Is this acceptable?

atush

feesarefare wrote: »

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

Nope, not when we can see how testy you are (and a bit insulting too).

but even if I chose to come to your office for that initial meet- I am sure your attitude would put me right off.:D

dunstonh

Advice is about the advice given. If an adviser chooses to restrict their advice to not include certain product classes then they cannot give advice beyond a generic nature about those products. They cannot say they dont advise on structured products and then go on to give advice about them.

jamesd

feesarefare wrote: »

am I missing something

So I did a little look into the certification. I'd have to buy the standards document to find out what the requirements are and unless I have the information to evaluate the standard, I can't use the standard itself to evaluate positively or negatively the firms using the standard. So to me, at the moment, your ISO certification adds no observable value if I was looking for an IFA.

The lack of observable value doesn't mean an actual lack of value, just that I can't see any added value, so I'd ignore the standard unless you somehow managed to sell the specific features that the standard requires and enforces and how a regulator both ensures compliance and provides redress if the requirements aren't followed.

For me, today, the most important single set of words is "independent financial advisor" and the most important kiss of death is "financial advisor" or "restricted financial advisor" because I don't know of a regulator enforced way to tell the difference between whole market restricted planning limited to only some product areas or all product areas but only one vendor's products.

If a restricted financial advisor had an ISO certification as well I'd just wonder what they were trying to hide compared to an IFA.

If the non-IFA aspects describe your business, you have my sympathy but I hope you'll find the feedback on how I'd view those things, and how I would guide others here to view them, of use.

If I recall correctly I rather like the lifetime financial planning approach that I recall you using.

I think the FSA badly messed up the divide of advisors into types, not providing a proper place for whole market in limited product areas advisors and hence failing consumers.

atush

feesarefare wrote: »

Really where did insult you? It appears to be one way. . I don't come on here to be insulted.

At least I know what it feels like to be mugged now-so many people so quick to get the boot in

Nope, not referring to me. You didn't insult me (although the tone of your retorts was a bit insulting so yeah i guess you did).

It was your insulting of the IFA profession (and posters here of that bent) I was speaking of.

This whole thread has been taken over by your slanging match. And smacks a bit to me of chipped shoulder on toast.

dunstonh

Do IFAs review the whole of market for every product they recommend , for example if they were recommending an isa do they research every product and could show why the others werent suitable?

For someone that says they used to be an IFA you seem to ask a lot of questions about what an IFA does. Your question seems to have nothing to do with the comment you quoted either.

With 30,000 odd conventional investments out there it would be unrealistic to expect a report that lists 29,999 as not being as suitable as the 1.

Can IFAs still use a panel when recommending protection and say annuity products that will only include 5 or 6 providers , not the whole of market?

The FSA classify insurance, mortgage and investment as three different things. IFA covers investment. Not mortgage or insurance. Indeed, the FSA do not have an "independent" classification for insurance.

dunstonh

feesarefare wrote: »

Thanks , so where do you draw the line, how do IFAs demonstrate to their clients where they stopped ( restricted) their search for the best option?

They havent restricted their advice. They include every product class. Unlike a restricted adviser who chooses arbitrarily to not only refuse to offer a certain product class but also be unable to provide advice on that product class.

I don't actually have a problem with the restricted advice model. I think it can make sense. The way tied agents and tiny restrictions are all bundled under the same category is silly in one respect but the aim was simplicity and they decided that a restriction is a restriction and independent means independent. I can see why you feel the need to justify your restrictions as it is the choice you have made. However, if you are going to present yourself as better than everyone else, as you have been, then restricting what you can advise on in whole product classes doesn't seem logical.

dunstonh

Our clients fully understand why we wouldn't want to expose them to all the things that come with structured products, and ucis. A quick mention of keydata and arch cru and they soon see sense and why we have done what we've done.

Keydata was a failure but plenty of others havent failed. Arch Cru was a unit trust. So, are you saying you don't offer Unit trust/OEICs?

Do you know any IFAs that have now gone restricted.

Yes. However, they have done it for their own benefit and not their clients. Some of whom were probably more or less restricted in the first place (the old IFA classification allowing it, new classification does not).

Do you agree that give it a year or so there will only be say 30% of IFAs now that will still be?

I think cost of PI cover will be the driver there. If PI goes through the roof then you will see a significant move to restricted. If PI cover remains relatively stable (not that PI cost ever is) then I would expect more to remain IFA.

jamesd

PI can handle such areas using techniques as per-transaction add-on charges if they want to, so products that are only suitable for niche audiences won't necessarily add much cost except to those using that niche. Or they could bundle n cases worth or x total value worth or whatever else seems sensible to let them charge more only where there's more significant exposure due to the volume of business being done.

atush

This really has nothing to do with the Op, and if you want to debate this more (why?) then Fees should start his own thread.

grey_gym_sock

atush wrote: »

if you want to debate this more (why?) then Fees should start his own thread.

it could be called "fees vs all-comers (with some restrictions)"