Pension advice please/commission charges

Al.

I've never bothered with Unbiased, Vouched for etc. Not in the gang..

Malthusian

Al: I think it might be this: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/howmoneyworks/article-3250049/I-fearful-future-m-comfortably-rated-financial-professionals-help-sort-retirement.html

More than 700 professionals have made it on to VouchedFor’s list of top-rated financial advisers, mortgage brokers, accountants and solicitors.
For a professional to get there, they must receive a minimum number of positive reviews over the past 18 months – March 2014 through to September 2015.
In the case of the most sought-after professionals – financial advisers and mortgage brokers (all of whom must be independent) they must have received at least 15 reviews with average scores of four or more. The maximum score is five.

The business I work for does not advertise and all our clients come via personal recommendations (either friends and family, or solicitors/accountants etc). So professionally I am biased. Personally, however, I am not sure there is a great deal of value in ranking advisers out of five like a B&B. The central problem is that if you go a hotel and it is crap, you find out instantly. So within about a month the reviews can be expected to accurately reflect the mixture of good and bad experiences. With an adviser, it can take as long as five years to find out that you have been given duff advice. VouchedFor was founded in 2013. See the problem?

dunstonh

Al: I think it might be this: http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/howmoneyworks/article-3250049/I-fearful-future-m-comfortably-rated-financial-professionals-help-sort-retirement.html

Mail frequently runs articles that are little more than adverts for a product or service.

Most of the IFA firms I know do not advertise beyond the listing on unbiased (which has the largest coverage) and often its just the basic unpaid entry.

The central problem is that if you go a hotel and it is crap, you find out instantly. So within about a month the reviews can be expected to accurately reflect the mixture of good and bad experiences. With an adviser, it can take as long as five years to find out that you have been given duff advice.

or longer as that is one of the reasons the FCA give for no long stop.

Also, it is subjective. A very nice man called and sorted out all my problems could be the view of one person giving a good review of a firm. However, that person may not be in a position to know that that very nice man may have had a nice personality but it charging three times more than the average.

For most people, mainstream uncomplicated solutions are usually the best. Yet you see use of non-mainstream products/funds with people that just shouldnt have them. Straight after buying them, the person is going to give the adviser a good review. Especially as the adviser on vouchedfor is encouraging them to do so. Yet it may be 3-5-10 years later when the fund/product fails.

For us, local reputation is far more important and natural growth from friends and family of clients is better.

Al.

I don't even have a listing on unbiased.

I saw a new client this morning in Berkshire who was referred to me by WoM. I'm at the Regulator tomorrow and Thursday, and taking the opportunity to see a new client tomorrow night in Richmond (again, WoM, and a meeting that has been two months in gestation) and another one north of Stamford next week (WoM).

So, attracting new clients isn't an issue (one of the reasons for fiveraday.co.uk and similar companies). I suppose though, the same principle about hindsight being a wonderful thing applies regardless of how the recommendation is conveyed; WoM or online endorsement.