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

srcandas

Why do some people on this forum feel the need to waste everyones time guessing possibilities, getting all high and mighty, and insulting anyone who might give a different view to themselves?

For sure such posts put off genuine people with problems who would welcome help. So sad

bigfreddiel

srcandas wrote: »

Why do some people on this forum feel the need to waste everyones time guessing possibilities, getting all high and mighty, and insulting anyone who might give a different view to themselves?
(

i agree - lilepeople whosay "I don't actually know, but....." or "I don't actually have one of these,but...."

well, but go away - you don't know and no one's interested in "what you think"

see ya!

fj

waccamole

atush wrote: »

Or maybe we should ask wife No1 if she is happy?

QUOTE]

Gone a bit off topic but wife no.1 is happy, thanks for asking.

She kept the house, maintenance paid, kid 1 has graduated from uni, kid 2 graduates this summer, she's married hubby no.2 and we all get on fine.

Retirement would be sooner, or richer, if it weren't for wife no.2 and kids 3, 4 & 5 but thats the choice made.

Cheers

atush

I said this as there are implications should the male die before paying full maintenance CS for family 1. Then wife 2 would inherit perhaps, leaving wife and family one high and dry depending on the will made.

In these cases, insurance policies to pay out maintenance and CS can be made in case the worst happens?

Just something else to think about when life gets that complicated.

waccamole

atush wrote: »

In these cases, insurance policies to pay out maintenance and CS can be made in case the worst happens?

That's what we did for maintenance (it was wife no. 2's idea actually).

atush

See, you at least are planning properly for everyone! Good to see.

I have a BF who got divorced and her ex actually protested her taking out a policy on his life to cover maintenance and CS. But we went ahead anyway.

As his new wife (ex mistress) was helping him hide money in the channel islands and all sorts, we knew he remade his will in her favor so we made provision for her just in case he popped his clogs. Some people forget to do this after splitting.

bigadaj

atush wrote: »

See, you at least are planning properly for everyone! Good to see.

I have a BF who got divorced and her ex actually protested her taking out a policy on his life to cover maintenance and CS. But we went ahead anyway.

As his new wife (ex mistress) was helping him hide money in the channel islands and all sorts, we knew he remade his will in her favor so we made provision for her just in case he popped his clogs. Some people forget to do this after splitting.

To be fair I imagine many men would be nervous having an ex taking out a life policy on them, further incentive to potentially aid nature in his demise?

atush

Not really, as murder is uncommon here.

More common is a man dying before his obligations are fullfilled, and all assets being in the new wife's hands (such as joint accts and property) leaving nothing for children to inherit.

fairleads

When a client approaches an IFA for advice it follows the advice must be, as far as is reasonably possible, fit for purpose. With this in mind it also follows that if a client (A) is transferring a pension of significant value, the advice to them would be different to that given to a young client (B) starting a pension for the first time, all other things being equal that is. I would therefore, as client A, expect the IFA to consider the state of the market at the point of the investment and invest my hard earned cash lump sum in a manner that is prudent. In this particular case, prudent would be acknowledging that in the case of a stock or bond investment, there is a greater chance of the client suffering a loss within the next 12 months than making a cash beating return. Prudent is to acknowledge that there is a significant difference between losing out, on a future return, and losing money in a market correction. Prudent is acknowledging that lump sum investments made when the market has risen for over 3.5 yrs, and is looking toppish, is to set the client up for below average returns for many years to come and should thus be avoided.
For those who say moving into cash was wrong because the market is 15% higher now than in October I say that gains made over the past 3.5 yrs (up to Oct 2012) are now tangible, unlike the paper return quoted.
Remember, to realize a profit we have to dispose of the asset in its entirety.
In addition, those who say its easy to peg their profits and sell their investments when markets crash have obviously never tried it.
However, from a lump sum perspective, my decision to enter/exit the market was /is governed by a basic guideline - follow the income. By Oct 2012 the value of our portfolio was just over 50% higher than at April/ May 2009. But the income growth was nowhere near as good, to the extent that cash interest rates gave us almost as much income. So, bearing in mind that what goes up can go down we moved to cash. Over the next three years, supplementing our income by drawing some of that extraordinary growth provides a growing income and our capital would not lose out to inflation. The risk however is that if the market doesn’t correct between now and mid 2016 – allowing us to reinvest at favourable income yields - then the capital value of our portfolio will not have kept up with inflation. This guideline stood us in good stead with our BTl . It told us it was a no brainer to sell in Feb 2007 and move into cash until May 2009.

atush

Without educated (or indeed just basic paragraph) punctuation I cannot be bothered to read such a long missive.

I see editing was done, but I suggest a re edit.