Stocks & Shares ISA's

robatwork

dale_cotterill wrote: »

But that would generally be the aggregate of what people on here would do themselves. Judging by what I have read so far, the people offering opinions seem far more risk averse than most of the OP's. It's also a lot easier when it isn't your money.

The aggregate would probably be a risk profile 2 or 3 times too high, and therefore unsuitable.

Your post doesn't make sense.

Presumably you mean the opposite of "averse"?

jem16

gadgetmind wrote: »

Only £500? Surely I should also be charging 0.5% of the value of the property every year thereafter too?

Only if you're offering a servicing agreement on the property.

Archi_Bald

dunstonh wrote: »

We dont know that.

We do, because that is what mgarl10024 reported, and that is what I am talking about. I have never suggested that the mortgage advisor should have cooked any books or made any unnatural adjustments to his fee.

Bottom line is that all that was expected from the mortgage advisor was that he shouldn't expect his neighbour to provide his services for free. It is an insult to humanity to suggest one person can charge for their services and skills whilst another cannot.

dunstonh

Bottom line is that all that was expected from the mortgage advisor was that he shouldn't expect his neighbour to provide his services for free. It is an insult to humanity to suggest one person can charge for their services and skills whilst another cannot.

Yes, that would be rude if presented as such. My point though is only that the mortgage adviser may not have had the scope. One firm near us has the business model that they keep the first £500 of any business an employee makes. That model wouldnt allow for discounting on small cases (and mortgages are small cases unless in high property value areas).

Archi_Bald

Anyone and everyone has the option to say "I'll pay you £xx for that", or offer some other means of appreciation.

I am out of this debate at this stage.

gadgetmind

jem16 wrote: »

Only if you're offering a servicing agreement on the property.

I'm sure I can spend 5 minutes rebalancing the lampshade every so often.

gadgetmind

Archi_Bald wrote: »

It is an insult to humanity to suggest one person can charge for their services and skills whilst another cannot.

OK, it's a sweeping statement, but I've often found that those who work with their minds tend to look down on the skill sets of those who mainly work with their hands.

Heedtheadvice

I think I'm a bit on the fence here! Though tending to slip off down one side as regards the good neighbour argument!

I think the Mortgage advice and the IT advice are not comparing like with like. The charges and work done by the advisor, for professional work as initially outlined by the employee, is both covering costs (albeit high costs) to ensure future protection etc. the employer's charges and the work is regulated so the advisor is not free to charge to as he would maybe wish to for a neighbour.

The IT advice (I presume) would be supplied on a one to one relationship, for free, a few beers or a charge as could be mutually agreed without (again I presume) no particular insurance costs or regulatory charges, employer involvement or limitations - though not all that was made clear.

Hence chalk and cheese.

Perhaps if the IT charges had been mentioned at the outset rather than the offer of doing it for a few beers, had it not been made, (maybe made with a misunderstanding of the freedom each party - even ater the professional advice fees had been outlined and accepted!) then the situation might have been different! Both parties being willing to enter an agreement rather than one willing and one with tied hands one contract! However if the advisor had had some integrity he would have offered to pay knowing IT was means of income. Again here I presume that the IT 'consultant' was free to offer the advice and not tied to an employer by contract!

What does and does not happen in other businesses or to other individuals is totally irrelevant, is is not? I am now free from an employment contract that prevented me from third party work and now offer advice or do work for free when I choose but that oddly enough has no bearing on the thread arguments.....................nor in fact the OP question!

I find the amount to be charged by an most IFA's too costly and a lot of it without a good basis having had very conflicting advice from several for one or two particular investment. You get dood and bad in all professions. However I also found the spreads of 4-5% on funds excessive too! Hence I'm now on the DIY route and probably do no better or worse than what the professional advice would have been but at least I feel more in control and getting what I pay for, some excellent , some good, some poor and some bad results. Certainly not for everyone though.

dale_cotterill

robatwork wrote: »

Your post doesn't make sense.

Presumably you mean the opposite of "averse"?

I meant to say averse, just meant to prefix the phrase with Less rather than More!:mad:

cashbackproblems

that is a ripoff!! Its almost 10% of your investment for absolutely nothing, a IFA's running cost is no justification for charging a high price it should be based on the value added and alternative methods of setting up an ISA…which are plentiful.

Just open an account with HL, and invest in a few funds, look for advice on here and also you can use trackers. HL website also gives detailed info for each fund and you can see past performance and how long the fund has been going etc.

I have no financial knowledge and did this and my 7 funds are now up over 10% and 2 of the funds gives an income of c£50p/m, just by investing £300 per month for 3 yrs.