Mortgage advice

stanmoresaver

paulengland wrote:

best things to do is to learn it all yourself .. don't trust anyone with your finance.

IT is all PLAIN English on the doc or on the leaflet only things is becuase it is small print or it is LONG people getting lazy to read all about it .

Anyway it is only some of my advise and please don't take it personally .

keeping to the medical profession analogy, do you self diagnose because you don't trust your doctor as well?

payless

stanmoresaver wrote:

keeping to the medical profession analogy, do you self diagnose because you don't trust your doctor as well?

Strangely over the years I have had reason to research certain medical conditions / reactions to certain medications - and pass that information on to GPs , which in turn has lead to a different course of action from that GP - so I'm not against "user" participation.

However don't think I have ever used that info to perform surgery myself !

stanmoresaver

payless wrote:

However don't think I have ever used that info to perform surgery myself !

Sometimes it might be said that i might need to stitch my mouth together!!

AndrewSmith

<

---

Trying desperately to remain quiet




:rotfl:

stanmoresaver

AndrewSmith wrote:

<

---

Trying desperately to remain quiet


:rotfl:

And failing!!!!

HelpWhereIcan

Have to say that this thread has moved me to create my own blog.

Suffice to say that my first post on the blog is pretty long - I am now purged and just happy that somewhere out in the ether my opnions have been expressed!!

No point in reposting it all here as most has been said before, but just have to say that it is effectively a rant brought about by the pride I have in the job I feel I do (a pride which I am pleased to note is mirrored by the advisers who have posted) and the fact that I am portrayed by some as nothing more than a salesman with nothing of value to offer.

However, I do feel I have to add my penneth worth to an issue mentioned in this thread:

If, as an adviser, I were to arrange a protection policy for someone purely on the basis of cost, I would be laying myself open to a number of justified complaints. The decision on which policy and company to use should be based on a number of things including quality of cover, underwriting policy, claims history and financial strength as well as cost. Unfortunately, the same principles do not seem to apply to the results of journalistic research.

The media often pushed Equitable Life as the choice of the professional, financially savvy classes; but were slow to acknowledge the effect that insisting on low charges and 'no commsission to middlemen' could have on a company's financial strength.

I acknowledge that I am being unfair in the case of Equitable Life in that the investor has a right to expect that promises will be fulfilled and that there were some horrendous errors made in the management of the company.

However, I feel that it is a good example of the fact that just because a company has the lowest charges and is the darling of the media, it does not mean that they are the best option for everyone.

At what point will the public trust professionally qualified and regulated advisers as much as the journalism 'profession' which has it's own fair share of sharks. After all, what is the difference between a journalist who puts a certain spin on a story to make it more interesting and likely to be read and an adviser who uses 'sales techniques' to help illustrate their advice in their client's mind?

Just had to add my own insignificant thoughts to the debate. Must also acknowledge my belief that anything that helps consumer education is a good thing and that Martin and a lot of Personal Finance journalists do a great job promoting independent advice. I just get a little frustrated when that promotion is sullied by the practice of damning the industry with faint praise.

MSE_Martin

I've just read through this thread again - having seen recent replies. I still struggle with working out which bit of "brokers are the good guys" and "there are many good small brokers" is anti-broker.

The entire article concentrates on telling people to use brokers not banks or building societies. Of course it also focuses on options for people to reduce the cost in doing so - then again this is MoneySavingExpert.com - its sort of doing what it says on the tin.

I'm sorry to see brokers getting upset by this as I'm a fan of mortgage brokers much more than the generality of IFA advice.

I too do get slightly annoyed by some of the FSAs rulings, as i think you'll see in the article itself. I remember sharing a panel with the FSA head of compliance and being asked what i thought my answer was "far too much emphasis on providing information" as most people don't read or struggle to understand the info given "far too little emphasis on explanation and ensuring people understand what they're doing"

And I know many mortgage brokers who feel this has been an added burden on them, however i only have one agenda and that's pro-consumer, there are some very effective pro-mortgage broker lobbyists - its big business and i shall let them deal with that

martin

homer_j_3

HelpWhereIcan wrote:

Have to say that this thread has moved me to create my own blog.

Suffice to say that my first post on the blog is pretty long - I am now purged and just happy that somewhere out in the ether my opnions have been expressed!!

No point in reposting it all here as most has been said before, but just have to say that it is effectively a rant brought about by the pride I have in the job I feel I do (a pride which I am pleased to note is mirrored by the advisers who have posted) and the fact that I am portrayed by some as nothing more than a salesman with nothing of value to offer.

However, I do feel I have to add my penneth worth to an issue mentioned in this thread:

If, as an adviser, I were to arrange a protection policy for someone purely on the basis of cost, I would be laying myself open to a number of justified complaints. The decision on which policy and company to use should be based on a number of things including quality of cover, underwriting policy, claims history and financial strength as well as cost. Unfortunately, the same principles do not seem to apply to the results of journalistic research.

The media often pushed Equitable Life as the choice of the professional, financially savvy classes; but were slow to acknowledge the effect that insisting on low charges and 'no commsission to middlemen' could have on a company's financial strength.

I acknowledge that I am being unfair in the case of Equitable Life in that the investor has a right to expect that promises will be fulfilled and that there were some horrendous errors made in the management of the company.

However, I feel that it is a good example of the fact that just because a company has the lowest charges and is the darling of the media, it does not mean that they are the best option for everyone.

At what point will the public trust professionally qualified and regulated advisers as much as the journalism 'profession' which has it's own fair share of sharks. After all, what is the difference between a journalist who puts a certain spin on a story to make it more interesting and likely to be read and an adviser who uses 'sales techniques' to help illustrate their advice in their client's mind?

Just had to add my own insignificant thoughts to the debate. Must also acknowledge my belief that anything that helps consumer education is a good thing and that Martin and a lot of Personal Finance journalists do a great job promoting independent advice. I just get a little frustrated when that promotion is sullied by the practice of damning the industry with faint praise.

Couldnt have said it any better myself..

If I am being honest, I have never really read this website fully, I just click the forum button and come straight in to the discussion boards.

I do believe that it is a great forum and website for information however, I feel that brokers do get a bit of a rough ride sometimes if they decide to charge a fee for their advice. I too am not going to go into the jutification and benefits from receiving qualified advice in a regulated environment but just wanted to support the other advisers on here that do a sterling job.

Having been reading a little bit about the website, I was quite suprised to find out that the "not profit driven" claim actually means that Martin earns most of his income from our clicks on his links and doesnt mind becoming rich from it. Do not get me wrong, I understand that there are operating costs and no one works for free but maybe this is some of this spin you talk about.

Caps for the importance of differences between freedom of the journo world compared to the financial one

UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD ANY FINANCIAL INSTITUTE BE ALLOWED TO CLAIM "NOT PROFIT DRIVEN" AND THEN STATE THAT THEY FORM MOST OF THEIR INCOME FROM THIS PRODUCT.

Come on Martin, lets start playing on the same level, get your IDD on the opening page to say exactly what you get paid for what click what we do and then offer a link that we can click for free and not through your referal and ensure that your wording is not mis-leading.

AndrewSmith

Valid points Homer_J and HelpWhereICan,

Both I feel deserve a proper answer as there are a number of issues covered within that express the thoughts and frustrated opinions of many of us professionals who give advice freely on this site without personal recommendation or gain.

A proper honest answer is that which is given without projecting personal insult or dismissing opinions as, for example, 'laughable or Polemic'.

As true professionals I am sure the respondants will act accordingly.

Andy

HelpWhereIcan

MSE_Martin wrote:

The entire article concentrates on telling people to use brokers not banks or building societies. Of course it also focuses on options for people to reduce the cost in doing so - then again this is MoneySavingExpert.com - its sort of doing what it says on the tin.


martin

Don't want my post to be seen as getting at Martin or the aim of this site (saving money on all sorts of things not just mortgages) - it was mainly aimed at the fact that all Personal Finance journalists can make fairly sweeping statements when referring to our industry with seeming impunity. The comment I took (take) exception to is the accusation that as a broker (and I paraphrase here) I will try to sell uncompetitive ancilliary products and the implication that the customer should ignore any advice I may give on this matter and rate shop for their insurances.

I am more than happy for Martin to encourage customers to shop around, but to dismiss my services out of hand is unfair as advice on the type of protection contract and the provider is just as important as getting the right advice on mortgage contracts but this is an area where advice is often played down in favour of cost.