Reorganising this board

Pal

dunstonh wrote:

Maybe its time for Pal to clear the existing stickies at the top of the pensions forum and lets replace them with new stickies that remain on specific subject. i.e. a thread on contracting out, another on ISAs vs Pensions, SIPPs vs rest, annuity vs drawdown.

If we had proper threads on those we could just post the links to the threads rather than repeat the same discussion points.

Dunston posted this on another thread. The problem with this board is that every thread develops rapidly into the same old discussions about the same subjects.

The main problem is that some posters (who are perfectly entitled to their opinions) seem to post on every thread with glib comments recommending SIPPS/Hargreaves Lansdown/ISAs/Income Drawdown etc that are far too light on detail. These MAY be a reasonable suggestion, but usually the initial post is so light on detail or caveats, the professional advisers on this board then feel the need to spend time posting the necessary caveats and alternatives to avoid the original poster being misled.

No doubt these posters think that other people on these boards just post recommending advice based products that cost more than the ones they are recommending.

This leads to the repetitive discussions that blight this board. I have even considered at various times treating some posts as trolling, deleting them and possible reporting the original poster for banning, particularly those that take swipes at professional advisers without any evidence to back them up. (It is almost as bad as the contant negative comments about Estate Agents on the housing board). So far I have resisted as it seems far too OTT.

It is frustrating, because when these posters are being reasonable and providing a bit more detail and evidence to back up their claims I more than often agree with them.

So my suggestion is as follows:

As requested, if people want to start specific threads as mentioned I will make them sticky. There you can argue as much as you like on the specific topic. It would be very helpful if people could PM me with any threads that they want made sticky.

A few suggested ground rules:

- Stick to the thread subject.
- If you are posting in a thread about the advantages or disadvantages of a product/service etc, then refer people to the sticky discussion thread rather than repeating the same discussion over again.
- Posts on non-sticky threads that start repeating those in the sticky threads will be deleted without comment, and if necessary the thread closed.
- Claims as to the advantages or disadvantages of a provider or product should not be made without evidence.
- Any post that states or implies that every financial adviser in the world is a crook will be immediately deleted and the individual posting will be reported to the moderators to consider banning. Insulting other posters is unacceptable, whether directly or indirectly.
- No industry is perfect so anyone can claim that a specific adviser or person is a crook if they want but they had better be able to back up their claim.
- Similarly no further negative comments should be made regarding individual poster's websites.
- All posters must carefully examine the wording they are using to ensure that it is not misleading. For example "HL is the best SIPP for fund investment" is not acceptable as it ignores the fact that there are many non-SIPP products that are far cheaper than HL for fund investment, depending on what funds you are choosing.
- No discussion about specific FSA regulated products without evidence/links etc.
-Absolutely no recommendations whatsoever on specific FSA regulated products - they will be deleted without comment.
- Past performance is no guide to the future. Posts should not mislead people by suggesting that it can be used to decide whether future investment in that product is a good idea or not.

Above all remember that this is a moneysaving site. It is about finding ways to do things efficiently and cheaply, but more importantly it is about finding ways to do EXACTLY THE SAME THING more cheaply. As a result comparing an execution only product with one where financial advice is provided is NOT reasonable: posters can of course indicate that an execution advice route may be cheaper, but they should also point out that the original poster might want or need advice and it might be worth paying for.

Discuss.

dunstonh

It is frustrating, because when these posters are being reasonable and providing a bit more detail and evidence to back up their claims I more than often agree with them.

That is very fustrating because much of the time, so do we. The problem is that with us having to balance up the comments with warnings and potential problems, it makes the advisors out to disagree. That is not the case. Most things are not 100% right for everyone but sometimes the quick comments give that impression that they are suitable for everyone.

All seems clear to me.

whiteflag_3

I really think its about time risk warnings are added to some posters signatures, as some of the inaccurate/ misleading and misguided information being posted on this site could actually end up costing some poor unfortunate alot of money. :exclamati

Clearly PAL your requests have fallen on deaf ears

JohnG

Pal,

I completely understand your concerns and thoughts on the need to tidy this forum. Speaking as a non-expert I would like to add following comments:

- Large threads on particular subjects are extremely cumbersome and difficult to follow (though that could be just me) and I also suspect some information can be out of date as the market seems to chop and change rather quickly?

- Different threads can end up going in directions which either lose the plot for people like me or just get very messy and difficult to follow.

- Starting a new thread obviously avoids all previous clutter so information that is given is hopefully more appropriate for that person's situation.

- If the "Stickies" could state clear accurate specifics for each subject/area without additional comments that would be useful? But would there be suffcient consensus amongst MSE's to provide clear/specific information?

- Wouldn't it be sensible to have MSE's declare more openly about their professional status and whether they work in the financial industry otherwise there seems to be alot of back biting and insinuation going on trying to second guess someones hidden interest which only blights the good work that is otherwise being done?

Hope this helps to add to the discussion in some way?

Cheers
John




-

dunstonh

- Wouldn't it be sensible to have MSE's declare more openly about their professional status and whether they work in the financial industry otherwise there seems to be alot of back biting and insinuation going on trying to second guess someones hidden interest which only blights the good work that is otherwise being done?

Sometimes misinformation is posted or more commonly assumptions made that one solution is right for everyone. The issue with regards to your comments in other threads (and my assumption that you are leaning towards those in this comment) is that this information tends to get repeated time and again and the industry professionals get ignored. So what you see as "hidden interest" is really complete fustration at times that incorrect or misleading subject matter gets repeated time and again and we end up in a groundhog day situation.

People could read that misinformation, think it is correct and act upon it. We have seen it before where people have thanked someone after they have posted incorrect information and indicated that they will act on it. Everyone makes mistakes but when the same mis-information or misleading information gets repeated time and again, you are going to see some comments made out of frustration.

whiteflag_3

JohnG wrote:

Pal,
- Wouldn't it be sensible to have MSE's declare more openly about their professional status and whether they work in the financial industry otherwise there seems to be alot of back biting and insinuation going on trying to second guess someones hidden interest which only blights the good work that is otherwise being done?

Hope this helps to add to the discussion in some way?

Cheers
John

-

How more open can you be than " im an iFA "

Theres no back biting , just the professionals ask the other posters to back up their claims which very rarely happen-

For example dunstonh posted this on another thread after EDinvestor advised someone the go to an execution only provider-

On final salary occupational pension transfers?

Can you find an execution only company that would do that?

A fair question. Ed has not replied yet has clearly been on this site most o f today?

Now ask yourself this -why would anyone post anything unless they can back it up with fact?
and is it really unreasonable for the IFAs on this site to get a bit uptight with this sort of thing going on on a daily basis.

Everything would be alot more straightforward if all posters stuck to the facts

JohnG

Quote: "How more open can you be than " im an iFA " "

Hello Whiteflag,

Look, I wasn't referring to you believe it or not, I know you made it clear you are an IFA earlier. However there are many others who don't so you end up second guessing. Even your adversary Edinvestor is a bit of a mystery to me.

I note there is a connection to a financial website but that's about it? It means we end up having to try to investigate where everyone is coming from - it would be far easier wouldn't it if it was compulsory for the information was always clear at point of messaging?

I can appreciate the concerns over misinformation and that it must be extremely difficult to monitor and control it. I suggest if it's proved conclusively to be inaccurate then some sort of action should surely be applied?

With regard to Edinvestor again, many of the arguments come across as more subjective rather than based on facts as you & he/she are looking at them from different view points unfortunately us helpless ones are left floundering in between not knowing which way to turn, so frustration all round ..

I suppose I ought to keep out of these issues as I'm a non-financial expert but then again, maybe a viewpoint from the other side of the counter might have some use?

Cheers
John

EdInvestor

Edinvestor is a bit of a mystery to me.

:cool: I'm a private investor.I contribute voluntarily to the Investors' Association ( url in my profile) which is a not-for-profit lobby group pushing for a better deal for investors and consumers from the financial services industry, which we feel is overdue for reform.

With regard to Edinvestor again, many of the arguments come across as more subjective rather than based on facts as you & he/she are looking at them from different view points... unfortunately us helpless ones are left floundering in between not knowing which way to turn, so frustration all round ..

I think this is inevitable, partly because of the way the industry is set up.For instance look at John's case. He's an Equitable victim. When Equitable closed in 2000, the FSA issued a very strong and pointed warning to the advisor community that it would be closely watching for any attempt by IFAs to profit from transferring people out of Equitable.

The effect of this was to exclude most Equitable members from receiving any advice at all for several years, because the IFAs were scared of being penalised by the regulator. Instead, they were left floundering on their own. How helpful was that to people who were already victimised? :mad:

So time moves on, and an IFA will now advise John.Perhaps it is not surprising in the light of the history that

a)The proposed one-fund investment is with a large well capitalised and respected life company (Scot Eq, owned by Aegon) , nothing new or possibly "racy" (like a Sipp) or weak (like Equitable) which might be questioned later

b)The fund chosen is almost an exact (but unit-linked) replica of the Equitable WP fund when John would have invested in it ( and he would have received "suitable" advice at the time by default, because the FOS does not allow misselling complaints from Equitable :mad: )

c) The suggested generic type investment fund is very large and liked by pension trustees (so plenty of "safety in numbers" from other industry "professionals" - also protecting their own backs) for the IFA

d)There are a number of "box ticking" aspects to the fund (even more security for the IFA) which will back up the IFAs choice even if there are subsequent losses and John tries to complain.

So I would suggest that the advice given to John has a lot more to do with protecting the IFA's back than improving the long-term performance of John's pension fund.

This may be entirely understandable from the IFAs point of view.The advice may be, from the point of view of "the system", suitable, based on a judgment of John's attitude to risk that had previously "ticked the boxes" and conservative.The fact that it's also almost 100% likely to be pretty sub-optimal, ( and is not advice that would be given to other investors) may not be the point at all from the IFA's side.Security from claims losses and regulatory penalties may be a bigger priority.

This is why there may not be a lot of point in people like John consulting IFAs. The body to blame here is, as usual,is the regulator (who was also responsible for Equitable's downfall in the first place) but again this still doesn't help John.

Whiteflag is wrong to assume that I always blame IFAs.Regulators,product providers and other salesmen are at least as much to blame for the major problems many investors have in getting the system to perform. However, it is disingenous of Whiteflag to suggest that all is rosy in the advisor garden. The huge scale of misselling and loss of confidence in the value of "advice" over recent years can't really be ignored.If it could, there would be no demand for websites like this or lobby groups like mine.

#Regarding the question of final salary pension transfers needing an IFA's recommendation,I have heard that some execution-only providers ( in effect Sipp providers) will accept them. That's all I was saying. I'm sure it depends on each individual case and the position may have changed recently.It would be interesting to know if anyone has brought any misselling cases against IFAs who refused in the past to approve transfers from final salary schemes which subsequently went into wind-up unable to pay out the pension.

dunstonh

Whiteflag is wrong to assume that I always blame IFAs.Regulators,product providers and other salesmen are at least as much to blame for the major problems many investors have in getting the system to perform. However, it is disingenous of Whiteflag to suggest that all is rosy in the advisor garden. The huge scale of misselling and loss of confidence in the value of "advice" over recent years can't really be ignored.If it could, there would be no demand for websites like this or lobby groups like mine.

If you look at the stats, IFAs account for a very small number of the complaints going to the ombudsman and an even smaller number upheld. When you then look at the number of complaints compared with the number of transactions that take place, there is clearly no sign of wholesale mis-selling. If you just look at complaints alone and not compare the level against the number of transactions taking place, then any figure is going to appear out of context.

When I go to various presentations, the quality of knowledge of some of the advisors is outstanding. Yet you also do come across others who do the IFA role part time in addition to another job and you talk with them and its clear that all they are good for really is protection and mortgages. There does often appear to be an assumption on this board that all IFAs just give basic advice. That is totally incorrect.

whiteflag_3

Whiteflag is wrong to assume that I always blame IFAs.Regulators,product providers and other salesmen are at least as much to blame for the major problems many investors have in getting the system to perform. However, it is disingenous of Whiteflag to suggest that all is rosy in the advisor garden. The huge scale of misselling and loss of confidence in the value of "advice" over recent years can't really be ignored.If it could, there would be no demand for websites like this or lobby groups like mine.

I think Ive pointed out before on more tha one occasion the regulator has to take it fair share of the blame for the state of the financial services industry.

What I cant remember or find is where I have ever said everything is rosy in the advisor garden is rosy and that Edinvator always blames the iFA?

I take it that a SIPP provider might take an execution only transfer because they are not regulated at the moment?

DavidLaGuardia

EdInvestor wrote: »

This is why there may not be a lot of point in people like John consulting IFAs. The body to blame here is, as usual,is the regulator (who was also responsible for Equitable's downfall in the first place) but again this still doesn't help John.

A lot of truth in here, but Equitable's own history has something to answer for. Applying bonuses to put them at the top of perfoimance tables gave a false idea of how their funds were actually performing. Many other companies faced the expense of guaranteed annuities but has something to fall back on.