Is this acceptable?

bigfreddiel

this thread is great - IFA vs IFA

what hope do us punters have then?

two hopes - bob hope and no hope

heheheheheh!!!!!

atush

I am just a common Joe. who if deciding to pay for financial advice would Never choose a restricted IFA over an unrestricted one.

In case anyone here wants to know what actual customers think.

dunstonh

This thread is great - IFA vs IFA

No its not. It is an ex IFA who is now a restricted FA saying he is better than 27,000 IFAs despite never meeting those 27,000.

dunstonh

feesarefare wrote: »

Why? So you would prefer to deal with a one man band working out of his back bedroom, that is his own compliance officer that just scraped level 4 qualification because they are IFA over a chartered , certified iso22222 adviser that works for a well capitalised firm because he can't recomend structured products and vcts?

Is it a requirement of the ISO2222 that they must work for a well capitalised firm and cannot work for themselves or have a home office? I don't see that mentioned on the qualification requirements? I thought it was about standards and not a choice of being employed or self employed or being an employee of a large firm over a small firm etc.

ISO2222 is a level 4 accreditation. I would assume that like any qualification or accreditation that there are those that scrape through ISO2222 as well.

Someone working out of a home office could easily have ISO2222 and could only just scrape through it just like any other. It is not some magic qualification or accreditation that is somehow better than all the others of the same level and doesnt have any of the problems that any qualification or accreditation has in any walk of life.

Aegis

feesarefare wrote: »

Well you have clearly demonstrated you know very little about it. Do you know Michelle Hoskins @ standards international ? If not give her a call I'm sure you will be enlightened.

As it happens, I worked for British Standards for a couple of years when I left university, so I've seen the standardisation process in action. In essence, the process in the UK usually boiled down to:

1. Find there is interest in setting up a standard method of doing something
2. Gather a load of people who do that something and find out what they are doing in minute detail
3. Amalgamate the general consensus of requirements together into a loose document known as a PAS
4. If the PAS gets enough approval from industry representatives, it becomes a British Standard
5. If enough countries agree on the specification, it becomes an ISO

Basically, it's a load of people in the industry saying what they do which leads to the formation of a standard. It's not something handed down on tablets of stone from a higher authority, it's literally a load of people getting together to discuss best practice.




That aside, I'd argue that if you feel that you want to identify some shortfalls in your firm and address those, an assessment against ISO 22222 could potentially be useful. However, it doesn't demonstrate that you are better than those who don't wish to pay for it, only that you personally don't know what their standards and processes are like.


Like I said, it's a good marketing tool and can be used to promote yourself in a good light, but you cannot simply assume that other firms don't come up to the same standard as your own simply because they choose not to spend their money on the same optional qualification as you.

Aegis

feesarefare wrote: »

Can you clarify why it's a good marketing tool?? Also if all firms operated to iso 22222 standards would we have needed the rdr?

It might be a good marketing tool because potential clients often like to see extra letters after your name, even if they don't know what they mean.

With regard to your second question, if everyone operated to the standards set out by ISO 22222, then RDR might well not have happened. However, this misses the point that I have been making, which is that many, possibly even most, firms likely operate in line with ISO 22222 or an alternative (even if informal) standard already, they just don't see the need to pay someone to tell them that they operate to a specified standard. As such, the fact that a firm or an individual obtains ISO 22222 certification does not mean they are better, as you still have no idea whether other firms match those standards unless they have attempted to obtain the qualification and failed.

In other words, there's no way for you to claim to plan better than me simply on the basis that you have obtained certification for a standard and I haven't decided to obtain such formal recognition.

Aegis

feesarefare wrote: »

But if other firms were matching those standards the rdr wouldn't have been needed, or am I missing something.

I'd argue that RDR was made necessary by tied/multi-tied salesforces for the most part. Most IFAs I have encountered have actually had to change their business models very little to continue into the post-RDR world, as they already offered a fee option or other client agreed remuneration and therefore already complied with the majority of RDR requirements for payment.

I agree with the qualification requirement, and expect that at some point this will be hiked further to level 6, which I think makes sense.

As far as I'm aware, ISO 22222 didn't address commission, but as you say, I'm not an expert on the minutia of the standard. I'd guess that it can't because Europe still allows commission and it's an international standard for the planning process rather than the business model. Might be wrong though.

I'm surprised IFAs attack rather than embrace firms striving for higher standards. It's not a set of letters, there was a couple of years work to achieve them and now lots of work to maintain them

I'm not attacking you for striving for higher standards. I'm "attacking" you because you made a claim that doesn't logically follow. You claimed that the mere act of being assessed against this standard automatically made your planning better than those who have chosen for various reasons not to pay for an external assessor to come in and certify them. It's a logical fallacy to do so, as you cannot say anything about the standards of firms who have not decided that paying for the assessment is a worthwhile venture for them.

Congratulations on being recognised for your standards, that's an achievement. Just don't try to comment on my own skills and service levels based on the fact that I've chosen a different path to you.

dunstonh

Btw did you have to change much to keep your IFA status, the guys I know had to do hours of gap filling?

RDR didnt require any extra work to keep IFA status. The requirements were the same for restricted or independent. Any gap filling or qualifications required would be the same whether he (or any other) had chosen IFA or restricted FA. Everyone had to do something as even the highest qualifications, didnt exactly meet what the FSA wanted.

jackyann

As I have said before,this board has given me good ideas about how to find a decent IFA when I want one (happy at the moment as I am, but love reasding all the advice)

craftmoney13

Zebra wrote: »

What she had is irrelevant. It's been and gone now. We are where we are and it's simply pointless looking at past investments and how they've performed, all it will do is confuse the OP even more.

In my opinion what she should do is study the investments that she has got, the alternatives open to her and then decide which are right for her circumstances.

Equally there's no rush into doing anything, it's possible to jump out the frying pan and into the fire.

QUOTE]

Thanks for that. After my initial panic this is what I am going to do. After getting no response from this FA I was in a panic and finding I was left with no-one to consult made me very angry. I will be going into the Halifax and complaining, it won't get me anywhere but I will point out that a courtesy letter would have helped. Like you say it doesnt matter now, I will just have to study what I have and leave it for now.