A new financial advisor

jem16

whiteflag wrote: »

Authorised by the FSA - need I say more!

Well it is the authority that authorises you - need i say more!

whiteflag wrote: »

no, but I think its nice to know that the person who is charging you a fee/ commission might actually know what they are talking about.

Sorry whiteflag - your argument that the only thing that matters is qualifications doesn't wash with me.

I have met many teachers, especially in Secondary schools, with high qualifications such as Phd who cannot teach to save themselves.

whiteflag_3

jem16 wrote: »

Well it is the authority that authorises you - need i say more!

well if that is the best you can do it is not really worth my time posting on here. One of the few educated people that gave this forum any credibilty is now resorting to the sort of moronic replys that I thought only Edinvestor was capable of.

Sorry whiteflag - your argument that the only thing that matters is qualifications doesn't wash with me.

Must try harder. Again you seem incapable of reading the information put infront of you. I have never once said that the only things that matter are qualifications - I said the ........oh i give up re the thread again and if you cant see what I said well god help

I have met many teachers, especially in Secondary schools, with high qualifications such as Phd who cannot teach to save themselves

Funnily enough so have I. I also have the misfortune that I am paying their wages.

jem16

whiteflag wrote: »

well if that is the best you can do it is not really worth my time posting on here.

Just like the kids in my class - you started it. And despite the fact that I keep telling my class not to get involved I did.

One of the few educated people that gave this forum any credibilty is now resorting to the sort of moronic replys that I thought only Edinvestor was capable of.

I think that was a compliment so I'll take it in the spirit it was intended.

We've had this discussion before and I'll say it again. You have a lot to offer this forum but IMHO you go about it the wrong way by attacking others and your comments come across as antagonistic as opposed to helpful.

Must try harder. Again you seem incapable of reading the information put infront of you. I have never once said that the only things that matter are qualifications - I said the ........oh i give up re the thread again and if you cant see what I said well god help

I can see what you are saying. You are saying that most IFAs are not qualified to choose funds. If you don't feel that qualifications are the most important thing why keep bringing it up as if it is?

However I have pointed out that as far as we, the uninitiated clients, are concerned the FSA ( the authorsing body) has said that they are, otherwise ( as I asked you before) why authorise them?

The point I am trying to make - through experience - is that qualifications is not the be all and end all. Yes it's a good starting point but experience counts for a lot.

Funnily enough so have I. I also have the misfortune that I am paying their wages.

I really thought better of you whiteflag - resorting to the usual public sector employees bashing. You disappoint me!

I thought people reading these threads with a view to seeking advice would find it much more interesting to know that financial advisers doing portfolio planning dont need to be formally qualified, however I seem to be sadly mistaken.

Why? What does it achieve other than a mistrust of all financial advisers, including financial planners?

If you keep banging on about IFAs holding no formal qualifications and being no more qualified than the average man in the street you are going to drive people away from seeking advice and instead having them go down the DIY route. Is that really what you want?

whiteflag_3

jem16 wrote: »

We've had this discussion before and I'll say it again. You have a lot to offer this forum but IMHO you go about it the wrong way by attacking others and your comments come across as antagonistic as opposed to helpful.

Sorry didnt realise that is where I had gone wrong again- where was I antagonistic on this thread this time?

I can see what you are saying. You are saying that most IFAs are not qualified to choose funds. If you don't feel that qualifications are the most important thing why keep bringing it up as if it is?

Where did I do that, merely pointed out a fact and Dunstonh chose to disagree. Posted the sylabus for the advanced exam that covers it and Dh ( and you ) ignored it.

However I have pointed out that as far as we, the uninitiated clients, are concerned the FSA ( the authorsing body) has said that they are, otherwise ( as I asked you before) why authorise them?

but authorisation and qualifications are two different things.

The point I am trying to make - through experience - is that qualifications is not the be all and end all. Yes it's a good starting point but experience counts for a lot.

True , but remember we are no talking about serving burgers here. It could be your life savings and you think its acceptable that the person doing it has no formal qualification ( or benchmark /track record - they could have been doing badly for the last 30 years)

I really thought better of you whiteflag - resorting to the usual public sector employees bashing. You disappoint me!

So if I hadnt said I was paying them , who was doing the bashing? Thought it was you that said this?

I have met many teachers, especially in Secondary schools, with high qualifications such as Phd who cannot teach to save themselves

Why? What does it achieve other than a mistrust of all financial advisers, including financial planners?

If you keep banging on about IFAs holding no formal qualifications and being no more qualified than the average man in the street you are going to drive people away from seeking advice and instead having them go down the DIY route. Is that really what you want?

or they might just ask their adviser what qualifications they have and be in a better position to make an educated decision.

You should be in politics- i have never said that IFA's have no formal qualifications - I think if you look way way back in this thread I was talking about picking funds and portfolio palnning and I even said some are qualified. Please please please do me a favour and read what Ive said and you might see the reason for my frustration, which you mistake for something else.

jem16

whiteflag wrote: »

Sorry didnt realise that is where I had gone wrong again- where was I antagonistic on this thread this time?

According to you you are never antagonistic - doesn't mean you are not.

Where did I do that, merely pointed out a fact and Dunstonh chose to disagree. Posted the sylabus for the advanced exam that covers it and Dh ( and you ) ignored it.

I didn't ignore it - I read it. Why would I need to comment on it when you already commented.

whiteflag wrote: »

To save you pming Dunstonh, yes its an advanced qualification and no its not a mandatory qualification for an adviser putting together an investment portfolio.

but authorisation and qualifications are two different things.

You still ignore my question - what is the point of authorising someone if they are not qualified?

True , but remember we are no talking about serving burgers here. It could be your life savings and you think its acceptable that the person doing it has no formal qualification

But they do have a formal qualification - not necessarily high enough in your opinion - but it is a qualification.

( or benchmark /track record - they could have been doing badly for the last 30 years)

That's a totally different ball game and you know it.

So if I hadnt said I was paying them , who was doing the bashing? Thought it was you?

Why not just agree with me? What has who pays them got to do with it?

or they might just ask their adviser what qualifications they have and be in a better position to make an educated decision.

How exactly is the average person meant to know the difference between FPC2 and AF4 to make this decision.

As you feel able to make an educated guess can you tell me if DCE or BEd is a better qualification in teaching yet.

You should be in politics- i have never said that IFA's have no formal qualifications -

No?

whiteflag wrote: »

Most IFAs only hold the basic FPC1,2 & 3 qualification, which does not include any specific detailed fund selection questions. There are no questions about sharpe ratios, risk analysis etc etc. While they may be authorised they hold no more formal qualifications than the man in the street.

There are of course some who have higher qualifications.

Exactly what formal financial qualifications does the man in the street have?

I think if you look way way back in this thread I was talking about picking funds and portfolio palnning and I even said some are qualified. Please please please do me a favour and read what Ive said and you might see the reason for my frustration, which you mistake for something else.

Good advice whiteflag. Could you perhaps read what I and others in this thread are saying too?

Most people see an IFA because they need advice on which funds to choose. We are told time and time again to see an IFA who will do this for you. Read the OP's first post - that's what he is expecting.


Now you are saying IFAs are not qualified to do this. As a financial planner you will plan for me and then stick me into some multi-manager funds as the multi-manager is the one who is qualified to choose funds.

If that's the case I might as well go and pick some multi-manager funds from Hargreaves & Lansdown and save myself some money.

jem16

whiteflag wrote: »

Jem , Ive never met a school teacher that can admit they are wrong,

You need to meet more then.

so Im annoyed with myself that I thought we might have been able to get somewhere with an educated debate, but sadly you had to get personal.

Nothing personal. I merely said that I don't agree with your model of business in so far as picking funds (or not picking as the case may be) is concerned.

As my granny used to say "there are none so blind as those who dont want to see" .

That's true.

If you're so blind as to not see the damage you are doing your industry by insisting that IFAs are not qualified to choose funds then so be it.

If it means anything, unlike most other people on here I did respect you

Exactly who are all those people on here who don't respect me?

and I am genuinely very disappointed with this outcome.

As am I.

FYI- my firm has research carried out nationally, of iFA businesses and their clients and picking funds wasnt even in the top 10 of things clients expected their adviser to be doing.

What were the questions asked? What options were given to choose from?

Its been an interesting excercise on my part none the less- merely bringing to the attention of others that perhaps there are differences in the type, quality and cost of adviser has generaly been met with a torrent of abuse from cross section posters, shows the problem we have with both financial services and financial education in this country.

I think it tells more about the way you have been going about this as your comments in your last post towards dunstonh and Ed would testify to.