Have the Inlaws been Mis Sold?

rl290

RayWolfe wrote: »

I wonder what they would be saying now if this investment had taken place at a different time and they had made shed loads of money.
Would it still have been a missale?

IF this is a mis-sale (which is still unclear), the answer to you question is: yes, it would still be a mis-sale. However, the IFA should count himself lucky that the fund rallied rather than crashed and burned, and it would be unlikely that the OP would take any action.

As an (extreme) analogy, imagine a surgeon who made a mistake in a procedure. The patient may or may not have complications later as a result of this. In either case, the surgeon has made a mistake and could have a complaint made against him. However, in the case where the patient is fine, it is less likely that a complaint will be raised. Doesn't make the mistake any more excusable though... and the complaint should be made if he was at fault to avoid mistakes being made in the future.

However, in this case it is still unclear if there was a mistake.

R

purch

I'd have thought a fund called sterling cash would have invested in sterling cash and so no risk, but no, there is some risk being taken

I think that the Standard Life Sterling Fund fiasco showed that it isn't the case. A lot of these Funds use CD's and FRN's which under normal circumstances are pretty close to Cash in risk profile, but which in the current environment are not so.

EdInvestor

foolonastrom wrote: »

My question is, would they have a case for mis selling against the IFA. He has obviously adviced them to put their retirement fund into a med-high risk investment, when he should have adviced them that it should be invested with no-minimum risk. They did say that they wanted the capital to remain safe, but they are naive investors, so possibly wouldn't have understood that the value of their capital was at risk, even if they signed a bit of paper to say that they did.

People really shouldn't sign bits of paper which do not reflect their views. Basically all markets have gone down quite dramatically over the last 2 years and now there is no income to be had on cash.They have actually done reasonably well.

dunstonh

Standard Lifes problem wasnt the risk in the fund as no cash fund is 100% safe. They typically come out as risk 2 on a 1-10 scale. Stds problem was they didnt present it the right way. They learnt an expensive lession.

The NU offshore bond does have access to cash deposits though and doesnt need to use cash funds.