Drop in well paid using IFA's

property.advert

On the subject of university degrees, some subjects are marked 0-100 and others market 35-70.

I had to pull my uni up on this as they tried to simply add the two together and give me a lower mark, despite my getting 70/70 in one subject.

gadgetmind

HelpWhereIcan wrote: »

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?

As I've worked with a fair few in the legal profession who only seemed to know half of what they should, I find that low pass mark disturbing but not surprising.

the bad press it expected endowments and With Profits to get over the coming years.

We had a Standard Life endowment for a few years and actually sold it on the open market at a profit, but this was at the very end of the 80s or very early 90s, so before everything started going seriously downhill.

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

I guess being around estate agents does that to a person.

2010

TH1878 wrote: »

When you publicly apologise for making sweeping generalisations about IFAs.

I gave you the chance to edit your post because instead of waiting and giving me the chance to respond to Jem16 you decided to put up a silly poster, which just about shows your maturity, and then decided that insult was the route to go.

I cannot converse with a hypocritical, liar such as you who tries to stifle right of reply with insults.
Remove your slur and I`ll remove mine, otherwise butt out.

2010

jem16 wrote: »

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.

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.

The increased management charges ceased. The normal management charges continued
Do try to stop digging.

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

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

First of all I must say that you at least had the decency to allow me a reply and didn`t resort to insults.

I can assure you it was an EOB who I went to (by post) and who rebated me a percentage of his commission in the form of extra units.

The bond was cashed in on the 10th anniversary in August 2010, MVR free.

I only mentioned that it was a CGNU originally to make it clearer.

The charges only lasted for 5 years taken in the form of reduction of units.

I didn`t use an IFA or a FA just an EOB.

There are no "stories" and I have answered your questions proving that I do know what I`m talking about and that the bond did exist .

Just to add, this thread is not really about one small extinct part of my portfolio but about, "Wealthy clients leaving IFA".

I have explained my bond openly on here because there`s really nothing to hide regarding it.

jem16

2010 wrote: »

First of all I must say that you at least had the decency to allow me a reply and didn`t resort to insults.

It's a pity you didn't afford me the same courtesy though.

2010 wrote: »

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

Bit insulting don't you think?

2010 wrote: »

The charges only lasted for 5 years taken in the form of reduction of units.

Are you saying that Aviva (CGNU) only charged your for the first five years and then there have been no charges from years 5 to 10?

I didn`t use an IFA or a FA just an EOB.

So can you explain why you said this then?

2010 wrote: »

Plus whatever the FA`s take is every year for selling the policy in the first place.

and this?

2010 wrote: »

Also the IFA who originally sold me the WP bond would not have got his cut every year and I would not have had annual management charges either.

It seems a bit strange to mention IFAs and FAs if you haven't used one.

Just to add, this thread is not really about one small extinct part of my portfolio but about, "Wealthy clients leaving IFA".

No but it goes a long way to explaining why you come out with accusations that all IFAs are ripping everybody off.

TH1878

Sorry 2010 but your story has more holes than Swiss Cheese

2010

It's a pity you didn't afford me the same courtesy though.

I have and I am.

Are you saying that Aviva (CGNU) only charged your for the first five years and then there have been no charges from years 5 to 10?

Exactly what I`m saying

Plus whatever the FA`s take is every year for selling the policy in the first place.

I assumed that out of the 5 years management charges that the EOB was given something like .5% as ongoing commission. If not then he only received the original X %, a half of which he rebated to me.
If I said FA it was done probably for quickness rather than typing the full EOB and then abbreviating it.


It seems a bit strange to mention IFAs and FAs if you haven't used one.

As posted before I haven`t used an IFA or FA directly, what CGNU paid out as far as I`m aware was the EOB percentage

No but it goes a long way to explaining why you come out with accusations that all IFAs are ripping everybody off.

You get rotten apples in every barrel, nowhere did I say all.

My bond was cashed in Aug 2010 and the paid unit rate was 201.8p
Yesterdays rate for the same WP Portfolio fund was 207.2p

Here`s the link and it`s the 2nd from the bottom.

http://www.fundworksinvestments.com/nu/tools/DailyFundPrices.aspx?site=Life&filter=NCG1

psychic_teabag

I'm still a bit confused, but as far as I can tell, the salient points are

1. all IFAs were recommending with-profit bonds 10 years ago
2. all WB bonds pay huge amounts of commission
3. the WB bond that 2010 bought didn't do very well, even though some of the commission was rebated

therefore all IFAs are evil and money-grabbing and in it for themselves.

2010

psychic_teabag wrote: »

I'm still a bit confused, but as far as I can tell, the salient points are

1. all IFAs were recommending with-profit bonds 10 years ago
2. all WB bonds pay huge amounts of commission
3. the WB bond that 2010 bought didn't do very well, even though some of the commission was rebated

therefore all IFAs are evil and money-grabbing and in it for themselves.

1 correct, but most
2 correct, but most
3 I have never stated that my bond "didn`t do well", only that if I had put the same lump sum into a fixed rate savings account for 5 years and done the same again, I could have done better.

The last sentence is yours.

dunstonh

I'm still a bit confused, but as far as I can tell, the salient points are

all IFAs were recommending with-profit bonds 10 years ago
all WB bonds pay huge amounts of commission
the WB bond that 2010 bought didn't do very well, even though some of the commission was rebated

With Profits had been around for generations and been very successful. The move to unit linked had started and has moved on year by year as the cost of operating a WP fund and the liability that goes with it became impossible for many insurers to meet. I would say that IFAs were more unit linked than WP 10 years ago.

WP Bonds paid no more commission than unit linked. - so that is rubbish.

I assumed that out of the 5 years management charges that the EOB was given something like .5% as ongoing commission. If not then he only received the original X %, a half of which he rebated to me.
If I said FA it was done probably for quickness rather than typing the full EOB and then abbreviating it.

Assume? So, not facts behind that bit either.