I'm a bit worried about my IFA

browniej

feesarefare wrote: »

While as Dunstonh correctly points out there are "no specific rules" stop it, the wording of the RDR makes it pretty clear that IFAs "doing fund management" will have to have a robust, repeatable and watertight investment process. Part of the robust process will be that they will have to demonstrate they are qualified and experienced enough to be able to be picking funds.

Thank you. So not quite so clear cut as " they wont be allowed to mess with funds anymore " would suggest.

Could you provide a link to the RDR wording for this please?

Indeed I have been told of a couple of firms recently that have already been pulled up because during an FSA visit, the FSA has decided that because as no one in the firm had the IMC qualification and struggled to demonstrate their competence, that they could no longer tell their clients that they had an "investment committee" and that they would need to find an alternative way of managing their clients funds.

Fair enough if they cannot show appropriate competence.

saverjustice

Velcro_Hotdog wrote: »

Are IFAs that use this board not a little embarrassed when they read threads like this? There are two "adults" acting like children with their petty arguments that seem to take over a lot of the threads on here recently. You do not give your service any good publicity acting the way you do on here.

At a time when confidence in financial services is low you would think that your time on a board viewed by hundreds maybe even thousands would be better spent.

You have no idea how opinionated these people can be, are rather, if you ask 1,000 of them for advice you will get 2,000 opinions!

Velcro_Hotdog

What would you suggest then?

I get fed up that on these threads the term IFA is used as some kind of catch all and that what Dunstonh says must be corrcet and that he is some kind of mouth piece for the industry. If you dont like someone having a different view to Dunstonh then it might be better to stay away from these threads instead of trying to belittle those that know what they are talking about.

Or alternatively make clear why you agree/dont agree with whats being said?

I have no problem with anyone having a different opinion, just like I have no problem with advisors be that fee or commission based. What boils my !!!! is the bickering between the so called experts on this forum. You mention healthy debate, go back and read some of the threads you and DH have "debated" in. They make me cringe and I imagine make people who may have looked to use the services of an IFA think twice.

saverjustice

They are fishing in the same pond while throwing hand grenades at each other which bounce off and blow the fish away.

It is a blindness created by the 'me', 'myself' and 'I' syndrome.

That's humans for you!

Lokolo

Velcro_Hotdog wrote: »

I have no problem with anyone having a different opinion, just like I have no problem with advisors be that fee or commission based. What boils my !!!! is the bickering between the so called experts on this forum. You mention healthy debate, go back and read some of the threads you and DH have "debated" in. They make me cringe and I imagine make people who may have looked to use the services of an IFA think twice.

Well it's only one person whose starting the arguments so maybe you should just blame that person rather than both?

browniej

feesarefare wrote: »

Depends on how you define allowed;)

What's your definition then seeing as you wrote it?

Ill see what I can do

Thank you.

Yep, it could cause some advisers a headache if servicing trail is their main source of income.

I thought trail commission would not be allowed after 2012 anyway so surely advisers would be working on agreed fees for servicing?

browniej

feesarefare wrote: »

Ill see what I can do

Have you not managed to find that RDR wording yet?

purch

Have you not managed to find that RDR wording yet?

Have you paid his fee ?