FSA to probe IFA advice problem

EdInvestor

Whiteflag

whiteflag wrote:

Why dont you have a go at the life companies who pedalled these products for years, with bonuses set by marketing departments.Was it IFAs that decided that Standard Life would keep going without an MVA way after all the others had thrown the towel in, i think not.

It may shock you to hear that basically the IA agrees with you. If you look at our site, it's clear that we place most of the blame for the rot in financial services not on IFAs, but on the life companies and the people who run them - the actuaries.

We believe it is the actuaries who are mainly responsible for the mess at company pensions as well, not to mention the Equitable fiasco, and the absolutely appalling destruction of policyholder value at Standard Life - about which we have been more critical more publicly than anyone, for several years :mad:.

We successfully campaigned for a Government inquiry into the actuaries' activities (the Morris investigation) which produced a very critical report and stripped the actuaries' professional body of its right to run the profession.Most of its former regulatory duties have now been moved to the FSA as well.

If you want the blame for the life and pensions mess to be placed where it belongs, you IFAs need to speak up a lot more - to the press, to the regulator, to the Government, on BBs, wherever about what goes on.

There may be very good reasons why IFAs can't advise on With profits products - which after all make up by far the majority of the money the industry is managing. This problem obviously needs fixing, as billions of pounds are involved (nearly 400bn in closed WP funds alone).

So why not try thinking of some constructive solutions, rather than burying your heads in the sand and shooting the messenger?Every day people are coming on this site wanting help on their WP endowments and pensions in this very forum, so you know it's a serious issue. The article we're discussing explains the puzzle about why they can't get any sensible advice about what to do.

I understand that IFAs may feel irritated and defensive about all the threads about misselling ( even though many of the cases may not even involve IFAs at all, but tied salesmen working for building societies.)

But I'd just like to point out that it's not my fault if people can't tell the difference between an IFA, a tied salesman, a whole of market whatsit or a broker who is one thing for this product and one thing for that.If you want this kind of confusion to stop, you know what you have to do.

jem16

Ed,

Only a suggestion but wouldn't a less inflamatory title (FSA to probe IFA advice problem ) help?

You're hardly going to get the IFAs on the case if you continue to berate their profession.

That and the way the article has been misquoted.

EdInvestor

Re this alleged misquoting, I will let Moneysavers make up their own minds about whether this was acceptable paraphrasing.I said the problem might have several causes.

The article said:
"There is a concern that there aren't that many IFAs out there well-equipped to advise on whether policyholders should stay with or leave with-profits funds.

"On top of that is the complexity of the products - the value of guarantees, the complex mathematics behind the way these schemes pay out and the effect of charges."

And here is what I said:

#The IFAs don't understand With-profits products and can't work out if people should stay or leave

and then the article said:

"You have IFAs who are embarrassed that plans they sold their clients five years ago have turned out to be a poor investment, but are reluctant to tell them"

I said:
#They are embarrassed that the products they sold have done so badly

And the article said:

"We are also investigating whether people are not getting advice on this matter because advisers are worried they could be accused of churning [switching funds to earn commission]."

while I said:

#They don't want to be accused of "churning" (encouraging someone to give up one product and buy a new one on which the IFA earns more commission)


If the moderators want to change the heading that's their prerogative but it's not incorrect.

[Deleted User]

"If you look at our site, it's clear that we place most of the blame"


Ed can you say in your sig what this site is? I don`t believe that you are being objective in your postings and it would be good to see what is your bias as you do seem to have an axe to grind

whiteflag_3

EdInvestor wrote:

Whiteflag



[PHP]It may shock you to hear that basically the IA agrees with you. If you look at our site, it's clear that we place most of the blame for the rot in financial services not on IFAs, but on the life companies and the people who run them - the actuaries.[/PHP]

Why would I be shocked as I know the IA is very knowledgeable in this area


[PHP]If you want the blame for the life and pensions mess to be placed where it belongs, you IFAs need to speak up a lot more - to the press, to the regulator, to the Government, on BBs, wherever about what goes on[/PHP]

We do, do you read the IFA weeklys.


[PHP]So why not try thinking of some constructive solutions, rather than burying your heads in the sand and shooting the messenger[/PHP]

It was all going so well, I wondered if you would get to the end without making unfounded accusations. Many IFAs have spent a great deal of time and money seeking ways to help clients in with profits - if you know the reality to be different let the FSA know before they start their enquiry.


[PHP]Every day people are coming on this site wanting help on their WP endowments and pensions in this very forum, so you know it's a serious issue. The article we're discussing explains the puzzle about why they can't get any sensible advice about what to do.[/PHP]

They should look abit harder. My company has not had one telephone call from a concerned WP investor. ( had plenty asking how to claim compensation payments though).

[PHP]I understand that IFAs may feel irritated and defensive about all the threads about misselling ( even though many of the cases may not even involve IFAs at all, but tied salesmen working for building societies.)[/PHP]

No problem with genuine misselling claims. its the thousands of chancers that cause the pain.

[PHP]But I'd just like to point out that it's not my fault if people can't tell the difference between an IFA, a tied salesman, a whole of market whatsit or a broker who is one thing for this product and one thing for that.If you want this kind of confusion to stop, you know what you have to do[/PHP].

And I'd just like to point out that it's not my fault either. The rules are dreamed up in that ivory tower called Canary Wharf . Your point is?

whiteflag_3

EdInvestor wrote:

Whiteflag

If you want this kind of confusion to stop, you know what you have to do.

Ed given this 24hrs and you have me beaten! :wall:

Please let me know what I have to do?

EdInvestor

LOL Whiteflag


Did you see this story in the Scotsman today? It advises people like the readers in this forum what to do if they have a With-profits policy like an endowment.

See the questions you have to ask?

What's so hard about that?

I don't know what all these IFAs are whingeing about.

dunstonh

EdInvestor wrote:

LOL Whiteflag


Did you see this story in the Scotsman today? It advises people like the readers in this forum what to do if they have a With-profits policy like an endowment.

See the questions you have to ask?

What's so hard about that?

I don't know what all these IFAs are whingeing about.

I'm sorry but you are really being immature. You continue to attack the IFAs when you have no experience or knowledge of these things beyond what you read in the media. You then repeat what you read but put your own anti IFA biased spin on it.

The questions get asked. However, they rarely get answered. That has been said a number of times in this thread. Yet as per usual, you continue to ignore the posts which respond to your misinformation.

EdInvestor

Oh dear I think we have a sense of humour failure.

dunstonh

I'm sorry, I saw no humour in your previous response and still do not after giving it another read. I just see another attack on IFAs.

Ed, you have an excellent repository of media articles on financial services. Many of which highlight some issues which deserve debate. Others are misguided or completely rubbish and deserve debate just as much to put them right. You have the potential to raise issues on important matters and create some excellent debating threads. However, whilst you continue to present them in the anti IFA bias that you do, the issues in the debate will be lost and it will just turn in to another wasted thread full of flamebait.