Affordable IFA advice

grizzly1911

[QUOTE=bowlhead99;64028714
You won't get a perfect solution on a forum but perhaps if the investments are going to be added to over time, this would change the potential cost structure ; likewise if you are spending it in the short-medium term you might favour an expensive advised/ managed solution because in some circumstances cash could do nearly as well as a low risk capital-preservation investment after advice costs.[/QUOTE]

Did you mean to say favour or not favour?

Freecall

dunstonh wrote: »

Most IFAs are small local firms with 1-5 advisers. However, there are indications that it may be starting to follow accountants and solicitors in consolidation into larger firms.

I guess that like any industry there must be all sorts ranging from the large financial services providers to the chap working from home. Somehow though I had always assumed that the majority of qualified people would work for the large companies but as I said maybe that is because these are the only ones I have any experience of.

An interesting industry. Possibly because in terms of the big picture, it is still young.

Freecall

jem16 wrote: »

The one thing that's important when using an IFA is communication.

Actually, at the risk of being called picky, not according to the IFA's

dunstonh wrote: »

One of the best advisers I have known cannot communicate well at all.

dunstonh

Freecall wrote: »

Actually, at the risk of being called picky, not according to the IFA's

It's a bit picky

The point I was making on the earlier post was that he had great technical knowledge. Had gone through all the higher level qualifications. From a knowledge point of view, he was right up there. However, he didnt have the personal skills and did not succeed as an adviser. He now works in the background where he can use his knowledge but not directly with clients.

Communication with the adviser is important. The client needs to let the adviser know what they are thinking. The adviser needs to be able to present information in a way that is understandable and be able to adapt to different people. If an adviser does not know a concern, then how can they address it?

N1AK

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Or perhaps rather than turn business aside, because it isn't worthwhile to pursue, they just price high as many trades do. Hopefully the punter takes the hint and if not you can at least say they pursued the deal rather than you taking advantage.

I would still like to know why an IFA would suggest moving 100% into S&S ISA for the OP, leaving no cash pot.

Both could be true at the same time

Personally I can't understand why an IFA would suggest that either. It could be, as you say, in order to show activity; which is a rather depressing option.

atush

Originally Posted by doughnutmachine View Post
It's not out of the bounds of possibility that one of these IFA professional bodies pay a member to post on internet forums with free advice, people then read the posts and are more likely to go to an IFA.

I am getting pretty tired of your continued veiled attempts at slander.

the fact is, that it is people like me (hello not an IFA and not in finance) that tell people who are too clueless or too lazy to learn to go to an IFA. Or perhaps who don't have to time required.

So stop with the insinuations.

Rollinghome

bowlhead99 wrote: »

But the key is, I don't care if it is an advert and neither should you. Being an intelligent human being who has been using the internet for twenty years, I am able to mentally filter what I read and treat EVERYTHING with a dose of professional scepticism, thereby I am unlikely to be damaged by something I read.

I'm sorry but I haven't read the whole of your post nor other than a couple of other posts in this thread so apologise if I've misunderstood you. I hope I have, as I find the concept that it shouldn't concern us if someone were to dishonestly misrepresent themselves as a private individual when they were in reality being paid to post or lobby here totally bizarre.

Particularly bizarre when you seem to suggest that might actually be happening. Dishonesty should always concern us.

I'm sure you are every bit as intelligent as you tell us and in no way exaggerate your mental abilities having used the internet, as you tell us, for twenty years - though I'm not sure of the point you are making. Clearly not everyone has been using the internet for twenty years.

If other less intelligent, uneducated people, who do not have much of a passion for learning and self-improvement, are reading internet posts and taking them as gospel without thinking them through properly, then perhaps they deserve to be duped.

I'm afraid I don't share the view that people who are either born less intelligent or are uneducated deserve to be duped any more than I believe that the physically weak deserve to be assaulted or mugged. It's a view I find extremely unpleasant.

The advertising industry, policed by the ASA, has long accepted that advertising should be honest and overt. In newspapers it's expected that when an advertisement might be mistaken as an editorial piece that the word 'advertisement' appears above it and articles should not secretly represent undeclared vested interests. Where standards slip, as they sometimes do, we should object.

When an IFA makes posts to this board deriding the FSA and their RDR proposals, arguing in favour of sales commission paid by the investment industry, denigrating funds such as index trackers that don't pay commission, all of which happened here prior to the introduction of RDR, and commenting on competitors such as banks and D2C providers, then I recognise that as simple self-interest that can easily be dismissed. We should perhaps best see it as a helpful warning to be wary.

However we certainly shouldn't welcome these boards being used by paid lobbyists for unknown organisations dishonestly posing as individuals. I wouldn't expect that to happens and would expect MSE to take responsibility for ensuring that such dishonesty doesn't occur, not least for the protection of those you describe as " less intelligent, uneducated people". I've no reason to believe that they are not acting entirely properly and doing exactly that.

bowlhead99

At the moment, the IFAs have been asked to identify themselves on this forum via their signature. This allows you or me or anyone to take the buyer beware / caveat emptor approach and mentally dismiss them as self interested if you so choose.

I am not convinced that it would help you further if the signature was further categorised into
"Warning: IFA, has not stated if paid to post" ; "Warning: IFA, says he is not paid to post (but we can't prove it)" ;
"Warning: IFA, is paid to post by his firm to generate leads";
"Warning: IFA, is paid by an industry body to make IFAs in general sound smart and useful";
"Warning: IFA, is paid by this site to keep threads busy and to generate busy threads through quick responses and ideas for fellow forum participants"

My point is, by knowing he is an IFA you can decide for yourself if that is something to be wary of or not, when corresponding with this anonymous individual online. As with any information gleaned about an individual, it may colour your perception of his views. It doesn't necessarily imply the view is any less sensible.

There is all sorts of information we could receive about posters to help us decide if their views are useful to our situation and entirely free of bias given the context of a discussion. If I thought that Poster A had a certain salary or level of assets or liabilities, a certain party political persuasion or a certain education background or ethnic background or religion or work background - it might make one re-evaluate the context in which their posts are taken for a given subject matter being debated on an anonymous forum.

Rightly or wrongly we do let people post without giving us their life backstory and thereby any comment they make must be treated with caution as it may not be free from bias, sensibly written, appropriate for your circumstances rather than theirs, drawn from any relevant experience, etc etc etc.

The media is full of stories about the perils of believing what you read online. If someone is paid to post there may be bias in what they say. If someone is not paid to post there may be bias in what they say. If someone says they work in a particular industry or profession then you know their main income likely comes from that sector and their posts might exhibit bias, but you already knew they may be biased before they explicitly told you. So to many people, it would not be a big deal, even if we are curious.

Rollinghome

Representatives of companies or commercial organisations are not allowed to post to this board without the permission of MSE. Your position seems to be that you would have no objection provided they do so dishonestly or covertly - which I see as a totally absurd argument.

gadgetmind

Do not forbid that which you cannot prevent.