IFA's etc. Has anybody ever been to one that has MADE them money rather than charged

bowlhead99

doughnutmachine wrote: »

tbh, I wouldn't mind too much if dunstonh is getting paid. I just think if he is getting paid to be here that it should be public knowledge.

Usually when someone is accused of being guilty of something they will deny it. Of course there must be some reason why dunstonh can't give a simple "yes" or "no" answer to if he is paid to post here. His paymasters are probably aware that if the general public will hold him in higher regard if they think he donates his time freely.

You're right that if someone was known to be a paid agent it would colour some readers' regard for their comments.

However, knowing any pieces of personal information about a person may 'taint' your opinion of their replies and it's fair that they shouldn't have to answer. People inferring guilt if you don't answer a yes/no question is the exact reason you wouldn't want to start answering any personal yes/no questions at all because it's a slippery slope to start responding to personal yes/no questions.

For example I could accuse you of having a salary of £82-£84k. You could say no you don't. I could then say you have a salary of £21-£22k. You could say no. At some point I will say you have a salary of [your actual salary] and you may not want to answer. But if you don't answer, having answered all the other times, we will infer that it is indeed your salary and you just don't want to admit it.

And then when we are having a discussion about X, if we know you earn £162k a year some people will interpret your answers differently because they think "well, he thinks that, but as a top 1% earner he's out of touch with the common man so his opinion is worth less" - even if you have given a perfect well-reasoned answer it may be met with prejudice.

Or perhaps you earn only £12k by the peak of your career and people might think "well to be honest this guy probably knows less about investing than that other guy because he can't have done very much of it on that kind of salary, and if he's paid very little then perhaps he's not very smart which is why he's not been promoted as much as me". Your perfect answer is again disregarded due to prejudice. Or "well that guy hardly pays any tax so of course he wants tax rates up and benefits up and I'm not going to listen to him in any debate about what our taxes should be spent on". Same thing.

That is the exact same attitude as what happens if you know Dunstonh or anyone else is paid by his employer or anyone else (or himself if self employed) to drum up business through social media, or advance the perception of IFAs generally by explaining what they do and showing that they have smart opinions sometimes. The quality of the comment could be awesome but would be tainted by some thinking "well he's getting paid to say that so that's a very biased opinion and should be disregarded".

So while I have no issue with encouraging full disclosure (as Aegis has done) the problem with "if you haven't got anything to hide, tell us" is that you are asking someone to reveal personal information about themselves so that you can use it to colour your opinion of their comments in a discussion. That's fine if you're building a personal relationship or deciding whether to engage them as an advisor and pay them for their time for personal advice. It should not be mandatory on an anonymous internet forum where we all know people are allowed to use nicknames and lie anyway.

At the moment, IFAs tell us that they are IFAs in their signatures. This causes them to be met with prejudice from some people, but that's fine because people are entitled to their opinion. If you have said you woudn't mind too much if they are getting paid, and you are a reasonable person, then presumably others also wouldn't mind if they are getting paid and so whether they are getting paid or not does not really need to be made public - as all it will do is taint people's opinions one way or another. Oooh he said X but is getting paid: opinion worthless. Oooh he said Y and wrote it in his lunchtime and isn't getting paid to do so: he's altruistic and opinion is worth double.

Instead: treat every opinion from every person with a healthy dose of skepticism and you will do just fine.

To be honest, saying something along the lines of "I don't mind if you're getting paid on this forum but I would want to know", we could perhaps draw a parallel with "I don't mind if you're a woman, or black, or gay, or 85 years old, or 22 years old, or an Eastern European immigrant, but I'd want to know". If something doesn't change your opinion you don't need to know it.

dunstonh

Usually when someone is accused of being guilty of something they will deny it. Of course there must be some reason why dunstonh can't give a simple "yes" or "no" answer to if he is paid to post here. His paymasters are probably aware that if the general public will hold him in higher regard if they think he donates his time freely.

I want to know who these paymasters are. Who is this body you are on about?

What other conspiracy theories have you got lined up to involve me in?

atush

Daniel54 wrote: »

Am I the only one who thinks Mr Doughnut is making himself look silly ?Either make a positive contribution or tell us how you would handle issues such as a pension valuation and transfer,on which the likes of Dunstonh are able to provide informed advice

i am not an IFA

I completely agree. Why would anyone pay him to come here? He is factual, and blunt. And has no patience for numpties. why should he? And who would want to pay for that?

I imagine he has time to come here because a- he is self employed and can work when he wants, and B- sees the general level of ignorance being so high can't help himself.

lisyloo

I have good IFAs.
They give me continual service (ongoing reviews).
Pass on retail level charges.
Offer free advice (well included in ongoing charges) and don't try to sell me insurance.

doughnutmachine

bowlhead99 wrote: »

You're right that if someone was known to be a paid agent it would colour some readers' regard for their comments.

At the moment, IFAs tell us that they are IFAs in their signatures. This causes them to be met with prejudice from some people, but that's fine because people are entitled to their opinion. If you have said you woudn't mind too much if they are getting paid, and you are a reasonable person, then presumably others also wouldn't mind if they are getting paid and so whether they are getting paid or not does not really need to be made public - as all it will do is taint people's opinions one way or another. Oooh he said X but is getting paid: opinion worthless. Oooh he said Y and wrote it in his lunchtime and isn't getting paid to do so: he's altruistic and opinion is worth double.

Sorry, to clarify I wouldn't mind if Dunstonh was paid to post because I personally wouldn't use an IFA. But I agree 100% that if it was known Dunstonh was paid to post it would "taint" his advice.

And for that reason I think he should make clear if he's here because he's a good guy that wants to contribute, or he's here because he's getting paid.

But obviously Dunstonh feels unable to clarify the issue.

doughnutmachine

atush wrote: »

I completely agree. Why would anyone pay him to come here? He is factual, and blunt. And has no patience for numpties. why should he? And who would want to pay for that?

I imagine he has time to come here because a- he is self employed and can work when he wants, and B- sees the general level of ignorance being so high can't help himself.

"Association of Professional Financial Advisors.

APFA is the voice of the financial adviser. We promote the value of financial advice and the interests of financial advisers.

APFA's remit is to influence government, regulators, the media and consumer groups so they recognise the role and value of professional financial advice."

In the APFA website they list "retaining trail commission for investments taken out before RDR" as one of their achievements. So basically they lobby Government and the FCA to promote the interests of IFAs (ahead of consumers' interests.....).

You not think it might be possible for the APFD to employ an IFA to post on an internet forum? It could be considered that they would be furthering their stated remit of "influence government, regulators, the media and consumer groups so they recognise the role and value of professional financial advice"

The_White_Horse

lisyloo wrote: »

I have good IFAs.
They give me continual service (ongoing reviews).
Pass on retail level charges.
Offer free advice (well included in ongoing charges) and don't try to sell me insurance.

i don't think you understand what they do - OR - you have already bought all the insurance.

dunstonh

You not think it might be possible for the APFD to employ an IFA to post on an internet forum?

No. I very much doubt they could afford an to employ an IFA to do that. However, if they did, board rules would require the poster to get permission from the site and have the required log in name and signatures.

So basically they lobby Government and the FCA to promote the interests of IFAs (ahead of consumers' interests.....).

I think you miss the point of a lobby group representing its members.

Why dont you contact them to see if they will satisfy your paranoia?

Aegis

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i don't think you understand what they do - OR - you have already bought all the insurance.

Are you sure you understand what we do?

jimjames

I think it would be blindingly obvious if that was the case. The replies given would indicate that it isn't.