Initial Costs for IFA....

savdefriz

Sure did....

I was tempted to go to the FCA and complain about mis-selling then realised that thankfully he never managed to sell us anything so they wouldn't be bothered.

xylophone

after the economy has been through the ringer a couple of times.

Hell's Bells?:eek:

http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/put+through+the+wringer:)

Al.

savdefriz wrote: »

After all of this his final paragraph goes on to tell us that after reading his letter we should go out and buy a copy of the FT and use a pin to select a share and in the subsequent weeks and months when we've lost a sizeable chunk of our investement we would begin to understand the concept of risk v reward and that the charges of this IFA is worth it to stop you from losing your shirt.

In essence I think I made the right decision not to trust my money with that "professional"

SDF

That's shocking behaviour; childish and as you say, unprofessional. If it didn't reduce you to his levels, I'd ask you to name and shame him.

bigfreddiel

Bowlhead and aegis

Thanks very much for your extensive replies. I understand better now where my lay and simplified ideas about how to handle varying levels of wealth.

I can see my understanding was completely wrong, and I can see how an ifa can justify fees for extremrly larger portfolios. Well done on explaining it so well.

I do have a further thought tho', with this new found information.

I would have thought that the majority of people have similar sized pots so one investment model would do.

But not everyone would want the same from their pot. Whatever you did want, income, income and lump sum, remain invested, reduce iht, etc, etc, so a single wouldn't work.

But each type of outcome from a pot has an element of risk. Assign a risk to an outcome. Design a model for each risk and bingo a simple framework to assign an investment model based on pot size and desired outcome.

Apply this same technique to various pot sizes and you have a framework to offer an investment model to 95% of your clients (binomial distribution or bell shaped graph used to categorise things, well 95% of them!).

Keep your pot size to risk model up to date, and you have the basis of a nice business where you would know exactly how to service 95% of your clients at a nice cost effective fixed price. You know exactly how much work is involved so your profit margin can be known and away you go.

Successful business and happy customers spreading the word, you could call yourself easyIfa.

Thanks once again guys fj

savdefriz

bigfreddiel wrote: »

I would have thought that the majority of people have similar sized pots so one investment model would do.

But not everyone would want the same from their pot. Whatever you did want, income, income and lump sum, remain invested, reduce iht, etc, etc, so a single wouldn't work.

But each type of outcome from a pot has an element of risk. Assign a risk to an outcome. Design a model for each risk and bingo a simple framework to assign an investment model based on pot size and desired outcome.

Apply this same technique to various pot sizes and you have a framework to offer an investment model to 95% of your clients (binomial distribution or bell shaped graph used to categorise things, well 95% of them!).

Keep your pot size to risk model up to date, and you have the basis of a nice business where you would know exactly how to service 95% of your clients at a nice cost effective fixed price. You know exactly how much work is involved so your profit margin can be known and away you go.

Aren't there are already products doing exactly that though, things like Nutmeg and Wealth Horizon?

savdefriz

Al. wrote: »

That's shocking behaviour; childish and as you say, unprofessional. If it didn't reduce you to his levels, I'd ask you to name and shame him.

I have been tempted...... But possibly best to let sleeping dogs lie! (Although tweeting the letter to Martin Lewis' did occur to me)

Just remember everyone as the Roman's once said

Caveat Emptor!

(Don't be too impressed that's pretty much the only latin phrase I know)

Pincher

dunstonh wrote: »

Why would the taxpayer foot the bill? The FSCS would foot the bill.

In the end, means testing will qualify all the victims, willing or otherwise, for state benefits.

If they started paying out for every pension liberation scam, FSCS won't last very long.

I am actually agreeing with you that to pick up somebody else's messy tangled affairs is a tedious undertaking, and I wouldn't get out of bed for less than £1,000 either.

grey_gym_sock

Pincher wrote: »

I wouldn't get out of bed for less than £1,000 either.

when did you last get out of bed?

eagertolearn

Had a chat with a local IFA (found on unbiased.co.uk) as we have no idea about investment. Their charges are:

3% up to £250k
2% £250k-£500k
1.5% £500k+

The ongoing charge was monthly 0.5% of total portfolio. This sounded expensive to us - they would have to do well to cover their fees! Needles to say we are looking elsewhere

dunstonh

eagertolearn wrote: »

Had a chat with a local IFA (found on unbiased.co.uk) as we have no idea about investment. Their charges are:

3% up to £250k
2% £250k-£500k
1.5% £500k+

The ongoing charge was monthly 0.5% of total portfolio. This sounded expensive to us - they would have to do well to cover their fees! Needles to say we are looking elsewhere

Expensive. Look at monetary amounts around £1000-1500 on initial. 0.5% p.a. is the typical.