Advisors who keep fees secret

masonic

bigadaj wrote: »

Well 98% of quoted statistics involve some form of inaccuracy or manipulation, or at the very least some form of selective bias.

...while 73.6% of them are made up on the spot

jem16

masonic wrote: »

...while 73.6% of them are made up on the spot

Or in the case of bigfreddiel, 100% made up based on guesses and speculation.

TheTracker

colsten wrote: »

TheTracker, if you still read this thread, would you have an answer to this Q I asked earlier in response to a post from you, please?

As number/percentages of complaints are pretty meaningless without knowing how justified or otherwise the complaints were judged to be.

Sadly, I couldn't find them in the annual report, and the FOS don't appear to publish full statistics. What really matters is the number of justified complaints, not even the percent upheld.

⅔ of all complaints appear to be resolved by the parties themselves with a bit of urging. Of the other ⅓ 90% are resolved by adjudicators rather than the ombudsman. So its only about 2.5% of complaints that ever get to the ombudsman. The annual report says the upheld rates vary wildly in different areas (e.g. 21% about term insurance, but 86% about card protection insurance).

To make matters worse the FOS 'record the outcome of a complaint as “not upheld” in cases where: The financial business has done something wrong – but before the complaint was referred to us, they made a fair offer to put things right'.

In other words, not enough data, at least that I can see. But enough that I know saying "only 1%" has no meaning.

bigfreddiel

jem16 wrote: »

Or in the case of bigfreddiel, 100% made up based on guesses and speculation.

Firstly I only quoted an article in the Sunday Times so sorry they are completely wrong according to dunstonh

I've cancelled my sub to the ST now on that basis

And secondly I don't recall providing any stats, but I will now

There is a 100% certainty that there will be another misselling scandal from one of the many financial institutions in the next year. That may not be so bad but worse still is that no one will be charged with fraud, theft, misleading people because that's what it amounts to

Happy days fj

jem16

bigfreddiel wrote: »

Firstly I only quoted an article in the Sunday Times so sorry they are completely wrong according to dunstonh

My comment was not based on the Sunday Times article.

My comment was based on this comment from you;

bigfreddiel wrote: »

I agree, I guess IFAs never recommend these type of funds or ETFs.

This was based on pure guesses and speculation.

dunstonh

Firstly I only quoted an article in the Sunday Times so sorry they are completely wrong according to dunstonh

Lets see where they are wrong (based solely on what you have posted about the article).
1 - They have said 100 of the largest independent financial advisers. Yet a number of the firms are not IFAs (some are FAs) and some are not even advisory firms.
2 - They have said the FCA has launched an investigation. Yet is has not.

To be honest, it would probably be a bit hard to find data on the largest 100 IFA firms as most IFAs are small local firms. You would drop quite quickly from national and regional into firms the size of 5-10 advisers with localised coverage. Plus, the 100 would have to include networks and they by definition cannot publish charges on their website as the member firms would have their own charges.

bigfreddiel

dunstonh wrote: »

Lets see where they are wrong (based solely on what you have posted about the article).
1 - They have said 100 of the largest independent financial advisers. Yet a number of the firms are not IFAs (some are FAs) and some are not even advisory firms.
2 - They have said the FCA has launched an investigation. Yet is has not.

To be honest, it would probably be a bit hard to find data on the largest 100 IFA firms as most IFAs are small local firms. You would drop quite quickly from national and regional into firms the size of 5-10 advisers with localised coverage. Plus, the 100 would have to include networks and they by definition cannot publish charges on their website as the member firms would have their own charges.

Well that's a real eye opener now I just cannot believe what they print in the papers. Just who can you believe now!

Thanks dunstonh, I'm going to save a bundle cancelling all my subs to newspapers and other printed material.

From now on I will only believe the info from the web a well trusted and regulated resource.

Cheers fj

bowlhead99

bigfreddiel wrote: »

Thanks dunstonh, I'm going to save a bundle cancelling all my subs to newspapers and other printed material.

From now on I will only believe the info from the web a well trusted and regulated resource.

cheers fj

I guess the web could become more of a well trusted resource if people stopped blindly posting any old crap that they read in a newspaper that backed up their misguided point of view.

cheers

masonic

bigfreddiel wrote: »

Well that's a real eye opener now I just cannot believe what they print in the papers. Just who can you believe now!

Journalism is about the only profession that can make the banking sector look good when you compare its recent record. Maybe they hacked someone's voicemail and got the wrong end of the stick?