Independent Financial Advice on Pensions & Savings

mgdavid

gadgetmind wrote: »

......
My experiences of finding a good IFA closely resemble my youthful experiences of playing "spin the bottle".

:T
brilliant - that takes me back!

Aegis

gadgetmind wrote: »

Yes, bizarre.

Someone recommended said IFA, and I thought I'd add him to the list. It seems that his speciality lies in moving people's SIPPs across to funds that provided mezzanine loans to property developers, and if I'd just sign the forms, then I could have the "guaranteed 9% pa income" that all of his other happy clients enjoyed.

And yes, I checked him out, and he's got all of the fancy letters after his name and the appropriate approvals with the Fxx.

It seems that if you can just get that HNWI in place, everything downstream is more, um, relaxed.

He also said he didn't charge commision but quoted everything (up front and annual) as percentages of the pot. I floated the idea that even after I'd done full due diligence, the asset class in question would never command more than 5% of my portfolio, and he left a few minutes afterwards.

My experiences of finding a good IFA closely resemble my youthful experiences of playing "spin the bottle".

For the sake of the rest of us, please report that guy to the regulator. That's highly unorthodox, and exactly the sort of attitude to handling clients that will eventually lead to huge claims against him (which will likely fall on the FSCS and therefore the rest of us in the industry) when one or more of the schemes goes bust and he winds up his business due to being unable to pay compensation.

That is definitely not normal behaviour, before anyone else asks!

gadgetmind

Aegis wrote: »

For the sake of the rest of us, please report that guy to the regulator.

Isn't a signed HNWI form pretty much a "get out of jail free"?

(Oh, and I suspect my "H" wasn't "H" enough for him!)

dunstonh

Aegis wrote: »

Interesting... Did you indicate that you wanted some sort of unregulated investment advice or something? Otherwise that just seems a bizarre thing to take to a potential client meeting.

Your post explaining is a good example of wrong. However, I wont give investment advice on contracts I have no control over and the investor wants to make their own investment decisions. This is mainly a liability decision and trying to make it fit with a compliance framework. People who actively move investments on a DIY basis could be moving all over the risk scale. They could be using investments that I would not use or that I have not done due diligence on or have failed our due diligence. It becomes a grey area if you start giving bits of advice and leaving bits off. In the eyes of a third person doing a review of your advice, they may have a different view of what is and isnt covered and what you should and shouldnt say.

We are crying out for simplified/generic advice (which you would also expect to be cheaper than full advice) but firms are scared to introduce it as "advice is advice" and has liability.

Smaller directly regulated firms may have more scope to do this than larger firms (with multiple advisers), networks or those firms that use external compliance companies where you need to fit a tighter compliance framework.

saver861

gadgetmind wrote: »

Isn't a signed HNWI form pretty much a "get out of jail free"?

Why would it be though? Not sure why this would relieve him of any of his professional obligations?

saver861

dunstonh wrote: »

Your post explaining is a good example of wrong. However, I wont give investment advice on contracts I have no control over and the investor wants to make their own investment decisions.

I understand what you are saying but, not I am not clear on the concept. If I understand it correctly, you give advice but only on the basis of continuation management?

However, if you provide advice, then the client has to ultimately make the decision to go with that advice? I understand you do not want to be responsible for ongoing performance of anything not of your choosing. However, is your approach not completely removing any decisions from the client - whose money it is at the end of the day!

dunroving

saver861 wrote: »

I understand what you are saying but, not I am not clear on the concept. If I understand it correctly, you give advice but only on the basis of continuation management?

However, if you provide advice, then the client has to ultimately make the decision to go with that advice? I understand you do not want to be responsible for ongoing performance of anything not of your choosing. However, is your approach not completely removing any decisions from the client - whose money it is at the end of the day!

I'm trying to get my head around this concept also. My general area is exercise/sport science. Although the professions within sport science are not as heavily regulated as the financial area, the parallel wold be like telling someone you won't give them a 2-hour personal training consultation in order to provide generic advice on their current physical activity, fitness and exercise regime. All you will do is sign a long-term contract with on-going charges to test their fitness on a regular basis and they have to come to you to do their training.

brewerdave

I actually phoned a couple of local IFAs on Friday.obtained from unbiased.co.uk re 4 small DC pensions that I have because I've started to get letters from the insurers. The total value is only ~£64k( I'm already taking my larger DB pension).
IFA no 1. basically told me that his firm would be too expensive for me on "such small pots" and IFA no 2. suggested that he would only look at the pension situation if I was willing to include all my other savings /investments in the meeting. Fot the moment anyway, I didn't want to do that....altho' I MAY change my mind as decision day approaches.
Based on this brief experience,it seems as if anyone with the "average" pot at retirement, is going to find independent advice very dificult or expensive to find -so I suspect a lot of people will be effectively forced into dealing directly with the insurers.

gadgetmind

dunstonh wrote: »

Y
We are crying out for simplified/generic advice (which you would also expect to be cheaper than full advice)

Agreed 100%.

Perhaps someone will set up offshore, beyond the inflexible grasp of the FCA?

atush

All part of getting what you ask for (ie no commission and clear pricing) whereas int he old system the larger pots subsidized the smaller ones?

It was warned on here that this would happen with t he new regulations on advice.