Drop in well paid using IFA's

atush

Yes, there are even more reason for these firms (ie IFAs) to exist as tied FAs (as in your article but were flasely labeld IFAs) are the ones who are miselling on any grand scale.

An IFA who did so would not be in business for long as they would be forced to compensate any missold customers from their own pockets, unlike Banks who take it out of shareholder's pockets as in the recent HSBC case.

I am very sorry you were unwise enough to invest in a WP bond, I myself dont' like them.

gadgetmind

opinions4u wrote: »

if people are a bit stupid

Some people are stupid but others are just under-informed and/or uninterested.

Stupid is as stupid does, but being under-informed can be remedied.

dunstonh

2010 wrote: »

There would be no need for these firms to exist in vast numbers if the IFA didn`t mis sell on a grand scale.

There are around 20,000 IFAs currently doing around 3,000,000 transactions a year (probably more but that is not measured). Yet the FOS complaints stats show 3092 complaints (down from 3260 the previous year).

Personally, I think those complaints stats in relation to the volume of business being done is very good.

These firms exist because of mis-sale issues in certain areas. (PPI for example, is not viewed as an IFA issue). However, they have grown from that and are no longer reacting but creating complaints where no complaints exist. For example, one complaints handler at a firm said that nearly half the complaints they get now are from people that dont even have the product that they are complaining about and most come from claims companies. My own compliance company has suggested just over a third are fraudulent complaints.

2010

atush wrote: »

I am very sorry you were unwise enough to invest in a WP bond, I myself dont' like them.

I`m not complaining, I`m merely pointing out that I could have done better with a run of the mill fixed rate savings account with no risk or sticky fingers attached.

If I was "unwise" so were millions of others, BUT it was the IFA who pushed WP are hard as they could for the massive upfront and ongoing commission they received.
My saving grace was that I did mine through an "execution only" broker and was rebated a chunk of his upfront commission in the form of units.

dunstonh

I`m not complaining, I`m merely pointing out that I could have done better with a run of the mill fixed rate savings account with no risk or sticky fingers attached.

Your complaint is that the adviser did not have a crystal ball.

If I was "unwise" so were millions of others, BUT it was the IFA who pushed WP are hard as they could for the massive upfront and ongoing commission they received.

the commission, if you chose that option, would have been the same on unit linked as well. So, the fund has nothing to do with it.

My saving grace was that I did mine through an "execution only" broker and was rebated a chunk of his upfront commission in the form of units.

So, you clearly agreed with the advice at the time. Otherwise you would not have taken it upon yourself to DIY.

Smells a lot like hindsight and buyer remorse rather than IFA mis-sale (especially as you didnt use an IFA to buy it through).

2010

dunstonh wrote: »

Your complaint is that the adviser did not have a crystal ball.

What adviser?

This is exactly the point I`m making on this thread.
There is no need to go to an IFA and get ripped off and give them fat upfront, ongoing commission for something you can simply DIY, as I did.

I never used a rip off IFA, I researched well known companies WP bonds, narrowed it down to four, did a bit more inquiring, made my decision which one and went to an execution only broker.

"So, you clearly agreed with the advice at the time. Otherwise you would not have taken it upon yourself to DIY".

Oh I agreed with my own advice, certainly. :rotfl:

TH1878

2010 wrote: »

What adviser?

This is exactly the point I`m making on this thread.
There is no need to go to an IFA and get ripped off and give them fat upfront, ongoing commission for something you can simply DIY, as I did.

I never used a rip off IFA, I researched well known companies WP bonds, narrowed it down to four, did a bit more inquiring, made my decision which one and went to an execution only broker.

"So, you clearly agreed with the advice at the time. Otherwise you would not have taken it upon yourself to DIY".

Oh I agreed with my own advice, certainly. :rotfl:

So let me get this straight.....

You're complaining about an IFA because YOU researched the bond market and invested into a With-Profit bond that gave a rubbish return?

Sounds like you're the one we shouldn't be taking advice from! You obviously didn't research the risks well enough.

By the way, there is no such thing as a risk-free investment, even savings accounts (which can give negative real returns if inflation is high) - only degrees of risk.

dunstonh

2010 wrote: »

What adviser?

This is exactly the point I`m making on this thread.
There is no need to go to an IFA and get ripped off and give them fat upfront, ongoing commission for something you can simply DIY, as I did.

I never used a rip off IFA, I researched well known companies WP bonds, narrowed it down to four, did a bit more inquiring, made my decision which one and went to an execution only broker.

"So, you clearly agreed with the advice at the time. Otherwise you would not have taken it upon yourself to DIY".

Oh I agreed with my own advice, certainly. :rotfl:

Fantastic. You never used an adviser but went DIY and bought a product you regretted and are now anti adviser because of that. Way to go on logic.

darkpool

dunstonh wrote: »

You are telling lies because the IFA is not getting 3%.



OF course, there is no such thing as a clean return of 4%. If you are looking at savings account then the rate given is after implicit charges typically around the 0.5-3% range (depending on base rate). Investments have explicit charges and you measure returns net of charges. So, measuring a fund at 4% before charges and a savings account after charges is not consistent.

ehhhmmm ok, i did say fees/ charges. i believe total fees are 3%, or what do you think they are?

i believe the word you are looking for is "sorry"

dunstonh

ehhhmmm ok, i did say fees/ charges. i believe total fees are 3%, or what do you think they are?

You have been presenting them as adviser charges. If you are now presenting them as total charges then it changes that. The answer is yes, a decent return can easily still be made with [just under] 3% in charges. Just look at the Jupiter Merlin range of funds.

example of you presenting them as adviser charges:

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=51089469&postcount=75

"perhaps you should pitch it on "Dragons Den"? I'm sure they'd be keen on any investment where you charge 3% a year come what may and they get what's left. "