Hsbc ifa?

Funds

dunstonh wrote: »

You tell us then why they sell so many poor quality own-brand HSBC products then when there is absolutely no justification for picking them.

They are either being pressured by their sales managers to do so or they are being remunerated extra for doing so. If there was no incentive or pressure then they wouldnt be recommending such poor quality options.

Tell us what happens to them if they dont sell enough?

The inference was that HSBC IFAs were paid/paid bonus on the amount of HSBC products sold, and/or targetted by sales managers to do so. This is factually incorrect.

As to why they recommend HSBC products, that is another matter, and one for the individual advisor.

Many clients probably like the financial strength and stability that the HSBC brand brings, and see this in the present climate as more attractive than the 'potential' better returns offered by external fund providers.

My experience of HSBC IFAs is that if anything they 'outsource' funds to prove their independance, as opposed to using in-house funds.

Either way, whether they recommend Jupiter, HSBC, Fidelity or Cazenove makes absolutely no difference to either their pay packet, or apprisal. If it did, i'm sure the FSA would have something to say about it, as this would surely be against the principles of TCF.

div_ad

"The FSA would have something to say about it"

Presumably like the regulatory authorities did about Northern Rock, HBOS, Equitable Life etc. etc.

I'm afraid many of us out here don't have much faith in the FSA (nor does the government who are scrapping it!). That maybe unfair but its why we go on sites like this for advice from total strangers.

dunstonh

The FSA has a record of being pro bank. Despite banks handling the minority of advice transactions, they have the majority of complaints. The RDR proposals suit banks more than independents. Even the FSA admit that the changes will send more people to the banks for advice.

The inference was that HSBC IFAs were paid/paid bonus on the amount of HSBC products sold, and/or targetted by sales managers to do so. This is factually incorrect.

It is correct. As confirmed by an ex HSBC employee and a quick look on google finds other HSBC staff talking about pressure sales.

As to why they recommend HSBC products, that is another matter, and one for the individual advisor.

Not if they are being pressured to sell them. There was no justification for recommending the World Selection funds. Yet plenty did.

Many clients probably like the financial strength and stability that the HSBC brand brings, and see this in the present climate as more attractive than the 'potential' better returns offered by external fund providers.

Doesnt matter. The tied agent sales remit may be for the consumer to pick but an IFA remit is to recommend the best option. The client can overrule but it should be shown as an insistent client overruling the advice. So, on the basis of best advice, they should be told not to use HSBC funds.

Mr_K

Funds wrote: »

Many clients probably like the financial strength and stability that the HSBC brand brings.

I stopped reading there, sounds like a salesman if ever I heard it. HSBC current account is fine and the online banking is lovely. As for putting your money in any of their savings or investments, I looked elsewhere long ago.

'HSBC brand' - :rotfl:Yes the logo does look pretty but I'm not paying for it or any of their gormless staff who hang around in branches with clipboards doing God knows what......