Drop in well paid using IFA's

gadgetmind

qpop wrote: »

This is demonstrated regularly on this forum, as I'm sure you've seen.

Yup, we've seen all sorts: all in one share, all in one UK trackers, all in one "absolute return" fund, 100% equities, all sorts. If someone really doesn't have a clue, then they either need to get one, or get advice. I'd prefer the former but you might choose to disagree.

20 companies is the point at which the reduction in volatility tails off. It is a sensible amount to hold.

I've seen studies that show that most of the benefit is gained by the time you hit 15 holdings but I'm happy with 20 and will slowly add to this with smaller "satellite" holdings in companies that I'll research in more detail than my blue-chips. I did this with WS Atkins and it's up 50% since I purchased, which is nice.

However, I should perhaps also add that my directly holdings in UK equities (ignoring my tech shares) are 1/10th of my overall investments, with the other 9/10th being split between ISAs/SIPPs that are moving rapidly towards trackers, and a GPP that's suffers from a disappointing selection of funds.

I'm glad that you acknowledge n=1 (anecdotal) doesn't count as research; it makes a change.

I've very aware how easy it is to fool yourself, and how good humans are at spotting patterns where there isn't one. This also applies to spotting which funds have done well recently.

The issue that I take with darkpool et al is that all of these issues are taken as black and white, and flippant comments are made with no reasoning or source (and a newspaper article doesn't count as a source, nor does a blog post).

Maybe, but we can't all be the same, and the world would be a duller place if we were.

gadgetmind

IronWolf wrote: »

Private DIY investor here, moreover one of the ones holding Tesco before the decline with a massive 15% of my portfolio in it. I guess I'm one of the people Qpop was talking about

I dare not say what percentage of my investments are represented by just two tech share holdings. It so much that I don't actually have these holdings in my retirement plans! (Yes, this does make sense if you think about it.)

Fortune favours the brave eh.

Dunno, it depends on why you topped up. Doing it to try and make the red go away a bit faster is bad, doing it because the fundamentals are still strong, or because WB is still buying, are good.

Cheating slightly though as I'm including an emerging markets fund for a small part, but haven't been bothered to get the calculator out to work out returns excluding it.

I'm just concentrating on my year-by-year retirement plan, and hitting the target I set for myself last April. Seven weeks to go, and it's looking good!

2010

Earlier this year a new report said that consumers were being ripped off by independent financial advisers (IFAs) who switch them from one pension plan to another, simply to earn extra commission.
That is the accusation from Consumer Focus, the official watchdog, in its 60-page report on advice given to consumers in the personal pension market.
The report showed that some consumers were being advised to switch to different pension products, often with higher charges or higher risk. The higher fees charged can wipe thousands of pounds off a fund's value.
The watchdog added that the trend for products to charge ongoing fees, known as "trail commission", was increasing in advance of the expected ban on such fees when new rules on financial advice are introduced in 2012. It is estimated that pension companies pay IFAs between £200m and £800m in commission a year, with a quarter being trail commission.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/8741297/Do-advisers-put-commission-before-clients.html

Do advisers put commission before clients?

Well do you, and why doesn`t a newspaper article count as a source for exposing the facts?

qpop

2010 wrote: »

Earlier this year a new report said that consumers were being ripped off by independent financial advisers (IFAs) who switch them from one pension plan to another, simply to earn extra commission.
That is the accusation from Consumer Focus, the official watchdog, in its 60-page report on advice given to consumers in the personal pension market.
The report showed that some consumers were being advised to switch to different pension products, often with higher charges or higher risk. The higher fees charged can wipe thousands of pounds off a fund's value.
The watchdog added that the trend for products to charge ongoing fees, known as "trail commission", was increasing in advance of the expected ban on such fees when new rules on financial advice are introduced in 2012. It is estimated that pension companies pay IFAs between £200m and £800m in commission a year, with a quarter being trail commission.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/investing/8741297/Do-advisers-put-commission-before-clients.html

Do advisers put commission before clients?

Well do you, and why doesn`t a newspaper article count as a source for exposing the facts?

Because newspapers are less keen on portraying facts than they are on selling newspapers.

Not only that, but your cunningly bolded "summaries" of these newspaper articles tends to ignore elements, such as (from the same article):

"
Not surprisingly, IFAs have hit back at the report. Their trade body, the Association of Independent Financial Advisers (AIFA), argued that it "appears to be very thin on evidence to back up some of [its] claims, which are based on a great deal of conjecture and undermine the conclusions they draw".


Paul McMillan editor of the leading IFA magazine, Money Marketing, said: "The report is a truly shocking piece of industry research. It adds nothing new to the important subject of pension charges, trail commission and switching behaviour.""


See, it's pretty simple to do, yet intellectually non-existent. Carry on though, you're at least vaguely entertaining.

IronWolf

gadgetmind wrote: »

Dunno, it depends on why you topped up. Doing it to try and make the red go away a bit faster is bad, doing it because the fundamentals are still strong, or because WB is still buying, are good.

I topped up because the company fundamentals hadn't changed, and although the outlook was slightly worse I thought they were already trading at a discount and almost 20% off the companies value just because of a bit of investment needed in UK stores was a bit OTT

Can't say I didn't give any thought to that little red -% getting a bit smaller though

gadgetmind

IronWolf wrote: »

I thought they were already trading at a discount and almost 20% off the companies value just because of a bit of investment needed in UK stores was a bit OTT

Yup, agreed.

Can't say I didn't give any thought to that little red -% getting a bit smaller though

I only did that once that I'm prepared to admit, and I knew the risks, but the yield was too shiny for me to resist!

jem16

2010 wrote: »

That is the accusation from Consumer Focus, the official watchdog, in its 60-page report on advice given to consumers in the personal pension market.

Did you bother to read Post 54 where I pointed out that this report was based on very shoddy research?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=50986111&postcount=54

qpop

jem16 wrote: »

Did you bother to read Post 54 where I pointed out that this report was based on very shoddy research?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=50986111&postcount=54

Of course they didn't, the same way they didn't read the article they quoted from, which said so as well (as I've quoted above).

jem16

Rollinghome wrote: »

The only exception was one fee-based IFA who called himself Feesarefare (sic) and constantly pointed out the problems of the commission

Feesarefare is better known as Whiteflag and not so long ago was one of those commission based IFAs too. During that time he frequently decried the NMA (New Model Adviser) IFA who tried to lower prices by taking 1% initial fee and rebating the rest.

It was only later he became a born again "alternative adviser" as his signature used to say.

but who now doesn't post here because the other IFAs here constantly complained about him and did their best to get him banned.

He didn't need the help of anyone on this forum to get banned. He managed that all by himself with his rather abrupt style of posting and the abusive pms he sent to quite a few posters just after his Christmas night out. Whiteflag and a few other "white" usernames are now PPRd.

Please do stick to the facts.

Rollinghome

jem16 wrote: »

Did you bother to read Post 54 where I pointed out that this report was based on very shoddy research?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=50986111&postcount=54

There's a difference between "flawed research" as you claim and limited research.

I've had dealings with half a dozen IFAs recently (and various other brokers, advisers, and financial salesmen over 30+ years prior to that) and all have been rogues, all ex-salesmen, and all with extremely limited financial knowledge except of the retail products that paid them sales commission.

That it was only a sample of half a dozen doesn't prove my findings were flawed even though the sample was limited.

I haven't read the actual report referred to and so can't directly comment and there's every chance that neither havel you. Nor would I rely on the predictable response of the IFA journal you refer to which will always say what its readership wishes to hear.