Need advise, saw Barclays financial planner

whiteflag_3

Rollinghome wrote: »

In my opinion, the only way to guarantee unbiassed advice would be to charge fees based solely on the time involved, and not dependent on what product is sold or how much the client is persuaded to invest.

spot on

and there firms out there that do exactly that.

whiteflag_3

Rollinghome wrote: »

I think Moneyweek puts the case very well:
"Need some unbiased financial advice? You’ll be lucky to get it in the UK. Despite the best efforts of a small part of the financial advice community to revolutionise the way they offer advice to their clients, the majority of our so called advisers are in fact no more than salesmen...."
www.moneyweek.com/...unbiased?-you'll-be-lucky.aspx

given that fee based (hourly rate) advisers exist then surley the public are free to seek them out. The problem is not with IFA's its the public are to lazy to find them.

JP45

Rollinghome wrote: »

Investors need to feel confident that when an adviser encourages them to put money in a stocks and shares ISA rather a cash ISA, or whatever, that it isn't because one course earns them commission but the other doesn't.

I agree. It is blindingly obvious that a financial adviser is liable to be influenced by the level of commission on a particular product.

Unless an IFA has the makings of a saint, there is always going to be a risk that he or she will select a product based on the level of commission.

SavySaver_2

This seems like a hot topic.

My opinion is that poeple should speak to a couple of different advisors so they can compare.

When you sign up with some 1 then it is your decision at the end of day. So if seem happy with the level of advice and the return you will get on your investment then really is it down to the individual at the end of day. You could speak to every ifa but they all will all have similar products to offer. Only sign up for something your are 100% happy with. Going with your bank is not a bad idea as they have decent products and then you all have them to go back to if you are not happy with anything!

JP45

whiteflag wrote: »

given that fee based (hourly rate) advisers exist then surley the public are free to seek them out. The problem is not with IFA's its the public are to lazy to find them.

I agree, but I think part of the problem is that people see the title 'Independent Financial Adviser' and assume, not unreasonably, that the advice they'll get is just that. To my mind, the title of IFA should to be restricted to those whose advice is solely fee-based and commission free.

And for those who wish to do the sensible thing, there's a useful directory of fee-only IFAs on the MoneyWeek website:

http://www.moneyweek.com/investment-advice/fee-only-ifas.aspx

Aegis

SavySaver wrote: »

Going with your bank is not a bad idea as they have decent products and then you all have them to go back to if you are not happy with anything!

Banks generally don't have many particularly decent products, though they DO charge a lot for the privilege of investing through them. The bank's (multi-)tied advisers aren't allowed to plan holistically because they don't have the whole-of-market remit.

Unless you have too little for an IFA to bother with, what benefits do you have with a bank adviser that you wouldn't get (and more) from an IFA?

whiteflag_3

SavySaver wrote: »

This seems like a hot topic.

My opinion is that poeple should speak to a couple of different advisors so they can compare.

When you sign up with some 1 then it is your decision at the end of day. So if seem happy with the level of advice and the return you will get on your investment then really is it down to the individual at the end of day. You could speak to every ifa but they all will all have similar products to offer. Only sign up for something your are 100% happy with. Going with your bank is not a bad idea as they have decent products and then you all have them to go back to if you are not happy with anything!

Barclays are shut today then!!!

What a load of twaddle .

whiteflag_3

JP45 wrote: »

I

agree, but I think part of the problem is that people see the title 'Independent Financial Adviser' and assume, not unreasonably, that the advice they'll get is just that. To my mind, the title of IFA should to be restricted to those whose advice is solely fee-based and commission free.

Agree 100%.

And for those who wish to do the sensible thing, there's a useful directory of fee-only IFAs on the MoneyWeek website:

http://www.moneyweek.com/investment-advice/fee-only-ifas.aspx

The trouble is the list contains Towry LAw , who say they are fee only but are not

dunstonh

Going with your bank is not a bad idea as they have decent products and then you all have them to go back to if you are not happy with anything!

Most of the banks have pretty awful products, priced at the most expensive level (higher than an IFA taking full commission) and banks own investment funds are almost universally expensive.

I agree, but I think part of the problem is that people see the title 'Independent Financial Adviser' and assume, not unreasonably, that the advice they'll get is just that. To my mind, the title of IFA should to be restricted to those whose advice is solely fee-based and commission free.

And for those who wish to do the sensible thing, there's a useful directory of fee-only IFAs on the MoneyWeek website:

http://www.moneyweek.com/investment-...only-ifas.aspx

This list is pointless. Partly because as the likes or Towry Law are on it and partly because most IFAs who do the majority of transactions on fee basis still offer the commission option as there are times when it is better for the client. As all IFAs have to have a fee based option then its not an issue.

countyourmoney

Hi - I've got a question on Barclays too, my partner was advised a year or two ago to invest all his hard earned pension into a "safe" barclays portfolio and did it on the basis that his initial capital would not be affected even if the benefits went up or down. Now he's found his investment has lost not only all the benefits made to date but his capital has reduced by 10k too. He has complained that he was told the capital was safe and has now received a letter telling him his complaint has not been upheld, is there anything we can do?