Meeting more than one IFA before making a decision (and etiquette)

dunstonh

Also remember that if it involves investing, you will almost certainly get different views. Investing is about opinion and with 50,000 odd investments available, everyone will have different views. So, you should expect differences on that front.

Also, personal experience will come into play. One IFA may find they get excellent service from one provider but another gets dire service. So, they may have different views on which company to use.

Advice is about finding a solution. Who you use and how you invest, whilst important, is not as important as getting the right advice itself.

Loughton_Monkey

dunstonh wrote: »

Also remember that if it involves investing, you will almost certainly get different views. Investing is about opinion and with 50,000 odd investments available, everyone will have different views. So, you should expect differences on that front...

Very true.

And importantly, it is really for you [your mother, I mean] to decide whether or not to invest at all. Investments all carry 'risk' and the older one gets, the less risk one usually wants.

You might try to clarify a bit before the meetings, because the most 'normal' criticism of advisors [most usually the bank variety - but can apply with an IFA] is to do with putting the client into bigger risk than was appropriate or really desired.

Some people would fall off their chair at any proposal that could involve losing money [and so should be 100% 'savings']. But it is useful to compare, say, 80% of it in savings, with the other 20% in 'pure, raw equities' - with a different scenario of, say, 50% in savings, and 50% in a range of 'cautious' funds of equities, fixed interest, bonds, and some property. Remember that a 'Fee based' IFA should be totally indifferent to both scenarios. A commission based IFA's eyes would light up rather more at the second option.

westy22

Weighty1

but I for one wouldn't be too happy to have undertaken 10 or more hours work (unpaid) to then be told by my "client" that they are going elsewhere.

In the real world most of us who run commercial businesses can spend up to 50% of our working time completing unpaid work on behalf of prospective clients only to be told that they are going elsewhere or have decided not to proceed with the project. This cost, of course, has to be absorbed by those who say yes! :-)

dunstonh

westy22 wrote: »

Weighty1



In the real world most of us who run commercial businesses can spend up to 50% of our working time completing unpaid work on behalf of prospective clients only to be told that they are going elsewhere or have decided not to proceed with the project. This cost, of course, has to be absorbed by those who say yes! :-)

However, RDR could kill a lot of that off as the FSA doesnt want cross subsidy.

magpiecottage

dunstonh wrote: »

remember that if it involves investing, you will almost certainly get different views. Investing is about opinion and with 50,000 odd investments available, everyone will have different views. So, you should expect differences on that front.

Also, personal experience will come into play. One IFA may find they get excellent service from one provider but another gets dire service. So, they may have different views on which company to use.

Advice is about finding a solution. Who you use and how you invest, whilst important, is not as important as getting the right advice itself.

This is something I regularly see when checking advice files or dealing with complaints.

One of the differences between my job and the one DunstonH does is that he "simply" has to find a solution to the problem identified (actually it requires a lot of knowledge not only of the market but where to find the information required). By contrast, if I checked the file he produced documenting the sale, I would have to put my own personal preferences aside and decide whether I thought the solution he produced was a reasonable one, even if it is not the answer I would have come up with.

That is why if you read my posts, I sometimes say I think a course of action is reasonable but in other posts, where I express a personal opinion of what is likely to be best, I will say something different.

(As far as I know I have never actually checked a file of DunstonH)

dunstonh wrote: »

However, RDR could kill a lot of that off as the FSA doesnt want cross subsidy.

Under the RDR you are also likely to find the amount of work done for free is much less, so you will need to think very carefully about what questions you ask an IFA before they start charging.

westy22

In the real world most of us who run commercial businesses can spend up to 50% of our working time completing unpaid work on behalf of prospective clients only to be told that they are going elsewhere or have decided not to proceed with the project. This cost, of course, has to be absorbed by those who say yes! :-)

However, RDR could kill a lot of that off as the FSA doesnt want cross subsidy.

I was making this point as the owner of a management consultancy, not as a financial adviser. If my business was regulated as the FSA propose for IFAs then we would have major commercial problems as it is impossible to avoid cross subsidy in everyday business. As an example the price you will pay in a shop for a new TV must include a profit element to cover the cost of the salesman in dealing with all the people who have used an hour of his time showing them all the features etc. for them to subsequently go and buy it from an internet retailer.

System

You can have multiple IFAs on a permanent basis.
I have a personal IFA ever since needing to deal with my father's complicated will and trust etc holding a variety of investments.
But at work the accountants advising on transfering property into a director's SIPP have their own in-house IFA, who has now become my IFA for pension purposes.

Each knows about the existence of the other, and there is no conflict, but they have different "favourite funds".

weighty1_2

@ Westy22 & Dunstonh,

As an insurance adviser I'm glad that RDR doesn't really affect me (at the moment!). Many of my clients have various underwriting issues, often health related, and most only have a finite budget to spend on their protection needs. If I had to charge a fee based on the work I was undertaking per client then many of my less affluent clients would simply not be able to afford my services. Not arranging life insurance for someone simply because their cheque book isn't big enough doesn't rest easy with me. Yes, I know I run a business, but God forbid the FSA ever stop me taking the moral high grounds from helping ALL my clients irrespective of budget.

I'm glad cross subsidy exists in the insurance arena, it means there are fewer barriers for clients. As Westy22 says, it occurs in most/all other areas of business, why should the FS sector be any different?.....but this is a WHOLE other argument

jonny2510

Well thanks for everyone's input.

I'll go down the route of approaching a second (and possibly third if necessary adviser), but make them aware I have already seen someone.

It's then up to them!