MSE News: IFA-finding website launches

Freecall

MSE_Andrea wrote: »

Hi

The company has asked us to post a response. MSE doesn't endorse anything a company says on the forum.

Hi DiggerUK,

I'm one of the team. I can understand your reaction, but think I need to clarify how it works.

If you leave a review, yes, we ask the IFA to verify you're a real client. If they say you're not, or they do nothing (for 1 week), then we email you and ask you to forward an email (or scanned letter) from the adviser, that therefore shows you are a real client. So, it's not too onerous, and means reviews can be left, whether they're good or bad, so long as you're a real client. We really don't want fake reviews on the website!

There is admittedly one niggle with the site - we require IFAs to register with us before they are on the website. This is for privacy reasons - people are reviewing individual advisers, rather than firms, who rightly have privacy rights. Reviewers can review an IFA who is not on the site, which triggers an invitation for the IFA to register. But, the IFA does have the right to decline that invitation. Once they are on the site though, again, all reviews are published - good, bad or indifferent. We hope to soon make it possible to leave reviews for firms, not just advisers, which will help in this regard.

I hope that clarifies?

So does this mean that the IFA can the de-register at some point should the balance of reviews not be considered up to par (by the IFA)?

snowcat53

"We never edit reviews or take them down simply because they are not as complementary as an adviser might like."

So they can't spell either.

JohnRo

snowcat53 wrote: »

"We never edit reviews or take them down simply because they are not as complementary as an adviser might like."

So they can't spell either.

The spelling is fine, it is a grammatical error.

Rollinghome

DiggerUK wrote: »

"Where an IFA disputes the review is from a client, VouchedFor will ask the reviewer for evidence."
..._

I'd tend to agree with most of the comments already made. Additionally, what happens where a user of the site suspects that a helpful review from "Reg, Surrey" may have come from the IFA himself? Will the IFA be also asked for evidence that reviews are unsolicited and from genuine clients?

In my experience, relying on the recommendations of others on financial advice is rarely a great idea, especially without knowing the extent of their own financial knowledge. Some will think an adviser is wonderful without understanding how bad the advice given was, while others will be unfairly critical of perfectly reasonable advice because their expectations were unrealistic.

JohnRo wrote: »

The spelling is fine, it is a grammatical error.

I assume the writer intended to say "complimentary"; in which case the word has been spelled incorrectly. But as I rarely make a post without at least one typo, I tend not to mention those by others.

Rollinghome

MSE_Andrea wrote: »

Hi DiggerUK,
...We really don't want fake reviews on the website!

....I hope that clarifies?

Nope.

..........

dunstonh

In my experience, relying on the recommendations of others on financial advice is rarely a great idea, especially without knowing the extent of their own financial knowledge. Some will think an adviser is wonderful without understanding how bad the advice given was, while others will be unfairly critical of perfectly reasonable advice because their expectations were unrealistic.

Crikey. I agree with you.

Pincher

Rollinghome wrote: »

In my experience, relying on the recommendations of others on financial advice is rarely a great idea, especially without knowing the extent of their own financial knowledge. Some will think an adviser is wonderful without understanding how bad the advice given was, while others will be unfairly critical of perfectly reasonable advice because their expectations were unrealistic.

An over 50 colleague recommended a financial adviser whilst chatting. As it turns out, the financial adviser was pestering all his clients to introduce clients, and my colleague was just too nice to say no.

I turned up for an interview, and got talked into a monthly drip feed plan, with 14 days cool off period. Did a spread sheet overnight, and worked out they steal the first 18 months worth of contributions, call them initial units, which are then cancelled over the term of the plan for no reason whatsoever. Rang up the next day to cancel, and he invited me in for another talk. I went in, showed him how the plan performed under three growth assumptions, compared to a building society deposit account. He looked up, and said "Now that you know how we make our money, let me show you how we make money for you." Such panache. Perfect casting for the The Devils Advocate.

I cancelled the plan and RAN.

dunstonh

Pincher wrote: »

An over 50 colleague recommended a financial adviser whilst chatting. As it turns out, the financial adviser was pestering all his clients to introduce clients, and my colleague was just too nice to say no.

I turned up for an interview, and got talked into a monthly drip feed plan, with 14 days cool off period. Did a spread sheet overnight, and worked out they steal the first 18 months worth of contributions, call them initial units, which are then cancelled over the term of the plan for no reason whatsoever. Rang up the next day to cancel, and he invited me in for another talk. I went in, showed him how the plan performed under three growth assumptions, compared to a building society deposit account. He looked up, and said "Now that you know how we make our money, let me show you how we make money for you." Such panache. Perfect casting for the The Devils Advocate.

I cancelled the plan and RAN.

That charging method is a couple of decades obsolete. I'm not even aware of a provider in the last 10 or longer years that has had such a charging method.

Rollinghome

Daniel_Elkington wrote: »

I signed up for this ages ago, still not seen anyone from it lol!

Perhaps that was because you didn't go for the £60 a month "premium subscription" which gives priority over the deal for cheapskates - who presumable are only there to make up the numbers and make the site look more credible. ( If the site should take off they can up the rates or change the terms as made clear in the T&Cs.)

Still, no news could be good news and you may have saved yourself a few bob as you can be liable for a "lead fee", for example £299 plus VAT for someone saying they have £250k, even if you never actually get to see them.

You use your real name and location on this forum so be careful if you upset someone vindictive as they could contact you through the site to make you liable for a lead fee with with no intention of ever meeting you.

"You are required to pay Lead Fees even if the First Appointment is subsequently cancelled or is not attended by you or the Client, and irrespective of whether or not you are subsequently instructed by a potential Client. No refunds of Lead Fees shall be given for cancellation or postponement of a First Appointment.

Your obligation to pay Lead Fees shall survive, and shall not be affected by, expiry or cancellation of your subscription."

jamesd

Seems as though they might not trust the IFAs once the IFA has the details to let them get in touch. Not too surprising and they do need to make money but if the completion rate for business is low that could be quite expensive for the IFAs.

It would be nice to have a site with good reviews by capable people who evaluated the service but the ones at this site don't do that in enough depth for me to form an opinion of the quality of advice.

It is good that the IFAs can indicate the wealth level they are interested in dealing with. Now, if only they also provided some indication of the charge levels...