Arch Cru - up to date info needed please

dunstonh

Easy now. You spend every day of your life on this board abusing anyone who dares to disagree with you.

I have never been banned from this board. Both you and feesarefare (in his whiteflag login) have been and both of you for being abusive. I have no problems with anyone disagreeing or taking a different view. I don't see the need for personal attacks, accusations and lies that you continuously post.

You are a good example of the sort of old-school 'never-give-a-sucker-an-even-break' IFA to avoid that got the industry into the present untrusted state it is.

You don't know me. You just make these accusations periodically with no basis of fact just because you have this enormous chip on your shoulder.

jamesd

joyfull, there are two aspects to watch:

1. Whether the fund valuations provided were accurate back in 2008. This was mentioned in the letters and is important because providing inaccurate valuations could significantly affect the outcome. You should continue to read the letters to see how this evolves.

2. Whether the adviser used only a single investment or whether this was part of a range of different investments. It would be prudent to use a mixture for a low risk target and if the IFA used only one that would be an avenue to consider.

feesarefare

dunstonh wrote: »

I have never been banned from this board. Both you and feesarefare (in his whiteflag login) have been and both of you for being abusive.

Yes thats a strange one isnt it Dunstonh. It appears you can get away with saying anything you like on these forums - Calling someone pathetic and a liar is abusive but you dont get banned?

Whiteflag - abusive =ban
Rollinghome -abusive= ban
Dunstonh - abusive= business as usual

Rollinghome

dunstonh wrote: »

I have never been banned from this board. Both you and feesarefare (in his whiteflag login) have been and both of you for being abusive. I have no problems with anyone disagreeing or taking a different view. I don't see the need for personal attacks, accusations and lies that you continuously post.

You don't know me. You just make these accusations periodically with no basis of fact just because you have this enormous chip on your shoulder.

Thankyou to Feesarefare for his defence of me but as a matter of record let's get this clear: I have never been banned from this board or any other for being abusive. Perhaps you would like to describe the nature of that claimed abuse or link to the post and if not retract that claim?

It seems that being abusive and misleading comes very easily to you, perhaps a habit from your years as a salesman before becoming an IFA. It shows just how careful the public must be in choosing an adviser.

But let's put that aside.

I gather you, Dunstonh, now claim on this board to be a fee-based adviser. I note that when asked, Feesarefare readily gave details of his fee structure. If you really have moved to being fee-based, rather than just using the claim to mislead, would you be open and honest enough to do the same?

Feearefare, I doubt you will get an answer to your questions, just more salesman's bluster and abuse.

.

Rollinghome

For Joyful, I see Justin Modray has expressed views on this in the Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/money/article7068959.ece
Justin Modray, of Candidmoney.com, the financial website, says: “Who is to blame? The FSA, for allowing these products to go to market, the product providers for peddling the funds as low risk and financial advisers for not doing enough due diligence.”

Also in Moneymarketing

http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/adviser-news/court-ruling-gives-advisers-arch-hope/1004566.article
Justin Modray says: “The line is 50/50 between the provider and the adviser. In the Arch cru fund case, I believe the provider did not make the risks clear enough but the advisers need to get under the bonnet of the products to see what it is they are and what they do.”

and on his website at http://www.candidmoney.com/articles/article80.aspx (where he also directly answers financial questions) where he says:

"Any investment worth its salt doesn’t need to pay commission above typical unit trust levels, and if your adviser recommends this fund it’s probably time to find a new adviser."


.

jem16

Rollinghome wrote: »

Thankyou to Feesarefare for his defence of me but as a matter of record let's get this clear: I have never been banned from this board or any other for being abusive.

Under this username, no. Under your previous username of earlgrey, yes.

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/member.php?u=342953

No doubt you will deny it but your posting style and spelling of "unbiassed" points otherwise.

Earlgrey PPR in January 09 - Rollinghome joined January 09 - hmm.

Perhaps you would like to describe the nature of that claimed abuse or link to the post and if not retract that claim?

Most of your worst posts have been removed by the board mods. The reason for earlgrey's PPR came about with an attack on MSE Martin on this thread - post removed of course.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1396129

Interesting read on this thread where even feesarefare (in whiteflag mode) has something to say against earlgrey's attacks on one IFA in particular.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/1324287

jamesd

Rollinghome, please confirm that you used to post here under the username earlgrey.

feesarefare, please confirm that you used to post here under the username Whiteflag.

Cru_craziness

I submitted a complaint to my IFA regarding selling us Arch Cru as a low risk investment and he passed it onto a supossedly independent assessor who did not uphold the complaint. What is my next step?
How independent is that company likely to be considering they were hired by the IFA?

dunstonh

What is my next step?

If you dont like the response then the letter you received telling you that you had been rejected tells you what you can do next. In this case you can take your complaint to the FOS.

How independent is that company likely to be considering they were hired by the IFA?

Many IFAs use external compliance companies and they are independent in respect of them not being linked to that company. They are a third party effectively who should review the case fairly and within FSA rules. Some will be more objective than others and some will pursue a case further than others (who may cave in easily as it can be cheaper in the long run or they are playing a stats game). Those that are using external compliance companies or legal support, especially one called Regulatory Legal, are taking a hard line. However, at the end of the day you can take it to the FOS after 8 weeks if you are not happy with the outcome irrespective of what they say.

Remember that having the Cru fund is in itself not a mis-sale. The two main areas where it could be are 1) it was not consistent with your attitude to risk 2) you were not an experienced investor and the investment was consistent with your ability to understand.

Cru_craziness

Many thanks dunstonh for the advice, this was a first time investment and unfortunatley it was a considerable amount. I had recently sold property and the IFA place 1/3 of the proceeds in Arch Cru (100,00). Now when I hear about how little information regarding the fund structure and what was being invested in was known by IFA's I can't understand why they can claim due diligence- how someone can advise you to place money in something that they don't even know to who or where its being invested seems crazy. Unfortunatley at the time I was naive and was assured that it provided a low risk product with solid returns (on hindsight I know that such a thing rarely exists!).