Cautious to Balanced ?

Aegis

greenface wrote: »

On reading that thread(thats a year ago)shock !!!!!! i will ring my own ifa re risk amendment and advise that i am seeking another professional to see if i was correctly advised to begin. I have noticed charted IFAs are these better to see ?
My current IFA joined August 2005. in financial services since 1981, having worked for two major life and pension companies prior to becoming an I F A. expertise include Pensions & Investments, Mortgages and Protection.
. achieved the Financial Planning Certificate, CF7 Lifetime Mortgages Qualification and CF9 Pensions Simplification 2006 Update Qualification, all from The Chartered Insurance Institute and the Certificate in Mortgage Advice and Practice from the Institute of Financial Services.

Doesn't sound like he's bothered to get the advanced level qualifications yet, so maybe look for someone with at least a Diploma level financial planning qualification to seek advice from.

jem16

greenface wrote: »

i also thought the spread was across 2 inc invesco 50/50 but the invesco part is only my isa so all in with axa outside isas.

£300k into 2 funds in an investment bond sounds very bad advice to me. I have an investment bond of £100k split into 10 funds.

And would another IFA be able to give me advice on this or would they not want to comment on another professional (doctors, solicitors, police)p1ss in the same pot etc.

I don't see any problem with asking another IFA to look at your investments with a view to taking them over. Whether or not they comment is immaterial - it's what they say they would do with them that would be important.

dunstonh

£300k into 2 funds in an investment bond sounds very bad advice to me. I have an investment bond of £100k split into 10 funds.

There is no structure to 300k split in just two funds. Its a bit hit and hope. That doesnt mean a strategy would have avoided losing money but the diversification and rebalancing would mean that not so much money was held in illiquid assets.

whiteflag_3

greenface wrote: »

On reading that thread(thats a year ago)shock !!!!!! i will ring my own ifa re risk amendment and advise that i am seeking another professional to see if i was correctly advised to begin.

Save yourself the hassle and just phone your existing IFA and ask him to explain why putting 50% into property was suitable for a "cautious" investor?

You didnt need to be a rocket scientist let alone an IFA to know that the UK commercial property market was peaking.

Did he use any risk profiling tools- doesnt look like it.?

Ask him to give you in writing what was agreed re reviewing your bond. The risk profile and asset allocation has changed significantly since you invested. HE should have set out his proposals going forward.

Were you advised in writing that the property fund could be "suspended"?

Greenface, although im an IFA without getting too technical my view is what you got both service and advice wise is a crook of sh*t.

Hope this helps

Myrmidon_J

Whilst I do not wish to suggest for one moment that the advice received in this case was entirely appropriate, or that the adviser is (or was) competent, it is worth noting - in my opinion - that one of the two funds recommended is a 'distribution' fund.

These are very 'old school' and appear to be on the way out, but are (typically) more diversified than the average unit trust or OEIC. For example, the L&G Distribution fund invests in UK and (some) international equities, government and corporate bonds, property, and money market securities. This has not stopped the fund haemorraghing money, of course, but does perhaps offer a reason as to why a greater number of funds were not selected.

Also consider that the investment bond (with just two funds) is one part of a wider investment strategy. If the adviser hadn't then recommended 50% exposure to property (in one fund) and additional distribution and property funds in the ISA tax wrapper, it might even have made some sense (the old core / satellite approach).

But the general impression is one of cluelessness!

jamesd

Property funds were quite often perceived as quite low risk so this mixture isn't so surprising, but since it was done property has been hammered and if you're locked in you don't have the option to dodge.

For the property I suggest patience if you're still unable to move any of it, since it undoubtedly will recover given time. If you can move it than you might consider some equities as part of what you move to.

For general practice, two funds seems inadequate and I'd expect to see equities in any mixture, even if only at quite low percentages. Doesn't really seem like a very good fund selection job and it suggests that you'd be better off with an IFA who's better at doing this work.