Drop in well paid using IFA's

Glen_Clark

dunstonh wrote: »

It would be nice to see those running down IFAs to say what their occupation is so we can all criticise them.

So you are desperate enough to change the subject and resort to ad hominen :rotfl:

Linton

Glen_Clark wrote: »

Depends how long you keep them.
Buying certificates costs more, but you only pay once.
If they are held by nominees you are likely to be charged a quarterly charge, and an exit charge. If not straightaway, you liikely find these charges being introduced and increased once they are holding your shares.
And how can you be sure the fund manager holding your shares is not a Bernard Madoff?

In iii I am not charged anything for holding shares. Presumably will be when RDR is introduced, we shall see.

As to suspecting that iii, H-L, etc are some gigantic fraud that goes to the effort of sending out correct dividend payments and providing the appearance of real time trading really is foil hat and lizard-men territory. Come to that how do you know that the share certificates in the box under your bed are genuine?

bigfreddiel

at the end of the day when the ball's in the net and the game of 2 halves is over there is only one winner - and thats the ifa - just like us they're looking after number one - themselves.

its your money - look after it yourself - its not hard - unless of course you're happy to hand over your hard earned dosh to someone else with no guarantee - after all when you buy anything you can get your money back if its not fit for purpose (sales of goods act) - if only ifas could be held responsible in the same manner

prp would be a way to go - but no ifa would ever agree to that.

fj

bigfreddiel

Aegis wrote: »

However, I expect to be paid for the work I do at a rate agreed at outset. I don't think there's anything wrong with that outlook.

would you take on work on a performance basis?

fj

Aegis

bigfreddiel wrote: »

would you take on work on a performance basis?

fj

I've explained to you why I wouldn't on a number of occasions.

darkpool

atush wrote: »

You or I may not need advice to get an 'average return'. But widows, orphans and the generally clueless do.

so how about the recent thread with the widow that went to the IFA and was advised to buy a 15 year investment that had 3% annual fees? do you think that's a good investment?

the scary thing is that wouldn't even be considered bad advice by the FSA.

darkpool

Aegis wrote: »

However, I expect to be paid for the work I do at a rate agreed at outset. I don't think there's anything wrong with that outlook.

so how about all those people who have been paying trail commission when they didn't know the IFA got it?

was that agreed at the outset? or do you just rely on consumers ignorance?

2010

The RDR aims to ensure that:

consumers are offered a transparent and fair charging system for the advice they receive
consumers are clear about the service they receive; and
consumers receive advice from highly respected professionals.
To achieve this we have published new rules that will require:

advisory firms to explicitly disclose and separately charge clients for their services;
advisory firms to clearly describe their services as either independent or restricted; and
individual advisers to adhere to consistent professional standards, including a code of ethics.
These changes will come into effect on 31 December 2012 and will apply to all advisers in the retail investment market, regardless of the type of firm they work for (banks, product providers, independent financial advisers, wealth managers, stockbrokers).

Advisory and product provider firms should start to evaluate their business models now and make the necessary changes to meet our requirements.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/about/what/rdr

There`s going to be a lot of IFA going to the wall when this comes in.

dunstonh

so how about the recent thread with the widow that went to the IFA and was advised to buy a 15 year investment that had 3% annual fees? do you think that's a good investment?

There was no such thread. You are making it up, just as you made it up on the thread you refer to.

darkpool

dunstonh wrote: »

There was no such thread. You are making it up, just as you made it up on the thread you refer to.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3788445

"Thanks. All this is making sense. I've had a closer look at the illustration, and to be honest, I'm disappointed. Their assumed value after 15yrs at a growth of 4% is less than I could earn fixing it for just 5 years with the Halifax even after tax is taken off.

I realise 4% might be considered conservative, but really, when I think about the growth that would be required to pay for the fees and offer the same return, my mind boggles. In short, for an investment of £70k at 4% I'd get back £81,500 after 15 years. When, really a clean (without charges) 4% growth yoy would be £126,000. Thats nearly £45k in charges? They'd be making four times as much as I am. Am I missing something here (maybe a few marbles?). And, assuming a higher growth level, they'd be taking a higher charge."