Endowment puzzle

EdInvestor

One of the reasons people go to IFAs (and pay the higher charges that they don't pay if they use Execution-only) is because they know they will be protected against misselling if they use a "regulated" person.

If IFAs however avoid this responsibility to offer the protection by sneakily closing down and dumping their liabilities or by hiding behind regulator errors ( when was there not regulator error?), then they may well find that investors decide the high cost service they provide does not deliver and is not worth the expense.

At that point I suspect it will be very clear that Execution-only exists because any IFA who wants to do business will have to offer it.

dunstonh

If IFAs however avoid this responsibility to offer the protection by sneakily closing down and dumping their liabilities or by hiding behind regulator errors ( when was there not regulator error?), then they may well find that investors decide the high cost service they provide does not deliver and is not worth the expense.

It cannot be avoided.

If the case file shows any indication of advice at any point, then no matter how much the advisor claims that it was execution only, it would not be classed as execution only. Even if the client signed something to say it was.

A fairly robust process needs to be followed to ensure a case is correctly documented as execution only. In the real world, it is hard to class a case as execution only. This is why a lot of the execution only IFAs want you to use a website to submit the business as the audit trail indicates no client contact and is in effect a direct offer.