Drop in well paid using IFA's

2010

Jem 16
You seem to have too much time on your hands that you can trawl through posts going back whatever and yet still get it totally wrong.

You don`t seem to be aware of the existence of execution only brokers (EOB) and query if they existed in 2001 when I used one.

I`ve already stated the the EOB rebated me a % of his commission in the form of units.

The WP didn`t start life as Aviva but CGNU, this involved five years of management charges which were taken in the form of a deduction of units from the bond.
After 5 years these management charges ceased.
Are you keeping up so far as I know it must be kinda hard for you.

The bond had a get out clause regarding the MVR on the 10th anniversary where a 3 month "window" was opened and I could withdraw from the bond at any time during the "window".

The original EOB went out of business and I was informed by letter to whom the business was transferred to.
Over the ten year period this happened twice more.
When I said ongoing charges I assumed that out of my yearly management fees the EOB had a cut of this.

So basically I stick by what I said in previous posts and if I was not word for word perfect each time it was not mean`t to mislead.

I did use a EOB
I did have ongoing management charges for 5 years
I did not use an IFA and never have or will.
I did make money from the bond
BUT I could have done better with a fixed rate savings account over the same period.

So your little bit of research has proved very little apart from the fact you know little about EOB and you have failed to catch me out.
Now you`ve been proved wrong you can remove your silly little poster and replace it with a "wanted for mis selling IFA" poster.

2010

TH1878 wrote: »

2010, you've been proven to be a *** with an obvious anti-IFA agenda so don't think there's much more to say, is there?

Read my post #292 and then edit yours accordingly because there may be disagreements and sometimes heated debate but that`s OTT and consequently it reflects badly on you after I`ve gone to lengths to explain what happened.

atush

Nope, he's still pretty correct. You do have an anti IFA bias. And poor investment judgement apparently?

No insults required.

TH1878

gadgetmind wrote: »

The new post-RDR rules will really change things.

Currently you have to be told, "Please remember the value of your investment can go down as well as up and you may get back less than you invested."

Post-RDR will require, "Go! Run! Leave now while you still have the chance!"

With all the risk warnings we have to put on things, we may as well turn it on its head and say "Investments can go up as well as down, you may end up with more than you put in"

jem16

2010 wrote: »

Jem 16
You seem to have too much time on your hands that you can trawl through posts going back whatever and yet still get it totally wrong.

Didn't take much time at all - around 5 minutes. I have a good memory.

You don`t seem to be aware of the existence of execution only brokers (EOB) and query if they existed in 2001 when I used one.

Very well aware of their existance now and at least over the last 6 years. However 12 years ago is stretching it - internet use was far smaller than nowadays but it is possible that there were discount brokers then - hence my question to you.

You took the proceeds of your bond in 2010 on its 10ys MVR free anniversary. That meant you took it out in 2000 not 2001. Do try to get your story correct.

The WP didn`t start life as Aviva but CGNU, this involved five years of management charges which were taken in the form of a deduction of units from the bond.

Aviva was Commercial General Norwich Union but usually known as Norwich Union. It became Aviva in 2002.

So what? It's still the same firm.

After 5 years these management charges ceased.

The increased management charges ceased. The normal management charges continued.

Are you keeping up so far as I know it must be kinda hard for you.

:rotfl: :rotfl:

When I said ongoing charges I assumed that out of my yearly management fees the EOB had a cut of this.

Do try to stop digging.

I did not use an IFA and never have or will.

No I don't believe you have used an IFA. As I said, much more likely to have been a tied FA.

So your little bit of research has proved very little apart from the fact you know little about EOB and you have failed to catch me out.

It has proved that you are telling "stories" and that you haven't a clue what you are on about.

Now you`ve been proved wrong you can remove your silly little poster and replace it with a "wanted for mis selling IFA" poster.

Got "mixed up" again? Poster was nothing to do with me.

TH1878

2010 wrote: »

Read my post #292 and then edit yours accordingly because there may be disagreements and sometimes heated debate but that`s OTT and consequently it reflects badly on you after I`ve gone to lengths to explain what happened.

When you publicly apologise for making sweeping generalisations about IFAs.

oldvicar

atush wrote: »

one of the twins looked at Southampton this summer (we liked the campus OK), but has chosen Warwick (I think). I expect he'll let me know when it comes to pay the bill.

Warwick has very high entry qualifications, as well as a very nice campus. I expect they will let him know if he's been chosen.

And the other twin ... ??

[I am a Warwick graduate ]

atush

He has been chosen, but by nottingham as well. I hope he will let me knwo his first choice in due course.

Twin 2 (and BTW both summer babies who apparently do poorly in their peer groups academically and dont' make top unis) has been accepted to all 5 of his ACAs choices. But he is sports dude and not quite as academic. Looking like Man Met or Chester, but who knows? Not bad for a state school either possibly.

It is all academic if they don'tmake their offer grades.

oldvicar

atush wrote: »

It is all academic if they don'tmake their offer grades.

:rotfl:Ha Ha.

Bet you didn't really mean to make me laugh though !

Best of luck to both your boys. I know you will be proud of them, but for goodness sake don't knock 'em for attending a state school - such schools have turned out fine people such as (you?? and) me, and they will be in the majority at Uni.

HelpWhereIcan

I promised myself I would remain a lurker but ...

gadgetmind wrote: »

So you're happy with a 55% pass mark? Someone can get nearly half of it wrong and still get a certificate for their wall?

I've never considered myself a member of the axe grinding camp (mainly because I'm perfectly capable of DIY investing) but if/when I use an IFA in future, I really will be careful to check qualifications with *far* more care than before.

I trust you will extend the above to Solicitors? The nature of the work I currently do means I do a fair bit of work alongside Solicitors.

As such I am taking a qualification many of the people I work with have and respect. http://www.step.org

It has a pass mark of 50%.

Would it be reasonable to ask that if a pass mark of 50% is good enough for our friends in the legal and accounting professions, it is acceptable for IFAs to have a similar one?

2010 wrote: »

12 years ago all IFA were pushing WP for the vast amount of commission they received.

2010 wrote: »

If you say WP flopped in general, you`re more or less admitting that the millions that were recommended and sold by IFA was bad advice and they got it as wrong as the next man.

I love the passion; but I was active as a tied adviser in 2000 and the firm I was with at the time - AXA (Sun Life) - were telling their FAs to be careful recommending WP due to the changes the market was seeing.

It was widely discussed at the time in the industry

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2000/nov/05/personalfinancenews.observercashsection4

and, for me, it was an IFA (and subsequent boss) who brought many of the issues to my attention in late 99/2000.

Much changed then - and since. Many advisers also stopped selling endowments as many were WP based.

I recall one guy walking out of my AXA licensing course in November 1999 because the trainer told us the company had announced that morning it was not allowing company reps to sell endowments any more partly due to concerns about the sustainability of the Sun Life and Equity & Law with profits funds and the bad press it expected endowments and With Profits to get over the coming years.

He was based in an Estate Agents and spent the first few days of the course telling us how much he earned.

The trainer said "good riddance" and I recall we spent the rest of the day talking about the Sun Life Distribution Fund and the new Multi Manager plan that had come out.

Hi all by the way