A tale of 4 IFA's... (subtitle - why is it so hard?)

fairleads

jem16 wrote: »

The buying opportunity was last October and the boat has been missed.

Classic short term-ism. A bigger boat is on the horizon

bigfreddiel

dunstonh wrote: »

.....but there was a subset that were always commission and no matter how you tried to present fees, they would always prefer commission.

now why would that be i wonder??????

ah yes - a nice stream of income building up year upon year at the expense of the punter

under rda an ifa or rfa MUST define his charges in WRITING - soits all quite simple now

but i guess its still buyer beware

see ya!

fj

fairleads

gadgetmind wrote: »

No, it's not.

There may be a buying opportunity, or there may not be. What history tells us is that being in the market is better than not being in it.

The facts, as per my experience, cast a shadow on that classic dogma. After all , if one is out of the market, fund managers and advisors lose out on commission/ AMCs. Therefore they have a vested interest in persuading one and all to stay in the market.

OK, so maybe there might (just might) be an argument for tweaking you asset allocation based on your reading of macro economics, but 100%cash? Really?

Definitely, almost 100% at present. But maybe not by this time tomorrow.

jem16

bigfreddiel wrote: »

now why would that be i wonder??????

ah yes - a nice stream of income building up year upon year at the expense of the punter

That would be a nice pretty explanation (at least in the eyes of the anti IFA brigade) except that the subset dunstonh was referring to were clients and not IFAs.

jem16

fairleads wrote: »

Too many to explain plus the phrase "None so blind "etc comes to mind

Or the phrase "those who flatter to deceive......."

What really puzzles me is that in the OP, IFA 4 is the only one who has made a plan for the client and provided an explanation. The other 3 ignored the client yet one and all are dissing the only IFA who made a plan. If, as is the case the client disagrees with IFA 4's actions then surely they should revisit the IFA? Or even better, go it alone.

If you bother to read the Op's other thread, you will see that no plan has been made with the IFA to sit in cash and has only provided an explanation (quite possibly made up) when asked for one.

If the IFA was doing a proper job, a detailed Suitability Report would have been provided back in October and the plan agreed with his client who would then have had the opportunity to agree or disagree.

As to the other 3 IFAs, only one ignored the client with the other 2 not being to the Op's liking.

fairleads wrote: »

Classic short term-ism. A bigger boat is on the horizon

So let's say I invested £100k on my classic short term-ism. Taking into account the increases over the last 6 months I now have £115k for my larger boat whilst you still only have £100k. After all it's not that difficult to sell or switch.

atush

fairleads wrote: »

What really puzzles me is that in the OP, IFA 4 is the only one who has made a plan for the client and provided an explanation. The other 3 ignored the client yet one and all are dissing the only IFA who made a plan. If, as is the case the client disagrees with IFA 4's actions then surely they should revisit the IFA? Or even better, go it alone.

I only mentioned no 4, as i didn't care bout the idiots who didn't reply.

No4 is the one I that I can see made a mistake and as it is the current IFA the one that needs to be addressed.

fairleads

jem16 wrote: »

Or the phrase "those who flatter to deceive......."



If you bother to read the Op's other thread, you will see that no plan has been made with the IFA to sit in cash and has only provided an explanation (quite possibly made up) when asked for one.

If the IFA was doing a proper job, a detailed Suitability Report would have been provided back in October and the plan agreed with his client who would then have had the opportunity to agree or disagree.

As to the other 3 IFAs, only one ignored the client with the other 2 not being to the Op's liking.



So let's say I invested £100k on my classic short term-ism. Taking into account the increases over the last 6 months I now have £115k for my larger boat whilst you still only have £100k. After all it's not that difficult to sell or switch.

Hind sight is an exact science.
Interesting is that my cash amount has also increased, but where does your 30% p/a return come from?

Ps The most interesting part of this whole thread is that there is not really enough info in the O P for the usual experts to make an informed decision. But in they go, boots and all.

redbuzzard

Does anybody here not actually think that IFA4 just didn't get around to doing anything and was bluffing about the reason?

Even allowing that he might have thought equities were at a peak, he could have discussed that with the client or suggested phasing the purchases. And there are other investments besides equities and cash.

jem16

fairleads wrote: »

Interesting is that my cash amount has also increased,

By how much since October 1st?

but where does your 30% p/a return come from?

Don't believe I mentioned anything about a 30%pa return. What I did say is that over the last 6 months there has been a 15% increase (reality for some portfolios) but that does not necessarily translate into a 30%pa return as I have no idea what the next 6 months will bring.

Ps The most interesting part of this whole thread is that there is not really enough info in the O P for the usual experts to make an informed decision. But in they go, boots and all.

There is more than enough information to make the decision that has been made;

1. The OP has said that he has received no Suitability Report. This is a manadatory document so the IFA has failed here.

2. The OP has said that he would not have agreed to be 100% in cash since October. OP was asked what Suitability Report said - having confirmed that he did not have this documentation, it was suggested that he got this.

Basically the IFA has not acted as he should have done under FSA Regulations. What do you find difficult to understand with this? I actually find it quite heartening that IFAs on this board would question how IFA 4 has acted.

redbuzzard wrote: »

Does anybody here not actually think that IFA4 just didn't get around to doing anything and was bluffing about the reason?

Yes I suggested as much. However rather than blazing in with accusations, the OP has been asked about the Suitability Report.

Even allowing that he might have thought equities were at a peak, he could have discussed that with the client or suggested phasing the purchases. And there are other investments besides equities and cash.

Yes this should all have been discussed and documented. It remains to be seen if it has.

dunstonh

redbuzzard wrote: »

Does anybody here not actually think that IFA4 just didn't get around to doing anything and was bluffing about the reason?

Even allowing that he might have thought equities were at a peak, he could have discussed that with the client or suggested phasing the purchases. And there are other investments besides equities and cash.

There is certainly something not right as most of us acknowledge. However, the IFA cannot invest the money until he/she has agreement from the client to proceed. So, any course of action, even if not documented by any means, would have to have been agreed. I don't believe we have had any feedback yet on what was agreed with the IFA.