Income protection - how do I get it?

muhandis

It shows culture. If complaints in the distribution channel are high then it is likely it is across all areas and not just one.

That's your opinion as an IFA about the difference in "culture" between an IFA and regulated non-IFA advisors, fair enough. In my opinion an IFA isn't necessarily more likely to give you better protection advice than a non-IFA regulated advisor.

Larger firms have to devote more resources as they get more complaints.

That's your opinion as to the reason behind large firms devoting more resources to compliance. In my opinion IFAs spend far less money on compliance as any money spent on overheads directly eats into their sales commission and thus reduces their income. Plus unfortunately they don't have the economies of scale that larger regulated firms do. Plus, larger firms (especially public ones) are very sensitive to reputational damage.

Page 14 is the split on sales by Personal Investment firms. That would not include mortgage advisers.

Like you (when you ignored me pointing out that you were wrong in implying that the advice I received was unregulated), I could have ignored anything which refutes my assertions, but I don't do that. You are right in this case.

If you go back to page 8 you will see the breakdown of business by financial advisers and insurance is around 30%.

That's just poor. Surely you're aware that general insurance and personal protection aren't one and the same and that IFA firms very often offer a bouquet of advised and non-advised insurance products? All personal protection is insurance but the converse isn't true. Or are you claiming that the WHOLE 30% is just protection?

dunstonh wrote: »

It shows culture. If complaints in the distribution channel are high then it is likely it is across all areas and not just one. It is highly doubtful that a low skilled or dodgy individual sits there thinking that they will do all their pension business perfectly but treat protection is badly.

Larger firms have to devote more resources as they get more complaints. Most IFA firms get hardly any complaints. I would expect small protection only firms to also have low volumes of complaints too. The differential is not between employees and IFAs. That is like comparing cars and petrol. An employed IFA will normally earn less than a director/owner/partner IFA. A director/owner/partner in a protection only firm would earn more than an employed protection adviser.

Page 14 is the split on sales by Personal Investment firms. That would not include mortgage advisers. Also, it includes arranging only intermediaries (e.g. the DIY platforms which account for nearly half of the business nowadays) and the workplace pension administrators (which is why pension is so heavily represented).

If you go back to page 8 you will see the breakdown of business by financial advisers and insurance is around 30%.

Given your assumptions were wrong in coming up with that figure, it would be fair to say that any conclusion you guess at from that would be wrong too.

dunstonh

That's your opinion as an IFA about the difference in "culture" between an IFA and regulated non-IFA advisors, fair enough. In my opinion an IFA isn't necessarily more likely to give you better protection advice than a non-IFA regulated advisor.

I am not suggesting the personality of the individual would be different. I don't see anyone else suggesting it either. However, only the IFA or whole of market adviser can give whole of market advice. A limited panel may result in a product that is more expensive or is not the best available but the closest available from their range.

That's your opinion as an IFA about the difference in "culture" between an IFA and regulated non-IFA advisors, fair enough. In my opinion an IFA isn't necessarily more likely to give you better protection advice than a non-IFA regulated advisor.

My opinion is based on 30 years of financial services. Which includes tied, multi-tied, restricted and IFA. Also in training and compliance. As employee and employer. Reading of FCA bulletins, FOS bulletins and financial press. I also go to regular meetings with other IFA and non-IFA business owners to discuss compliance and business issues.

Your opinion is based on a few minutes buying a product and buyer remorse where you are vehemently supported the method you chose to use to buy your product. You are entitled to your opinion but you seem to have such a biased one for someone with so little experience or knowledge on the subject. Especially when your views are so different to what the norm is considered to be.

I dont just post on this board to help others. I also post because others help me. You are always learning new things here. Things that can change your opinions. However, nothing you have said changes my opinion and from the posts of others, it doesnt appear to have changed theirs. So, you have your opinion and it doesn't appear to fit with anyone else who has posted. You could be the only one right. You could know more about IFAs, FAs, panels, networks, packagers than the people involved in those areas.

Like you (when you ignored me pointing out that you were wrong in implying that the advice I received was unregulated),

I have made no such implication. Insurance advice is regulated. It is regulated to a lower standard than IFA level but it is regulated.

In my opinion IFAs spend far less money on compliance as any money spent on overheads directly eats into their sales commission and thus reduces their income.

Most IFAs dont need to spend as much as they do not have to monitor staff to the lowest common denominator and have a supervisory regime to cater for large volumes of staff. The systems and controls are easier with small firms. It has nothing to do with commission. This is also why many of the larger firms have been pulling out. They became too big to control. Some have returned with smaller restricted services as they are easier to control.

That's just poor. Surely you're aware that general insurance and personal protection aren't one and the same and that IFA firms very often offer a bouquet of advised and non-advised insurance products? All personal protection is insurance but the converse isn't true. Or are you claiming that the WHOLE 30% is just protection?

Actually, the regulatory blocks have general insurance separated in some areas and included as protection in others depending on whether it is referring to FCA, FOS or FSCS data collection.

I can only imagine that general insurance is a tiny amount with most IFAs. Maybe closer to that made up 2% of yours. It is not possible to tell whether that APFA publication includes general insurance or not as it does not say what data source is it using (it appears to use different sources throughout) However, as it says non-investment insurance, that would suggest that it is including general insurance as non-investment insurance is a phrase the FCA use on the RMAR. Either way page 8 is a much better guide than the one you used which included DIY investment firms and pension administrators.

muhandis

A limited panel may result in a product that is more expensive or is not the best available but the closest available from their range.

You're repeating what you said, so I'll repeat what I said as well. A "whole of market" insurance salesman does not necessarily result in a product that is optimum.

Your opinion is based on a few minutes buying a product and buyer remorse where you are vehemently supported the method you chose to use to buy your product.

Since you are down to mocking me as am illiterate consumer (without knowing anything at all of me besides what I have said here), let me also reply in the same coin.

Based on your 30 years as an IFA, you are clearly exhibiting bitter jealousy driven by the fact that IFAs are no longer the go to people for expensive financial advice. Index funds, online portals, self invested pensions, many different ways of researching and buying financial advice/products, increased regulatory oversight all mean that unfortunately financial advisors aren't any more able to make do with sitting back in their chairs and waiting for fat commission based business to come to them. You are incensed by the very fact that a lowly consumer like me, "someone with so little experience or knowledge on the subject" can actually have the temerity to contest your inflexible assertions and home truths based on your very many decades in this field. Having been in the field for 30 years, you have no doubt done very well for yourself and don't really need any new business anymore, but I feel sorry for you that you can't accept that the world has changed.

However, nothing you have said changes my opinion

I've seen your other posts, so I never assumed that there would be any change in your rigidly held inflexible opinions. My post was for the OP's benefit, not yours. I only responded to your incorrect or sweeping statements of opinion peddled as fact.

It is regulated to a lower standard than IFA level but it is regulated.

There you go telling porkies again. The Protection Adviser advice is governed by the same regulation that you would be under if I came to you for protection advice. You just can't accept that fact.

This is also why many of the larger firms have been pulling out.

Must also be why almost 1 in 3 smaller IFAs and IFA sole traders are looking to sell up within the next two years ;-)
https://www.ftadviser.com/2015/05/20/ifa-industry/your-business/almost-of-ifas-looking-to-sell-up-within-years-0WgJUcLjiqUudt2pS0vlmK/article.html

dunstonh wrote: »

I am not suggesting the personality of the individual would be different. I don't see anyone else suggesting it either. However, only the IFA or whole of market adviser can give whole of market advice. A limited panel may result in a product that is more expensive or is not the best available but the closest available from their range.

My opinion is based on 30 years of financial services. Which includes tied, multi-tied, restricted and IFA. Also in training and compliance. As employee and employer. Reading of FCA bulletins, FOS bulletins and financial press. I also go to regular meetings with other IFA and non-IFA business owners to discuss compliance and business issues.

Your opinion is based on a few minutes buying a product and buyer remorse where you are vehemently supported the method you chose to use to buy your product. You are entitled to your opinion but you seem to have such a biased one for someone with so little experience or knowledge on the subject. Especially when your views are so different to what the norm is considered to be.

I dont just post on this board to help others. I also post because others help me. You are always learning new things here. Things that can change your opinions. However, nothing you have said changes my opinion and from the posts of others, it doesnt appear to have changed theirs. So, you have your opinion and it doesn't appear to fit with anyone else who has posted. You could be the only one right. You could know more about IFAs, FAs, panels, networks, packagers than the people involved in those areas.

I have made no such implication. Insurance advice is regulated. It is regulated to a lower standard than IFA level but it is regulated.

Most IFAs dont need to spend as much as they do not have to monitor staff to the lowest common denominator and have a supervisory regime to cater for large volumes of staff. The systems and controls are easier with small firms. It has nothing to do with commission. This is also why many of the larger firms have been pulling out. They became too big to control. Some have returned with smaller restricted services as they are easier to control.

Actually, the regulatory blocks have general insurance separated in some areas and included as protection in others depending on whether it is referring to FCA, FOS or FSCS data collection.

I can only imagine that general insurance is a tiny amount with most IFAs. Maybe closer to that made up 2% of yours. It is not possible to tell whether that APFA publication includes general insurance or not as it does not say what data source is it using (it appears to use different sources throughout) However, as it says non-investment insurance, that would suggest that it is including general insurance as non-investment insurance is a phrase the FCA use on the RMAR. Either way page 8 is a much better guide than the one you used which included DIY investment firms and pension administrators.

paddyandstumpy

I'm sitting here with popcorn... let them continue if they want!!