New IFA needed - should I go big or little?

Hungerdunger

The two-man IFA company that we've been with for several years has sold up to a large, Midlands-based company called AFH Wealth Management. (https://www.afhwm.co.uk)

We had a visit yesterday from one of their consultants to persuade us that the best thing we could do would be to stick with them and they they could look after our investments better than anyone else.

We're tempted to talk to a small local company who have been recommended to us before we make up our minds, but of course they'll also no doubt be explaining that they too could look after us better than anyone else.

On the face of it, it does sound as if AFH have the resources to do a good job as they are so big that they can have specialists in different fields, and in theory should be able to react better to changing events to ensure the best possible returns for us. But I'm interested to hear other peoples' views on this - would you tend to go local (and small) or go with the big guys?

buffman

It depends on what service or type of advice that you need.

bigfreddiel

Hungerdunger wrote: »

We had a visit yesterday from one of their consultants to persuade us that the best thing we could do would be to stick with them and they they could look after our investments better than anyone else.

I would be very suspicious of anyone who claimed the above - get them to prove it.

Or negotiate a deal where their fees are performance based.

fj

jem16

Hungerdunger wrote: »

But I'm interested to hear other peoples' views on this - would you tend to go local (and small) or go with the big guys?

I would go local and small. The big nationalised firms often run on a salesforce method where sales targets are more important.

dunstonh

There are pros and cons. A small local firm can rarely be as slick in presentation and office facilities etc than a company employing many more advisers and therefore earning that much more. However, when it employs more people, you may find you get allocated to a pool of staff rather than dealing with just one. Also, employed advisers tend to have a higher turnover rate as they move around companies. Whereas dealing with the owner/partner/director typically means you deal with them until they call it a day.

darkpool

jem16 wrote: »

The big nationalised firms often run on a salesforce method where sales targets are more important.

good to see someone else agrees some IFA's are really just salesmen (nothing wrong with that).

Aegis

darkpool wrote: »

good to see someone else agrees some IFA's are really just salesmen (nothing wrong with that).

Way to misrepresent...

jem16

darkpool wrote: »

good to see someone else agrees some IFA's are really just salesmen (nothing wrong with that).

Not what I said.

But of course you already know that.

darkpool

jem16 wrote: »

Not what I said.

But of course you already know that.

ehhhmmm ok, so do you think some IFAs have a salesforce method or not?

if they do have a salesforce method surely they must employ salesmen?

are sales targets not the sign of being a salesman?

jem16

darkpool wrote: »

do you think some IFAs have a salesforce method or not?

Yes I do - Towry Law is one such example and deserves the bad press it gets on here.

By salesforce method I mean offices all over the UK employing many advisers. Staff turnover is large and frequent meaning you are never able to build up a relationship with an advisor which is the most important part of financial advice in my opinion. By being employed the adviser has 2 sets of people to keep happy - his employer and his client. This can lead to a conflict of interest.

However even an IFA at a large national salesforce cannot be described as "just a salesman". An IFA's role is much more involved than simply selling a product as you imply.

gadgetmind

jem16 wrote: »

An IFA's role is much more involved than simply selling a product as you imply.

Yes, it is now, but only because regulatory hurdles were placed between them and their goal.

It really was the Wild West a few decades ago and I don't think things have changed simply because the investment industry spontaneously decided to research first and sell later.

The banks didn't get as much regulation imposed, and look at the 5h1t they continue to get up to even now!