IFAs ignorant about annuities

whiteflag_3

DiggerUK wrote: »

MiloH,
As we both know, there is a shady side to every profession.
All EdInvestor's thread put was a PR spin from a firm that recognises that public perception, and decided to cash in on it by presenting themselves as the good guys.
All the usual suspects could do was jump on Ed who points out some unacceptable home truths about the IFA industry, and that truth is that many still do not have a professional disclosure policy, or bend the rules without breaking them.

It's not much comfort to our members if I tell them that "things aren't like that anymore".

Digger , its interesting that you continally bring up the sharp practice in the IFA industry, which you quite correctly point out exists (just like any other industries), while backing Edinvestors post that promotes an IFA firm that every time I come across them, seem to be sailing close to the wind. The very companies you seem to despise.

Miloh has done an excellent job in articulating the other areas you seem to have a somewhat outdated knowledge of.

MiloH

DiggerUK wrote: »

MiloH,
As we both know, there is a shady side to every profession.
All EdInvestor's thread put was a PR spin from a firm that recognises that public perception, and decided to cash in on it by presenting themselves as the good guys.
All the usual suspects could do was jump on Ed who points out some unacceptable home truths about the IFA industry, and that truth is that many still do not have a professional disclosure policy, or bend the rules without breaking them.

Message boards are always a difficult medium to succesfully portray tone. Words are easily interpreted in many ways. I simply wanted to explain my views on the story he linked to based on my first hand experience. I assumed EdInvestor posted it in anticipation of a discussion.

DiggerUK wrote: »

It's not much comfort to our members if I tell them that "things aren't like that anymore".

Based on your comments and signature I don't expect you to become an advocate of IFAs any time soon. Things have changed in our profession as they have in every other. I don't watch Life on Mars and assume that today's policemen beat up suspects as a matter of course, but based on my experience as a football fan I also know that not all policemen act as they should all the time.

If you have members that need advice I'd expect you to share your personal experiences with them. If they really need advice then it will cost them, and like anything you spend your money on, you should shop around carefully before making a decision, asking the sort of questions I referred to above.

DiggerUK

whiteflag wrote: »

Digger , its interesting that you continally bring up the sharp practice in the IFA industry, which you quite correctly point out exists (just like any other industries), while backing Edinvestors post that promotes an IFA firm that every time I come across them, seem to be sailing close to the wind. The very companies you seem to despise.

Miloh has done an excellent job in articulating the other areas you seem to have a somewhat outdated knowledge of.

I didn't read Ed's post as promoting this firm.

All Ed did was to post the PR spin of a firm with a slick marketing angle.

Dismissing the firms findings on the grounds that it had previously spammed this site was deceitful.
My position on spammers is that they are bottom feeders who should to be told to "Sod off", something that got me a great deal of criticism when I once did just that, and the spammer (an IFA who was a failed gambler !?!) got the usual suspects support.

EdInvestor

The other big problem with annuities is the delays in extracting the money from some providers. Mail quotes another survey by ACH which names and shames some of the worst offenders.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/pensions/article.html?in_article_id=488774&in_page_id=6

dunstonh

EdInvestor wrote: »

The other big problem with annuities is the delays in extracting the money from some providers. Mail quotes another survey by ACH which names and shames some of the worst offenders.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/pensions/article.html?in_article_id=488774&in_page_id=6

The article seems somewhat promotional with Virgin Money. Strange that as Virgin have one of the worst stakeholder pensions you can get and don't offer an in house annuity and wont't let you do the open market option. You can only do full fund transfer with them and they are not very quick either.

whiteflag_3

DiggerUK wrote: »

I didn't read Ed's post as promoting this firm.

All Ed did was to post the PR spin of a firm with a slick marketing angle.

Fair enough

Dismissing the firms findings on the grounds that it had previously spammed this site was deceitful.

I cant comment for the rest , but I dismissed their findings for reasons other than them spamming

I dismissed them, because if their research is like their website it will be full of exagerations, using info out of context, and lots of claims that have not substance or are simply not true.

My position on spammers is that they are bottom feeders who should to be told to "Sod off", something that got me a great deal of criticism when I once did just that, and the spammer (an IFA who was a failed gambler !?!) got the usual suspects support

.

Thats interesting, any chance you could find the thread and repost it?

EdInvestor

dunstonh wrote: »

The article seems somewhat promotional with Virgin Money.

Strange how any research critical of advisors is immediately dismissed as tainted, because allegedly promotional if from the industry itself, or because allegedly incompetent if from outside the industry (eg the Which? survey on advisors' poor performance with equity release.)

One wonders if advisors would ever be willing to accept any criticism and if so, from what source?

dunstonh

Strange how any research critical of advisors is immediately dismissed as tainted, because allegedly promotional if from the industry itself, or because allegedly incompetent if from outside the industry (eg the Which? survey on advisors' poor performance with equity release.)

Its not strange. Many news articles today are based on opinions given by individuals or businesses with agendas.

One wonders if advisors would ever be willing to accept any criticism and if so, from what source?

There is plenty to be critical on but we all know that your agenda here is to be anti-IFA and will post any old rubbish to try and forward that agenda.

MiloH

EdInvestor wrote: »

Strange how any research critical of advisors is immediately dismissed as tainted, because allegedly promotional if from the industry itself, or because allegedly incompetent if from outside the industry (eg the Which? survey on advisors' poor performance with equity release.)

One wonders if advisors would ever be willing to accept any criticism and if so, from what source?

Your comment above is disingenuous. It is simply not a reflection of what I've been reading at all. In trying to give an honest response to accusations the replies have been balanced and not one of us has implied the industry is beyond criticism.

However, I can see from the annuity v drawdown sticky that you have had an anti-IFA agenda for at least 4 years. How on earth whiteflag and dunstonh have managed to stay so calm in the face of your provocation I've no idea. Fair play to you guys for sticking up for the profession.

Let's be honest EdInvestor, your comment above and your posting of the equity release survey in the wrong forum was designed to illicit a response from IFAs. On other forums they might call it "baiting", maybe there are different terms here. Have you been enjoying the sport I wonder?

DiggerUK

whiteflag wrote: »

Thats interesting, any chance you could find the thread and repost it?

I have just found out that posts only go back as far as the previous 300, is there any way I can get back further ?

Thanks.