Financial Industry think their clients are "muppets"?

Lokolo

dunstonh wrote: »

Where you do get 3% from ? Another made up figure from you.

I think he is saying the total cost of the investment (if you include IFA + TER etc.etc.) would be 3%, yet keeps his posts keep insinuating that the IFA gets 3%. Obviously he is assuming that IFAs only give out high costs investments (which isn't true) and that they all go by commission rather than an hourly fee (again, not true).

I think when he understands it a little better he will post better, like when he understood (after a good few posts) the difference between trackers and Unit Trusts.

But I think it will take a while for the above to happen.

Lokolo

RonLeroy wrote: »

Precious metals have far better price growth than any British bank deposit rates.

But they are complete opposites on the risk scale....

DiggerUK

Lokolo wrote: »

But they are complete opposites on the risk scale....

Well, at least you state a clear position on precious metals.

But when it comes to my question as to were financial advisers put gold on the risk scale....silence.
They can't even find the courage to make their position clear as to what their advice to clients will be when the rules change, and the variety of investments they can recommend to clients expands to include gold.
..._

dunstonh

But when it comes to my question as to were financial advisers put gold on the risk scale....silence.

Illiquid asset that generates no income and has a volatile price. Not suited to the average consumer. Not regulated by the FSA and no consumer protection if an adviser recommends it.

Perhaps you had silence and no-one had seen you ask it before.

MrMalkin

DiggerUK wrote: »

Well, at least you state a clear position on precious metals.

But when it comes to my question as to were financial advisers put gold on the risk scale....silence.

That's because there are different types of risk. Gold might be safe in that over the long term you won't be far off inflation, but that's because the expected return is so low. If the return of an asset is low, then you expose yourself to something called shortfall risk - that is, you won't earn enough on your money to meet your investment goals.

It's a fundamental fact of investing that you have to take risk to get the reward. No guts, no glory. The current trajectory of gold coupled with it's traditional reputation as a safe asset seems to have lured more than a few people into believing that it can be both high return and low risk, but I think those people are in for a surprise.

pqrdef

RonLeroy wrote: »

Oil, precious metals and real eestate are real assets. They have continious rise in price for the last 10 years

Unless of course you bought them when they were more expensive than they are now.

darkpool

dunstonh wrote: »

Where you do get 3% from ? Another made up figure from you.

do you not get fed up making stuff up?

this must be the tenth time i've had to provide the same link to back up the 3% annual charges.

i'm just surprised that someone that makes 12% a year on his portfolio needs to spend so much time posting here for the IFA industry....

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

darkpool

Lokolo wrote: »

I think he is saying the total cost of the investment (if you include IFA + TER etc.etc.) would be 3%, yet keeps his posts keep insinuating that the IFA gets 3%.

yeah, i do believe a lot of investments IFA recomend have large charges, i'm not saying the IFA gets all the charges though.

but for the consumer it doesn't really matter who gets the extortionate fees.....

darkpool

jem16 wrote: »

He didn't tell me to invest in anything. He made his recommendations as to what would fulfil my objectives. We then had a discussion and built a suitable portfolio which includes a whole manner of asset classes both active and passive.

perhaps you would be good enough to share his recommendations?

DiggerUK

dunstonh wrote: »

Illiquid asset that generates no income and has a volatile price.......
Not regulated by the FSA and no consumer protection if an adviser recommends it....

Your claim that gold is illiquid is false, gold can be sold damn near 24/7 for cash. That liquidity is global, and in any currency. Gold is as liquid as cash, which by your risk criteria, is the lowest risk asset.

You still do not answer the question as to were it sits on the oft quoted risk ladder which clients want. Yet it seems perfectly within rules to allow for 5-10% of portfolios to be in gold; and I have yet to hear of any financial adviser being hauled before the FSA for making such a portfolio recommendation.
We are all well aware that gold outside of mining equities, unallocated gold holding a/c's, and etf's is not currently regulated,but after the rule changes, expanding the items that financial advisers can recommend, it seems it will be.

What risk will be attached to gold then, what advice will be given, or will it be the same as now....don't mention it.
As you will be remunerated on a fee basis, the accusations that the likes of me have levelled, about no commission coming to you for recommending gold, will end.
..._