S&S ISA by financial advisor - opinions needed

chrisgg

bostonerimus wrote: »

Yes, comparing portfolios is a pretty fruitless task unless it is done on large enough samples so that the statistics become meaningful. However, the OP has been sold a pretty bog standard portfolio and is paying 2% for it. I think that's an outrageous waste of money and that maybe the IFA took a bit of advantage or even worse that's just how they do business and they actually believe they are providing good service.........

Out of interest, what do you expect the IFA to be doing in order to provide a 'good service'?

bostonerimus

chrisgg wrote: »

Out of interest, what do you expect the IFA to be doing in order to provide a 'good service'?

Simple, cut the fees. They have presumably listened to the customer and put them in a considered asset allocation. All good things, but not at a total cost of 2% per year. I do that for myself at a total cost of less than 0.1% per year.

Fatbritabroad

ValiantSon wrote: »

Whatever.

"Snake oil - noun
a product, policy, etc. of little real worth or value that is promoted as the solution to a problem."

What I said isn't false, it is an opinion. It also isn't ignorant. You disagree and that is fine, but I didn't insult you for disagreeing and you did. Your behaviour was childish.

Linton wrote: »

I think you may have missed a key difference between the funds. A difference that leads me to believe that the VLS60 fund is the more risky in its bond allocation. HSBC is very high in Corporate Bonds at the moment. At some point in the future the figures could be quite different. VLS60 doesnt have the choice as to its bond allocation. It is what it is.

At the moment safe government bonds are at extremely high prices. So high that people question whether they would be better off leaving the money in cash as the bond prices have little room to go higher and a very high likelihood of falling significantly at some time. So in my view a tactical move into lower risk corporate bonds and property makes a lot of sense at the moment. As does the Brewin Dolphin's use of Absolute Return funds. As and when interest rates rise, as they must do, the actively managed funds can change their allocation. VLSxx will carry on blindly.

This is pretty much why I went for Vls 100. Accepting the volatility that brings. I have my emergency fund and am building up further funds in my companies Saye schemes which I'll split between cash and my isa when they come up

BananaRepublic

bostonerimus wrote: »

Simple, cut the fees. They have presumably listened to the customer and put them in a considered asset allocation. All good things, but not at a total cost of 2% per year. I do that for myself at a total cost of less than 0.1% per year.

They aren’t paying 2% a year. That was the initial charge, perhaps expensive but an IFA would need to comment on that. The ongoing management fee is actually 0.75%, which is more than an IFA thought reasonable i.e, 0.5%.

BananaRepublic

ValiantSon wrote: »

Whatever.

"Snake oil - noun
a product, policy, etc. of little real worth or value that is promoted as the solution to a problem."

What I said isn't false, it is an opinion. It also isn't ignorant. You disagree and that is fine, but I didn't insult you for disagreeing and you did. Your behaviour was childish.

Grow up. You can’t go round describing the IFA’s advice as snake oil - a very defamatory term - and then have a hissy fit when someone criticises you. Your remarks were ignorant.

The fund is not unreasonable, although the ongoing charge is higher than it should be.

ValiantSon

BananaRepublic wrote: »

Grow up. You can’t go round describing the IFA’s advice as snake oil - a very defamatory term - and then have a hissy fit when someone criticises you. Your remarks were ignorant.

The fund is not unreasonable, although the ongoing charge is higher than it should be.

I call you childish (for being childish in your comments), you tell me to grow up. This isn't really getting us anywhere is it? You have a lot of valuable points to make and contribute, and I regularly click "Thanks" for your posts. You do also, however, have a habit of being rude to people who you disagree with (I have seen many such posts from you) and now it is my turn. You don't seem able to accept that not everyone sees things your way and refuse to accept that others can have a different opinion from you.

I didn't throw a "hissy fit" at any point. I called you out on your rudeness. These are not the same thing.

I stand by what I said, and have given a very clear definition of "snake oil" which fits with my use of the term. You don't agree with me, and I'm fine with that, but you just can't seem to bring yourself to behave like a grown up and agree to differ. Instead you have resorted to playground taunts and telling me to, "grow up". This is ironic, as I am not the one who has made insulting and childish comments.

And still you can't leave it alone. Your desperate need to dominate people and always win is very sad.

I get that you don't agree with me, but your manner is obnoxious in expressing that disagreement. If you had said something like, "I don't really agree with you that it is snake oil because x, y, z," then I would have accepted that, and possibly engaged in a discussion with you about it. Sadly, you didn't take the approach of engaging in a rational discussion, but instead chose to try and belittle me for holding a different view from you with your comment, "In which case you don’t know what you are talking about." That was it; that was all that you had to say. You resorted to insult, rather than discussion, and this is why I say that you behaved childishly.

I'd like to say that it has been interesting talking with you and that our discussion has been illuminating, even if we still disagreed, but sadly I can't. It hasn't been either nice or illuminating. I know that you will be desperate to make some further comment where you accuse me of being ignorant and needing to grow up because you just have to have the last word. Feel free if it makes you feel better; I'm not going to continue with this because it isn't edifying.

I just wanted you to be aware what I think of your behaviour (and not just in this instance). You are clearly intelligent, but you are also rude, obnoxious and a bully.

jamesperrett

BananaRepublic wrote: »

They aren’t paying 2% a year.

If you read back through the thread you will see that the total annual charges including fund and platform charges amount to 2% a year.

BananaRepublic

ValiantSon wrote: »

I call you childish (for being childish in your comments), you tell me to grow up. This isn't really getting us anywhere is it? You have a lot of valuable points to make and contribute, and I regularly click "Thanks" for your posts. You do also, however, have a habit of being rude to people who you disagree with (I have seen many such posts from you) and now it is my turn. You don't seem able to accept that not everyone sees things your way and refuse to accept that others can have a different opinion from you.

I didn't throw a "hissy fit" at any point. I called you out on your rudeness. These are not the same thing.

I stand by what I said, and have given a very clear definition of "snake oil" which fits with my use of the term. You don't agree with me, and I'm fine with that, but you just can't seem to bring yourself to behave like a grown up and agree to differ. Instead you have resorted to playground taunts and telling me to, "grow up". This is ironic, as I am not the one who has made insulting and childish comments.

And still you can't leave it alone. Your desperate need to dominate people and always win is very sad.

I get that you don't agree with me, but your manner is obnoxious in expressing that disagreement. If you had said something like, "I don't really agree with you that it is snake oil because x, y, z," then I would have accepted that, and possibly engaged in a discussion with you about it. Sadly, you didn't take the approach of engaging in a rational discussion, but instead chose to try and belittle me for holding a different view from you with your comment, "In which case you don’t know what you are talking about." That was it; that was all that you had to say. You resorted to insult, rather than discussion, and this is why I say that you behaved childishly.

I'd like to say that it has been interesting talking with you and that our discussion has been illuminating, even if we still disagreed, but sadly I can't. It hasn't been either nice or illuminating. I know that you will be desperate to make some further comment where you accuse me of being ignorant and needing to grow up because you just have to have the last word. Feel free if it makes you feel better; I'm not going to continue with this because it isn't edifying.

I just wanted you to be aware what I think of your behaviour (and not just in this instance). You are clearly intelligent, but you are also rude, obnoxious and a bully.

Your use of the term ‘snake oil’ is derogatory. That is not an opinion, it is a fact. In reality the IFA was doing his job, the fund was reasonable, the ongoing charges were a bit high. In no way can that be fairly or reasonably described as snake oil. Of course you might think he could have chosen better funds, however you are not party to the information he used to make his decision. It isn’t just a case of “oh, I don’t know, let’s throw in fund X cos I like it”. The profession is highly regulated, he has to asses the client’s risk profile, and their desired outcome, taking into account their age, and other assets, then he has to create a portfolio. And he has to keep records in case of future complaints.

Just because you think you can do better does not mean the advice was snake oil. The nature of this world is that you pay for knowledge and experience.

So yes I do think your use of the term ‘snake oil’ is ignorant. If you don’t like that, then perhaps you should in future use more measured and less abusive language. Boston clearly is not impressed by the IFA but he puts forward quite reasonable views, for which I have some sympathy.

BananaRepublic

jamesperrett wrote: »

If you read back through the thread you will see that the total annual charges including fund and platform charges amount to 2% a year.

Boston was asked to say how the IFA could improve his service. Hence saying cut their fees, and quoting 2% was misleading.

As an aside, I like many here hold active funds, which charge the best part of 1% annually. Of course we could go off onto the active versus passive debate, but that is a whole new discussion.

Fatbritabroad

Shall I start a new discussion thread entitled 'is bananarepublic childish and does valiant son need to grow up? '