Heres one for all you IFAs out there to comment on: Couple lose life savings

AnotherJoe

EdGasket wrote: »

Eh? I don't think so. They may have been a little silly but asked the IFA for suitable advice, low-risk investments and trusted him totally. How does that equate to being greedy?

He already lost them a lot of money. WHy trust him "totally"?
He then recommended investments which his employer told them several times were high risk.
What other reason than greed did they have for picking an all high risk option (high risk squared because not only was it high risk but they put all their investments in that one option)

Other than greed I can come up with two other reasons. One is stupidity, but to be fair the fact you are stupid doesn't make it right you should be defrauded but given the various routes they've travelled already regards compensation I don't think they are stupid.

The other reason has already been mentioned by someone else here, which is that since they got recompense first time round they may have thought they were on a one way bet, e.g. High Risk investment but if it doesn't pay off, get recompensed via insurance. That is cunning and I would equate to greed.

Gadfium

BananaRepublic wrote: »

What have savings and investments got do with the Savings & Investment thread? :rotfl:



Please clarify.



Certainly one bad apple tells you nothing about the rest. However, this raises some important questions. Firstly, what happened to Herd? Has he been banned from practicing? Secondly, if not why not? Thirdly, how come he seems to have a history of bad advice? One might assume that this is not the only client he messed about. What about his other clients?

Apologies- Ive been from the 'puter.
The OP has a history of posting anything that he can use to support his view that experts are numpties, that anyone can make a million by not following experts and that that IFAs are corrupt crooks. That's the axe that he is constantly grinding.
Now, I have no problem with anyone posting a news article, especially if there are lessons to be learned from it. I do however get bored with the OPs obsession with the above. Look at the final sentence in the OP's post "I think this is whey [sic] many people avoid FA/IFAs."

The learning for me is not to get riled by the obvious postings of a troll.:beer:

<edit> As usual, bowlhead99 makes the same point for more eloquently than I ever could here:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71364550&postcount=12

atush

EdGasket wrote: »

Eh? I don't think so. They may have been a little silly but asked the IFA for suitable advice, low-risk investments and trusted him totally. How does that equate to being greedy?

Because the believed him, and went back to him even though his firm told them the investment was wrong for them.

That spells both greed and stupidity.

BananaRepublic

Gadfium wrote: »

Apologies- Ive been from the 'puter.
The OP has a history of posting anything that he can use to support his view that experts are numpties, that anyone can make a million by not following experts and that that IFAs are corrupt crooks. That's the axe that he is constantly grinding.
Now, I have no problem with anyone posting a news article, especially if there are lessons to be learned from it. I do however get bored with the OPs obsession with the above. Look at the final sentence in the OP's post "I think this is whey [sic] many people avoid FA/IFAs."

The learning for me is not to get riled by the obvious postings of a troll.:beer:

<edit> As usual, bowlhead99 makes the same point for more eloquently than I ever could here:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.php?p=71364550&postcount=12

In my view this thread is relevant and of interest to many including myself. but I also agree that if the OP continually bashes financial advisors, then they should be taken to task. I am sure that most posters here agree that there is a place for the IFA and FA, even though some of us choose not to use their services. Balanced discussion of the (I)FA trade is interesting. Some of us might learn something.

nb0825

So moral of the story is, diversify your risk. Not all IFA's should be tarred with the same brush, but its a shame they were so badly advised.

MoneySavingUser

dunstonh wrote: »

It is but it appears that this IFA wasnt just an IFA but was using unregulated investments outside the scope of permissions for his remit.

Do some IFAs have permissions for unregulated investments?

brianh

Perhaps the OP should include an upfront statement on his views (I was unaware of them) but other than that I still think it was a valid post.

Also not convinced by the posts that the IFA trade body works fast enough for the benefit of it's members (or their customers).

dunstonh

Do some IFAs have permissions for unregulated investments?

This was pre-RDR. Prior to RDR, IFAs could restrict in areas of business and the network he belonged to did not allow the use of unregulated investments. Post RDR, IFAs have to consider unregulated investments. This is in part why most networks have been moving to restricted advice models.

Also not convinced by the posts that the IFA trade body works fast enough for the benefit of it's members (or their customers).

There isnt an IFA trade body.

bigadaj

How does the limit on regulator redress of £150k interact with adviser liability and particularly their pi insurance?

I'd expect pi insurance to cover liability into the low millions, so this redress limit seems very low.

dunstonh

bigadaj wrote: »

How does the limit on regulator redress of £150k interact with adviser liability and particularly their pi insurance?

I'd expect pi insurance to cover liability into the low millions, so this redress limit seems very low.

PI insurance is higher than the FOS maximum. It has to be to allow for multiple cases and court cases. The £150k limit would cover 99% of all complaints. Remember that the FOS does not allow advisers to use the courts to argue their case and there is no right to appeal. An ombudsman decision is binding. Whereas the consumer can use the courts (even after an ombudsman ruling) and there is no cap.

This couple would be better off using the courts now they have the ombudsman decision.