In cash since October/November

redbuzzard

taktikback wrote: »

I wonder if this guy would be getting vilified if the market had tanked by 20% in the last three months?

No. But you might have told him he'd been very lucky.

taktikback wrote: »

there is a valid point being made about the merits of active vs passive investment. Is there any point in actively trying to beat the movements of a randomly varying market through active management, rather than tracking the market in the longer term on the basis that growth must be achieved over the long term..?

There are two aspects to active management. Stock picking and timing. Even the sage of Omaha said in his last letter that he doesn't by and large worry about timing. And I think it's fairly well established that for amateur investors, the more they trade the more they lose. I suspect the same is true of professionals.

Better to invest your time in picking the markets than the stocks. There are various ways to capture the market growth and trade off returns for risk reduction. I am happy if I can get most of the market growth.

Back on topic, there was no reason to be out of market. Is the IFA going to cash out every time he thinks the market is high? If he does that he is just about guaranteed to screw the returns.

Or is it just when it happens to coincide with a transfer of funds from one platform to another? That would be quite a good question to ask him actually.

taktikback

All good points, but not really much to support the mis-selling fever that I'm reading. Perhaps the Op should have made it clear that they didn't want to be out of the market at any point - that seems to be the only real bone of contention..

atush

taktikback wrote: »

I wonder if this guy would be getting vilified if the market had tanked by 20% in the last three months? -I think not...

In the midst of the stupid troll comments, there is a valid point being made about the merits of active vs passive investment. Is there any point in actively trying to beat the movements of a randomly varying market through active management, rather than tracking the market in the longer term on the basis that growth must be achieved over the long term..?

Personally, I like the gamble of active management -but then I make my own choices and only have myself to blame...

yes, he would have been. because he has acted illegally.

this is not active vs passive.

w/o agreement (and even with perhaps) the FA here has acted against his remit.

You, as a self investor do not understand the limitations as to remit of an advisor in this case.

They are not to time the markets, and can only do so if they have been instructed by their client (via a written agreement).

mania112

Few thoughts

1) Let's get this out of the way. My job involves me coming into contact with many IFA's (more than most who do my kind of job because of the way our business is structured). The older one's make as many, if not more, mistakes that than the younger one's. Age is not factor in this industry, and if it is - its the older advisers you should be worried about (old habits die hard).

2) I believe the IFA has screwed this up big time:
- No suitability report
- No factfind ("we will sort out your attitude to risk AFTER transfer received")
- Invested in cash (which isn't even a sentence that makes sense).
- Transfered a stocks and shares ISA into cash, that's not allowed.

What he should do (to avoid further repercussions) is figure out how much investment growth you've lost and compensate you.

It sounds like he's trying to avoid that exact thing.

mania112

bigfreddiel wrote: »

1997 - unemployed

2013 - networth £1.2m plus £20k pension

Have they found everyone involved in the Securitas Depot robbery?

grey_gym_sock

mania112 wrote: »

Have they found everyone involved in the Securitas Depot robbery?

... though note that freddie didn't tell us (a) what assets and debts he had in 1997, or (b) whether he's also earned money since 1997 ... these are selective facts, if indeed they are facts

jem16

waccamole wrote: »

The relevant section reads:

"Fund Selection

I have initially chosen to invest all the funds into cash until the transfers have been received. Once these have been applied I will look to change your funds to match your attitude to risk as agreed."

Fair enough to a certain extent as pension transfers are usually done as cash although I would have expected the fund recommendation to have been done prior to the transfer so that the funds would have been invested as they were received.

The explanation for this not being done is that once the funds had been received he thought the market was high and that a correction was due so it was not the right time to invest.

That was not his decision to make on his own. Once the funds were received he should have discussed his recommendations with you and agreed with you as to what course of action should be taken. Why did he not contact you?

We had agreed to meet again in January to review pension provision because my partner needs to nominate additional pension contributions in February for the next financial year. Also, we wanted to mitigate the effect of the child benefit tax charge for 2013/14.

Did this meeting take place?

I retiterated that this was not what I would have chosen to do if I'd known about it even without knowing the markets would rise.

He asked what I would like him to do about it. We have agreed to start to drip feed the funds into the market every 2 months over the next 12 months in 6 equal amounts. He is going to put his recommended fund allocation in writing.

In addition to that I need to consider if there's any other action I could/should take.

W

Would you have chosen to drip feed from last November? Perhaps you should ask him to compensate you for the loss of growth?

mania112 wrote: »

2) I believe the IFA has screwed this up big time:
- No suitability report

It is possible that it was sent and lost in the post. We'll have to give him the benefit of the doubt here.

- No factfind ("we will sort out your attitude to risk AFTER transfer received")

The report didn't give the impression that no factfind was done. It said "I will look to change your funds to match your attitude to risk as agreed."

- Transfered a stocks and shares ISA into cash, that's not allowed.

Yes it is and is often the way S&S ISAs were transferred specifically before the end of last year when platforms did not have to allow in specie transfers. The previous provider would cash in the funds and then transfer as cash to the new provider. The new provider would then keep the proceeds in cash until the IFA instructed the fund allocation. This is exactly how my transfer was done.

jem16

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

... though note that freddie didn't tell us (a) what assets and debts he had in 1997, or (b) whether he's also earned money since 1997 ... these are selective facts, if indeed they are facts

Very selective "facts" considering previous posts like this.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3592673

srcandas

jem16 wrote: »

Very selective "facts" considering previous posts like this.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/3592673

Big fred makes me laugh. He's funny and harmless

If people are going to start taking his posts seriously it will only end in tears. And he does balance those posts like:

"I'm seven years old and was given a fiver for my birthday. What should I do?"

"Go see an IFA and get that in a pension with diversified trackers my man"

:rotfl:

jem16

srcandas wrote: »

Big fred makes me laugh. He's funny and harmless

If people are going to start taking his posts seriously it will only end in tears. And he does balance those posts like:

I don't take him seriously but there are many who know no better and will. For that reason I don't think he's harmless.