Friends Provident Stewardship fund crashes

TRUSt_NO_1_2

dunstonh wrote: »

The Retail Distribution review seems to be focusing on this somewhat with the current proposals.

The effective downgrading of FOS protection for tied agent sales reps and the lower remit they will have for giving advice in future (better than doing nothing) and using lower quality products with a more defined structure will suit the lower end of the market.

IFAs will have to have higher qualifications and assuming the advanced FPC (or diploma as its now called) is the level they choose (which it is expected to be), then one of the exams required is a higher level of investment knowledge. With IFAs being higher qualified and in lower numbers (as the older ones wont want to sit exams and some wont be capable of passing the higher ones) the FSA have conceeded that IFAs will focus more on the upper end of the market leaving the middle market somewhat stuck between basic sales reps trying to get them to sign up using simple products or actually paying for qualify advice and products which is something the middle market is not generally used to.

There will be no middle market in 5 years.
The 'middle class' as was known in the 1960-1990's is skint.
The only ones left with any 'money' will be those who back then were considered rich.
It's a simple supply and demand issue...driven by the number of investors...(not IFA's)

EdInvestor

Debt_Free_Chick wrote: »

.part of the problem is that for those who don't have the confidence/time/energy/whatever to DIY, they often are not prepared to pay a professional for their knowledge and expertise.
I guess conveyancing might be a suitable analogy - either DIY, with all the risks, time and effort that involves - or pay a suitably qualified, experienced and trusted professional to do it

Do you think it's reaqlly appropriate to compare an average IFA with an average solicitor?The solicitor might not agree! People do know that when they employ a solicitor, the work is likely to meet a minimum professsional standard.We do not hear constant reports of solicitors being struck off or charged with negiligence..

Can we say the same about financial advisors? Not yet surely .Many advisors still appear to bear a closer resemblance to double glazing salesmen than solicitors.They have no proper self regulating professional body - and indeed they and their employers are in constant trouble with the regulators over their questionable practices.

The RDR (and the move to the NMA model) should help in separating the sheep from the goats in the long term But there are a number of other entrenched industry practices which may get in the way.IMHO the industry has a long way to go before investors' confidence in its financial judgment, sales practices and professional standards is restored such that they wiull be confident that when the pay a fee, they will get value for their money.

dunstonh

We do not hear constant reports of solicitors being struck off or charged with negiligence..

We dont hear of constant reports of IFAs being struck off or charged with negligence either.

People do know that when they employ a solicitor, the work is likely to meet a minimum professsional standard.

As is the case with IFAs. Maybe the minimum is too low currently but there is a minimum standard.

Can we say the same about financial advisors? Not yet surely .Many advisors still appear to bear a closer resemblance to double glazing salesmen than solicitors.They have no proper self regulating professional body - and indeed they and their employers are in constant trouble with the regulators over their questionable practices.

IFAs account for 4% of complaints at the FOS but account for the majority of transactions that take place. Whilst there are improvement to be made, and the RDR seems to address that, a lot of the issues are historical rather than current. However, there is still a bottom end which could do with either culling or getting their act together. The RDR should take care of that.

Tied agents on the other hand are responsible for the majority of complaints yet research has shown that over half of the people seeing a tied agent believe they are seeing an IFA. So, its fair to assume that the image of IFAs is being tarnished by these tied reps.

Mortgage advisers have also damaged the reputation but they are not indivdiually regulated (that was a mistake by the FSA) and were regulated to a much lower standard than IFAs or investment advisers (also a mistake. A £50pm pension contribution carried more responsibilities than a £300k mortgage).

I think you paint to bleak a picture for the minority of cases that go wrong. You only ever hear the bad things in the news and if you rely on the news as your sole source of data then you are going to carry a negative opinion.

cooper2110

I wouldn't have bothered spending the time to reply to that post by Edinvestor. What a load of rubbish.

bigbloke45

EdInvestor, I think you should check your facts, There are much more claims against solicitors than there are against IFA's!

bigbloke45

Chris, you said "I know no-one has a crystal ball to give precise answers, but I'd really appreciate any comments and suggestions!

What you have to get your head around is this; Friends Prov. Ethical Fund is only allowed to invest in companies that it has "screened" using it's fund criteria. For example, if "Big Oil" is doing well, but is not allowed in the FP "Universe", then FP Ethical Fund cannot, even if it would be the best investment in the world at the time, take a position.

So, you chose to invest in an "ethical" fund; that's OK, but what you must accept is that such a fund will always be a "tilt" fund i.e. it will always not match the all shares or any other index.

Sometimes it will do better, sometimes worse; but what you can't do is to blaim the fund managers - you must have chosen this fund for a reason.

[EMAIL="abuse@moneysavingexpert.com?subject=Reporting post http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=13314819"][/EMAIL]

EdInvestor

bigbloke45 wrote: »

EdInvestor, I think you should check your facts, There are much more claims against solicitors than there are against IFA's!

The Law Society's complaints service reports that it has received just over 20,000 complaints over the past 18 months against solicitors, so around 13,000 a year.

In its 2006-07 annual review, the Financial Ombudsman Service states that it logged 94,392 complaints against financial advisors in that year, whether independent or employed by providers.As Dunstonh comments, the public is generally unable to tell the difference.

There is really no comparison.

Ian_W

The Law Society's complaints service reports that it has received just over 20,000 complaints over the past 18 months against solicitors, so around 13,000 a year.

Before the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors morphed into the Solicitors Regulation Authority it didn't even start investigating a complaint for many months, 9 months springs to mind but someone can correct me if that's wrong. Quite a good amount of time for track covering I would have thought particularly, as in most cases, like the FOS they require internal complaints procedures to have been exhausted.

We do not hear constant reports of solicitors being struck off or charged with negiligence..

About 2 solicitors a week are struck off or suspended from practising in England & Wales by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. The fact we don't hear about them may have more to do with the fact that the FSA/FOS as so called independent bodies seek publicity to show they're doing the job. The law Society on the other hand ....

Do you think it's really appropriate to compare an average IFA with an average solicitor?

The fact the public doesn't know an IFA from a tied agent doesn't mean you don't - and you made the IFA/solicitor comparison so - as you hang on dunstonh's every word - what's 4% of 94,000? A little under 13,000 unless my calculator batteries are playing up!

Jeez Ed, you really missed your calling in politics!

dunstonh

In its 2006-07 annual review, the Financial Ombudsman Service states that it logged 94,392 complaints against financial advisors in that year, whether independent or employed by providers.As Dunstonh comments, the public is generally unable to tell the difference.

The FOS stated that 4% of complaints are against IFAs. So using your 94,392, that makes 3775

About 2 solicitors a week are struck off or suspended from practising in England & Wales by the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal. The fact we don't hear about them may have more to do with the fact that the FSA/FOS as so called independent bodies seek publicity to show they're doing the job. The law Society on the other hand ....

When an IFA gets struck off it makes the financial press. The FSA likes to publish fines and disciplinary action.

what's 4% of 94,000? A little under 13,000 unless my calculator batteries are playing up!

Get the recharger out

The general feeling is that the FSA was once against IFAs because it was a cottage industry with too many different processes and it was hard to manage them. However, IFAs have been successful in reducing the complaints against htem and the banks have done the reverse and it is that which has given the FSA a change of heart and become more pro IFA and anti bank. However, the FSA do appear to have a preference for IFA firms that use networks or other compliance providers (as hinted by suggesting there would be a compliance dividend to those that do). The RDR couldnt be more pro IFA in its current stance and that is a big turnaround from years ago.

jem16

Ian_W wrote: »

what's 4% of 94,000? A little under 13,000 unless my calculator batteries are playing up!

Perhaps it was a solar battery you used? 4% of 94,000 is 3,760 .

Jeez Ed, you really missed your calling in politics!

She's a journalist - you're not meant to print the truth, just a good story!