MOst adsvisers are unfit for purpose

Robert_Sterling

Says Paul Farrow in The Sunday Telegraph Money Section full page article.
Named and shamed: HSBC Bradford & Bingley NatWest Yorkshire Bank Halifax Bank

A "Which?" investigation found that only 16% ( Approx One in Six ) of bank
financial advisers ( So called tied advisers ) passed all the bench marks for good advice. Only about one third of Independent Financial Advisers passed all the bench mark tests.

dunstonh

The comments on tied agents is nothing to be surprised about. Many reports have shown them to avoid or mislead on their tied status. A situation that has worsened since depolarisation.

The report has already been criticised though as it gives the impression that it is highlighting poor advice but the points of failure have been mostly technical points rather than quality of advice. They only found one example that they claim to be poor advice.

The main failures were tied advisers pretending to be independent, non disclosure of some key facts that should be discussed, inadequate factfinds and failure to discuss benefits entitlements.

Factfinds was an interesting point as some classes of business do allow a shortened factfind and these areas were included in their research. It has already been highlighted that Which? marked the adviser down for using a shortended factfind when they were quite entitled to do so.

If the worse they could do with the name and shaming was to say that these advisers said they were independent when they were not, then things are not as bad as they make out. It is a pet hate of mine but if thats the worst of it, then things are not as bad as Which are trying to make out.

Horasio

I can well believe that.

I feel a lot don't advise, they simply sneer at people who don't have their alleged knowledge. financial matters such as pensions etc are difficult to get to grips with and when you ask for help, they don't.

I don't trust them as far as I can throw em.

dunstonh

I feel a lot don't advise, they simply sneer at people who don't have their alleged knowledge. financial matters such as pensions etc are difficult to get to grips with and when you ask for help, they don't.

Well, if they had clients like you it wouldnt be a surprise. You deserve to be sneered at it with your comments made on that other thread.

Tiggs_2

CCStar wrote:

I feel a lot don't advise, they simply sneer at people who don't have their alleged knowledge.

dohhhh!!!! I have been missing a real hum dinger of a sales technique there! I thought all that "people buy from people they like" stuff was the way forward.....seems raport building is NOT the best approach after all - Cant wait for first meeting of the week to try our the "sneer at client" technique Bet they'll be queing up to hand over their cheques!

jem16

CCStar wrote:

I can well believe that.

I feel a lot don't advise, they simply sneer at people who don't have their alleged knowledge. financial matters such as pensions etc are difficult to get to grips with and when you ask for help, they don't.

I don't trust them as far as I can throw em.

Perhaps it doesn't help that you don't trust them?

Gorgeous_George

Independant financial advice is something to buy without having sales linked to the advice.

Take the advice, mix with scepticism and personal experience and then buy the products independantly of the financial adviser.

Today's IFAs are yesterday's endowment policy salepeople.



GG

Horasio

jem16 wrote:

Perhaps it doesn't help that you don't trust them?

I wonder why with the flack I get for wanting help :rolleyes:
It has reinforced my loss of faith in them

'Once bitten twice' shy over the endowment issue, regarding trust.

It doesn't help when they haven't matured from their schooldays. Grow up, stop being so defensive, and do the job you are paid very well to do. It isn't clever or funny to be sarcastic when someone is making a decision that will affect their finances.

'Please be nice to all MoneySavers. There’s no such thing as a stupid question, and even if you disagree courtesy helps'

I haven't felt that in this thread.

Someone feels wary and they get attacked, that is so reassuring to the public.

Keep digging...

Cook_County

The Which?report can be read here: http://www.which.co.uk/reports_and_campaigns/money/reports/banking_and_borrowing/banking_/Financial%20advisers/financial_advisers_report_657_93633.jsp

The overall message is that ancient phrase "buyer beware"!

There is - however - a slight mistake in the description of tax qualifications in the Which? report. Seeing this error made me think that the overall standard of journalism might be questionable. The UK has several qualifications - an adviser can be a Chartered Tax Adviser (CTA) by passing a series of exams and holding practical experience (the Which? report calls this an ATII qualification, but the name changed 3 years ago to CTA). An adviser can also be a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Taxation (CTA(Fellow) - awarded by a body of work); a member of the Association on Tax Technicians (ATT) by passing a series of exams and holding practical experience; a member of the Federation of Tax Advisers (FTA - again by passing a series of exams and holding practical experience); a Fellow of the Federation of Tax Advisers (FFTA - awarded to the more senior members) and a member of the Tax Faculty of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales.

So the layers here just in the tax world are indeed complex. I - for example - am a CTA ATT FFTA and a member of the Tax Faculty of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales. I am also qualified in tax in the States.

I am not qualified to provide investment advice or immigration advice. Provision of these services by unregulated advisers can - in some circumstances - be a criminal offence.

This brings me back to my general theory in life. Ask your adviser each time for her or his qualifications. Go for more serious levels of qualification each and every time, because to my mind saving a few pennies on poor quality advice can cost more in the long run.

dunstonh

Today's IFAs are yesterday's endowment policy salepeople.

I would disagree to an extent. Many of the endowment floggers have long since left. Those left now are picking up the pieces but many have never sold an endowment. At recent meeting of directors/owners of firms in our county, only one firm had sold endowments and the consensus around the table was that it was fustrating that it is the firms and advisers today that suffer not the those that did it years ago.

That said, the career path to IFA would see most spending time as a tied agent and that is where most the problems lie nowadays.

'Once bitten twice' shy over the endowment issue, regarding trust.

Dont ever get ill. If Harold Shipman mudered people, that means all doctors must be murderers too.

It doesn't help when they haven't matured from their schooldays. Grow up, stop being so defensive, and do the job you are paid very well to do. It isn't clever or funny to be sarcastic when someone is making a decision that will affect their finances.

You posted incorrect information in a hostile manner and I corrected you. You said you didnt know anything about the subject but still went on to attack it. You then decided that you didnt like being corrected and chose to ignore what I posted and are now going on this rather pathetic crusade to slag off advisers.

Its getting boring and makes you look stupid.

Horasio

Good advice the old caveat emptor

It is such a minefield though and very complicated. I feel blinded by financial science.