first time investing via financial advisor

DiggerUK

dunstonh wrote: »

(Mathematics, my words, DiggerUK ) .......It plays a very little part in what you do day to day in the real world.

Right on Einstein.

jimjames

DiggerUK wrote: »

Mathematical qualifications are all about calculations, and you do not regard maths as important?
If I had 160,000 pounds to invest I would feel a lot safer knowing my adviser could at least do basic sums!

.

I don't want to get involved in the merits of qualifications but this particular one struck me as especially pertinent.

I'd argue that calculations are pretty critical for most things you do in normal everyday life so its rather important to be at least capable of understanding the basics.

For example when you are at the shops and need to work out which item is cheaper, the 24 rolls at 70p or 2 packs of 12 at 25p each, otherwise you'll just end up making the wrong choices and being ripped off.

Its a shame that IFAs don't have the same sort of qualifications as solicitors as it could give more authority to their advice. Having said that solicitors probably get more complaints!

Aegis

Rollinghome wrote: »

As you work for an IFA in an industry where qualification are generally fairly minimal, it’s understandable that you should insist that qualifications don’t matter.

Now THAT is something I have never claimed. I think the transition to a minimum of a level 4 qualification is an excellent move, and also believe advisers should generally be looking to move right the way through to chartered status. My only claim here was that GCSE Maths, Business Studies and Economics would, in general, be utterly pointless prerequisites for an IFA when there are industry-specific qualifications available at a higher educational level.

As such, the rest of your post was pretty moot, as it attacked a position I don't hold.

Aegis

DiggerUK wrote: »

You and yours have no qualifications above bottom level passes at GCSE.

If you knew the first thing about me in real life, you'd know that I hold qualifications in maths far above GCSE. As it happens I took 2 A-levels in Maths and hold a Masters degree in a subject with a lot of mathematical derivation and manipulation.

It's all pretty pointless when you only ever have to work out a few calculations that can either be done with a calculator or by using a computer (Excel is pretty noteworthy as something that renders the vast majority of mathematical know-how obsolete - as an example I solved a problem using it today that would have taken me about half an hour with the Newton Raphson method of equation solving in about 30 seconds with the GoalSeek function).

All in all, I probably have vastly more understanding of the contents of the current mathematical curriculum at GCSE level, and I can honestly tell you that being able to calculate the angle of a triangle when you know the adjacent and hypotenuse by using knowledge of trigonometry is utterly useless in this industry.

Mathematical qualifications are all about calculations, and you do not regard maths as important?

Maths isn't about simple calculations that are actually useful. At GCSE the material is usually to introduce students to the concepts of derivations, manipulation of algebraic formulae, the basics of calculus and a whole lot of geometry. Maths is extremely important when you then go on to look at subjects like physics or engineering, where the ability to utilise the skills first introduced at GCSE is vital. However, to claim that GCSE maths is in any way required to know how to add up and multiply numbers is like claiming that a degree in automotive engineering is required to learn how drive effectively - it's a pointless over-qualification if someone can handle the few aspects of the syllabus relevant to their role.

For the record, I DO regard maths as an important subject for many fields of study, but it's overkill to suggest that everyone involved in adding a few things up should go back and get a maths GCSE just to prove a point..

If I had 160,000 pounds to invest I would feel a lot safer knowing my adviser could at least do basic sums!

I have yet to meet any adviser who couldn't. GCSE maths won't prove they can do simple sums well anyway, as GCSE maths doesn't focus on simple arithmetic at all.

As to the tish tosh of an IFA qualification at QCF level 4 being the rough equivalent of the first year of a bachelor’s degree. then please excuse me whilst I 'pea my pants laughing'

Take it up with the QCF then, they are the ones who decided the level of the material.

To get on a uni course you need at least three A levels, something IFA's don't need, and as anyone who has done a degree course can testify, the first years marks count for nothing, it's just to get you bedded in to academic disciplines.

No, you don't, and no, they don't.

Rollinghome

Aegis wrote: »

My only claim here was that GCSE Maths, Business Studies and Economics would, in general, be utterly pointless prerequisites for an IFA when there are industry-specific qualifications available at a higher educational level.

Working for an IFA as you do, it surprises me not at all that you think it would be "utterly pointless" for IFAs to show competence at maths to GCSE level.

Or indeed of any subjects at GCSE level.

Most companies employing IFAs wouldn’t see school-level maths as necessary either as, of course, the main skill requirement is for selling rather than a grasp of numbers or understanding of econonics. All abilities other than to drive sales are secondary. The biggest earners are the best salesmen.

Perhaps the main issue is that if the service provided to the client requires such minimal educational qualifications then the fees and remuneration should reflect that.

The reason that remuneration has been unjustifiably high is a result of the commission offered by the product providers for sales. While the service to the client may need only minimal skills, the product providers are keen to reward good salesmen with high commission. IFAs therefore demand high fees if they are to forgo that sales commission.

The hope is that after the RDR has been implemented in 2013 fees will be determined by the value clients put upon the service they receive and costs will be driven down to an appropriate level.

DiggerUK

Aegis wrote: »

If you knew the first thing about me in real life, you'd know that I hold qualifications in maths far above GCSE. As it happens I took 2 A-levels in Maths and hold a Masters Degree in a subject with a lot of mathematical derivation and manipulation......

A Masters Degree, you are so full of it.
If you had a Degree at that level there is no way you would be scrummaging around for a career as an IFA.
Don't try it on with Old Digger, I'll have your apse.
I tried for a Masters, I know how much work and dedication is needed to achieve such a qualification.
I hadn't got what it takes.
You are just a dreamer. And you are full of it.
Get a real job sweetheart.

Aegis

Rollinghome wrote: »

Working for an IFA as you do, it surprises me not at all that you think it would be "utterly pointless" for IFAs to show competence at maths to GCSE level.

Or indeed of any subjects at GCSE level.

Quit the attacks, they just make you look silly.

Once again, I support the requirement for minimum qualifications levels far in excess of GCSE levels. All I'm arguing here is that there is a lot of excess material in the modern GCSE Maths qualification which would render it pointless to someone who was around during the time of O-levels and left school before sitting exams. As long as they can handle the Diploma, I see no reason for them to go back and get additional qualifications in GCSEs with curricula that only have the barest fragments in common with the work they want to do.

Naturally most people currently entering the industry for the first time should already have a pass at GCSE maths, but that's because it's compulsory to do so.

Most companies employing IFAs wouldn’t see school-level maths as necessary either as, of course, the main skill requirement is for selling rather than a grasp of numbers or understanding of econonics. All abilities other than to drive sales are secondary. The biggest earners are the best salesmen.

No surprise really, given that selling the advice is what IFA firms are all about. Even with the fee-based companies replete with chartered financial planners, the ones being paid the most are likely to be the ones bringing in the most in fee income. This is simply the way it is in almost any client-facing partnership/company.

Perhaps the main issue is that if the service provided to the client requires such minimal educational qualifications then the fees and remuneration should reflect that.

Supply and demand. If people are willing to pay it then market forces dictate that a company will pitch its price at a level where they are still comfortably busy. I don't think anyone should have to apologise for making a comfortable living rather than just about breaking even.

Even then, once again, you've ignored my comments that I SUPPORT the minimum qualification level of Diploma and think that all advisers should continue moving towards chartered status, which includes a level 6 minimum qualification (i.e. degree level). Quite why you keep attacking my supposed support of non-qualified salesmen based on the above is far beyond me.

The reason that remuneration has been unjustifiably high is a result of the commission offered by the product providers for sales. While the service to the client may need only minimal skills, the product providers are keen to reward good salesmen with high commission. IFAs therefore demand high fees if they are to forgo that sales commission.

Again, supply and demand. If people are unwilling to pay the fees, the fees will either drop or IFAs will go out of business.

The hope is that after the RDR has been implemented in 2013 fees will be determined by the value clients put upon the service they receive and costs will be driven down to an appropriate level.

If anything costs are likely to increase for a lot of firms, from what I've seen.

Aegis

DiggerUK wrote: »

A Masters Degree, you are so full of it.
If you had a Degree at that level there is no way you would be scrummaging around for a career as an IFA.
Don't try it on with Old Digger, I'll have your apse.
I tried for a Masters, I know how much work and dedication is needed to achieve such a qualification.

I'm detecting a hint of jealously that I succeeded where you failed. Try not to let it get to you too much, not everyone is cut out for higher education.

I hadn't got what it takes.

Clearly.

You are just a dreamer. And you are full of it.

Again, jealousy. The green of envy doesn't really suit you.

Get a real job sweetheart.

Already have one.

cepheus

I wonder why there are no IFAs paid in proportion to the portfolio profits they recommend

You mean apart from those that are

So there are IFAS which won't take any commission at all if their clients make no profits?

Gaffy

Personally, I think anyone who use's an IFA is an idiot. All the people I have ever known to have used an IFA lost money and lot's of it, the only person who gains is the IFA themselves.

As someone else has already mentioned, all the information you ever need is on the internet, if you can't find it, just ask.

Why pay someone else thousand's of pounds to lose you money when you can do it yourself for free.