Financial advisor

atush

DancingBadger wrote: »

I thought so too until I started hanging around this forum.

No doubt some Smart Alec will slate me for saying this, but accumulating a pension fund is a doddle compared to realising a tax-efficient income from it.

There's no doubt some FAs/IFAs will attempt to charge outrageous sums. You need to shop around and consider fee-based advice if you have a large pot.

Very true. I will at least consult (and pay ) an IFA for the decumulation phase.

atush

CathA wrote: »

I have and have spoken to a few of them on this site. The ones I spoke to were very helpful.

personally as the above mentioned place is a paid for advertiser, i'd go with unbiased.co.uk

Bootsox

I can understand paying a fee if the IFA is going to offer recommendations based on their prediction of future fund performance (and be prepared to fall on their sword if they get that advice wrong).

Anything else, e.g. helping their client understand their attitude to risk, availability of funds/platforms, etc, is just smoke and mirrors.

TH1878

Bootsox wrote: »

I can understand paying a fee if the IFA is going to offer recommendations based on their prediction of future fund performance (and be prepared to fall on their sword if they get that advice wrong).

Anything else, e.g. helping their client understand their attitude to risk, availability of funds/platforms, etc, is just smoke and mirrors.

Completely missing the point of what a good IFA does. IFAs are not investment managers - you want a Discretionary Fund Manager if you want that.

I find myself rarely talking about investments in great detail nowadays. I help show my clients whether they can afford to continue living their current lifestyle (whatever happens) and what they can do about it if not - which fund(s) or platform you use is really pretty irrelevant.

dunstonh

I can understand paying a fee if the IFA is going to offer recommendations based on their prediction of future fund performance (and be prepared to fall on their sword if they get that advice wrong).

That isnt what an IFA does.

Anything else, e.g. helping their client understand their attitude to risk, availability of funds/platforms, etc, is just smoke and mirrors.

That isnt what it really is either.

TH1878

atush wrote: »

personally as the above mentioned place is a paid for advertiser, i'd go with unbiased.co.uk

Unbiased is paid for. About £250 (IIRC - maybe more, definitely not less) per annum for a basic listing, more for premium.

TH1878

Bootsox wrote: »

Some good points being made here, I have wrestled with the need for an IFA myself on the basis:

a) I am tight

b) What do they do that you couldn't do yourself (they can't predict the future, so their guess on future fund performance is as good as yours)?

c) There are loads easily accessible free guidance out there.

d) Their fee rates/structures seem completely OTT

When the time comes, it seems that one of the low cost "platform style" SIPP, internet based, wrappers will be appropriate (HL, Fidelity, etc) plus a bit of research to select an "income style" fund or three (there was a recent article in the Telegraph on-line with recommendations) and that is it.

Or am I missing something obvious?

The most obvious thing is that it appears you don't actually know what an IFA does.

atush

TH1878 wrote: »

Unbiased is paid for. About £250 (IIRC - maybe more, definitely not less) per annum for a basic listing, more for premium.

but vouched for isn't as comprehensive.

I'd prefer to have a larger number to choose from.

TH1878

atush wrote: »

but vouched for isn't as comprehensive.

I'd prefer to have a larger number to choose from.

Vouched for does reviews, unbiased does not.

Personally, I don't think that the vouched for fees are worthwhile so I don't have a paid for listing on there but then I'm contemplating stopping unbiased too.

Aegis

atush wrote: »

but vouched for isn't as comprehensive.

I'd prefer to have a larger number to choose from.

Neither is comprehensive - I'm not on either after all!