while their other lines of business such as investments could be doing well. I think that legally they can't mix profits because otherwise what happened in the states with the investment banks could have happened here. But definitely Manulife should be challenged and give you more concrete proof in answering that question in a believable way.
Neil wrote: ShopSmart - it sounds like you are misunderstanding what's happening here. Nobody's saying they have to 'rewrite mortgage contracts". We're saying they should operate the account consistent with how they have operated it since inception, and consistent with how it was promoted, marketed, sold, and serviced.


You're right. I might be misunderstanding some people's comments about their contracts if all of you are asking for the same thing.
Neil wrote: Also nobody said anything about them taking a "write off" of millions of dollars. A write off is a loss. What we said is that by jacking the rate up, they stand to gain millions of *extra* dollars.


If I used the word 'write off' I apologize. Either way of putting it is biased, I agree. It's noted.

Neil wrote: Each factor could vary widely since I guesstimated them. But the interesting thing about big numbers is that if I overestimated one factor it's just as likely I underestimated another one, I'm still going to be in the right ball park. Exact? Hardly, but probably in the right order of magnitude if not closer.

How I came up with this is I used common sense combined with the fact I follow the business news. I used the company's public statement of how many Manulife One accounts they have, as well as their quarterly new balance out number from the Q2 earnings report. Instead of sniping, why don't you offer up an estimate of your own?


I know what basis your figures are. Now I know what relevance to put to them. Thank you.
Neil wrote: As I've stated, I'll happily pay what I was told would be the cost. If that's lower or higher than what someone else is paying is irrelevant. What matters is what Manulife said versus what they are now doing.

ShopSmart - you're being silly. This isn't about people putting guns to heads. It's about a company - Manulife - giving representations about a long term product/service agreement, and then later failing to honor their promises. They are charging more than they led their customers to believe. No guns, just a big company deceiving and ripping off customers.
I'm not saying that Manulife and the financial advisors you dealt with are in the right. In fact, it sounds like no one really did the right thing by anyone.

I'm fixated on the contract because it's the key to any agreement that was made and signed in writing. I don't think it's unreasonable to focus on it. As I mentioned, no one has posted a copy of it so that everyone can see what it says.

And to the person who asked what value I'm adding. This entire thread is a good lesson to anyone else to read the legal agreements word for word before signing anything.

There is no such thing as good faith these days except among family and good friends - if you're fortunate enough.

Top

Thread Information

There is currently 1 user viewing this thread. (0 members and 1 guest)