Is this acceptable?

craftmoney13

Zebra - Thanks for the Morning Star links, had a quick look but I don't really understand them, is it very bad? What are the main things I should look at, a higher percentage?? should mean I get a better return?

craftmoney13

jem16 wrote: »

She also said this;



This implies to me that the OP at least had the Architas ISA at the time of investing with the Halifax in 2012. Nothing has been mentioned about selling it.

The Architas ISA is the one I HAD, told the FA about and he advised me to transfer it along with money from savings accounts. So I no longer have the Architas now, it's all in Scottish Widows.

craftmoney13

Thanks for the links from the Morning Star, had a look but don't really understand them, what should I be looking at, the percentages? The higher the percentage the higher the return?

jem16

atush wrote: »

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.

Have to agree with you there atush.

If I was choosing a financial advisor for the first time , my choice would be an IFA over a Restricted FA. The problem with the Restricted term is that it doesn't tell me how much restricted they are, so I would immediately rule them out.( rightly or wrongly)

Once I have narrowed down my choice of IFA, I may well look at any additional qualifications/accreditations to further narrow that choice. However the final choice may well be down to how I feel after initial meetings - ie could I forge a long term realtionship with this person.

If I had an established relationship with an IFA prior to RDR and that IFA changed to Restricted, I may take a different view as I would be well aware of what the adviser could do for me and would possibly stay due to his/her reputation. However I think going forward that the lack of IFA status may hamper the acquisition of new clients.

jem16

feesarefare wrote: »

You make a point but don't explain your logic?

My logic is very simple. If I want financial advice, I want it be unrestricted of anything that might stop me getting the best advice.

What specifically would YOU miss out on by having a restricted adviser Jem?

As I have said already, if I had an established realtionship then perhaps nothing. But why start with restrictions?

Why is it so difficult to ask a restricted adviser exactly how they are restricted ?

Nothing but that all takes up my time. The logical choice is to go for non-restricted unless I have a specific recommendation from someone I know and trust to do otherwise.

jimjames

jem16 wrote: »

My logic is very simple. If I want financial advice, I want it be unrestricted of anything that might stop me getting the best advice.



As I have said already, if I had an established realtionship then perhaps nothing. But why start with restrictions?



Nothing but that all takes up my time. The logical choice is to go for non-restricted unless I have a specific recommendation from someone I know and trust to do otherwise.

I agree and that is the problem if the current setup is either on or off with nothing in between.

You could be restricted and only one company's products on offer or all the market bar VCT if I understand it right.

The average person (as we can clearly see on these boards) would have no idea of the difference and would assume the IFA is always the better choice.

innovate

feesarefare wrote: »

You make a point but don't explain your logic? What specifically would YOU miss out on by having a restricted adviser Jem? Why is it so difficult to ask a restricted adviser exactly how they are restricted ?

Not trying to respond for Jem, obviously - - but my answer to your questions would be that it is obvious that an investor wants to have the widest possible choice.

No investor should accept that random decisions have already been taken on their behalf before their requirements have even been discussed - - however much such random decisions might be dressed up as alleged advantages to the investor.

I personally wouldn't want to have to waste my time to ask a restricted adviser exactly how they are restricted. Tbh, I am actually quite incensed by your suggestion that I as an investor should apparently have to ask about the nature of the restrictions, as opposed to you as the restricted FA telling me right upfront, without me having to ask, that you are only allowed to sell to me a limited range, and what you are not allowed to sell me.

Luckily for you, however, there will be many innocent lambs out there just waiting to be led to the slaughter by people who can't or won't offer access to the widest possible range of investments, and who need to force-fit the investors requirements to the limited range of investments available to the restricted adviser. Some of those unfortunate investors will sooner or later turn up here on MSE, starting threads like "Is this acceptable".....ooops, that's the title of the thread we are in right now, lol.

atush

jem16 wrote: »

Have to agree with you there atush.

If I was choosing a financial advisor for the first time , my choice would be an IFA over a Restricted FA. The problem with the Restricted term is that it doesn't tell me how much restricted they are, so I would immediately rule them out.( rightly or wrongly)

Once I have narrowed down my choice of IFA, I may well look at any additional qualifications/accreditations to further narrow that choice. However the final choice may well be down to how I feel after initial meetings - ie could I forge a long term realtionship with this person.

If I had an established relationship with an IFA prior to RDR and that IFA changed to Restricted, I may take a different view as I would be well aware of what the adviser could do for me and would possibly stay due to his/her reputation. However I think going forward that the lack of IFA status may hamper the acquisition of new clients.

Exactly my point.

Fees,

You make a point but don't explain your logic? What specifically would YOU miss out on by having a restricted adviser Jem?

Answered in paragraph one. Wouldn't even speak to one to ask.

bigadaj

feesarefare wrote: »

And it would appear sadly that the average person on this board has no motivation to learn either.:-(

At the end of the day you are selling a service, and refuse to acknowledge the comments of those who may be your potential customers, though obviously people here are probably better informed than your average client.

Why do I want to expend effort in learning how wide ranging your restrictions are to then pay you a load of money to give advice. Far easier to go to an ifa.

jem16

feesarefare wrote: »

You just don't understand (and would appear to be totally resistant to even try and understand). There's nothing a restricted adviser couldn't do for . The restrictions apply to the product not the advice. Im beginning to remember that these forums are the last place you get educated debate.

I understand perfectly but it appears that you don't or won't. The average person looking for financial advice doesn't come to this forum until he/she has a problem.

innovate wrote: »

Not trying to respond for Jem, obviously - -

No worries. You have just summed it up nicely.

feesarefare wrote: »

And it would appear sadly that the average person on this board has no motivation to learn either.:-(

It's not that many years ago when you criticised Tiggs for giving up his IFA status to become an SJP "partner". Granted SJP is far more restricted than you are but the point is the same. New clients will not choose RFA over IFA and I think you well know it.