IFA ongoing fee..Why pay?

BananaRepublic

Mothman said:

BananaRepublic said:

Mothman said:

I don't have a downer on IFA's perse, and no doubt my wife will need to use one should I decide to depart this mortal coil before her. However I do feel that the IFA's which regularly post on this forum are a 'cut above' those that I have so far have come into contact with. For instance my Mum's IFA has done nothing with her investments despite collecting at least £25k in fees over the last 21yrs. I guess it's easier to just collect the trail commissions\ongoing servicing fees rather than actually doing something for it.
Like all professions there will be good,bad & just plain lazy IFA's like my Mum's, the hard part seems to be finding the good ones.

How well did your mum’s investments do? I’m sure you are right, some will be good, some not. 

Some are not great. The IFA chose 3 onshore investment bonds (Pru, Aviva & Scot Widows) all With Profits Funds . The Pru bond performance has been acceptable but the Aviva & Scot Widows has been poor, for instance Mum just received a valuation for the Aviva bond and value is the same as it was in Feb 2019. Also the IFA has made no effort  to move the investments from tax paying investment bonds into ISA's, the usual tax advantages of investment bonds don't apply to Mum as she has never been a higher rate tax payer.

The rest of the money was put in a Canada Life Intl offshore investment bond (in trust), this was chosen at the time for IHT mitigation purposes which was fair enough. The bond is invested in four funds, currently split approx 80% equities (43% Europe, 25% UK, 6% USA, 6% R.O.W,) & 20% Bonds (majority corporate). From Jun 2012 - Jun 2020 perfomance has largely been in line with VLS80 but since Jun 2020 it has outperformed VLS80 mainly due to the volatile European fund. Trustnet portfolio risk score = 70 (VLS80=64), the risk profile of the portfolio has ramped up over the years as no rebalancing has ever been done

Not bothering to move funds into ISA’s is shocking, it suggests he doesn’t give a damn. Some years back I discovered I had been paying 1% a year from a fund to an advisor for nothing, that was back in the days when hidden commissions were allowed, it cost me thousands. Such disreputable practices were widespread. These days they are supposed to work for a living. 

NottinghamKnight

BananaRepublic said:

Mothman said:

BananaRepublic said:

Mothman said:

I don't have a downer on IFA's perse, and no doubt my wife will need to use one should I decide to depart this mortal coil before her. However I do feel that the IFA's which regularly post on this forum are a 'cut above' those that I have so far have come into contact with. For instance my Mum's IFA has done nothing with her investments despite collecting at least £25k in fees over the last 21yrs. I guess it's easier to just collect the trail commissions\ongoing servicing fees rather than actually doing something for it.
Like all professions there will be good,bad & just plain lazy IFA's like my Mum's, the hard part seems to be finding the good ones.

How well did your mum’s investments do? I’m sure you are right, some will be good, some not. 

Some are not great. The IFA chose 3 onshore investment bonds (Pru, Aviva & Scot Widows) all With Profits Funds . The Pru bond performance has been acceptable but the Aviva & Scot Widows has been poor, for instance Mum just received a valuation for the Aviva bond and value is the same as it was in Feb 2019. Also the IFA has made no effort  to move the investments from tax paying investment bonds into ISA's, the usual tax advantages of investment bonds don't apply to Mum as she has never been a higher rate tax payer.

The rest of the money was put in a Canada Life Intl offshore investment bond (in trust), this was chosen at the time for IHT mitigation purposes which was fair enough. The bond is invested in four funds, currently split approx 80% equities (43% Europe, 25% UK, 6% USA, 6% R.O.W,) & 20% Bonds (majority corporate). From Jun 2012 - Jun 2020 perfomance has largely been in line with VLS80 but since Jun 2020 it has outperformed VLS80 mainly due to the volatile European fund. Trustnet portfolio risk score = 70 (VLS80=64), the risk profile of the portfolio has ramped up over the years as no rebalancing has ever been done

Not bothering to move funds into ISA’s is shocking, it suggests he doesn’t give a damn. Some years back I discovered I had been paying 1% a year from a fund to an advisor for nothing, that was back in the days when hidden commissions were allowed, it cost me thousands. Such disreputable practices were widespread. These days they are supposed to work for a living. 

Though the real lesson is to keep an eye on things and not trust anyone else, sadly.

BananaRepublic

NottinghamKnight said:

BananaRepublic said:

Mothman said:

BananaRepublic said:

Mothman said:

I don't have a downer on IFA's perse, and no doubt my wife will need to use one should I decide to depart this mortal coil before her. However I do feel that the IFA's which regularly post on this forum are a 'cut above' those that I have so far have come into contact with. For instance my Mum's IFA has done nothing with her investments despite collecting at least £25k in fees over the last 21yrs. I guess it's easier to just collect the trail commissions\ongoing servicing fees rather than actually doing something for it.
Like all professions there will be good,bad & just plain lazy IFA's like my Mum's, the hard part seems to be finding the good ones.

How well did your mum’s investments do? I’m sure you are right, some will be good, some not. 

Some are not great. The IFA chose 3 onshore investment bonds (Pru, Aviva & Scot Widows) all With Profits Funds . The Pru bond performance has been acceptable but the Aviva & Scot Widows has been poor, for instance Mum just received a valuation for the Aviva bond and value is the same as it was in Feb 2019. Also the IFA has made no effort  to move the investments from tax paying investment bonds into ISA's, the usual tax advantages of investment bonds don't apply to Mum as she has never been a higher rate tax payer.

The rest of the money was put in a Canada Life Intl offshore investment bond (in trust), this was chosen at the time for IHT mitigation purposes which was fair enough. The bond is invested in four funds, currently split approx 80% equities (43% Europe, 25% UK, 6% USA, 6% R.O.W,) & 20% Bonds (majority corporate). From Jun 2012 - Jun 2020 perfomance has largely been in line with VLS80 but since Jun 2020 it has outperformed VLS80 mainly due to the volatile European fund. Trustnet portfolio risk score = 70 (VLS80=64), the risk profile of the portfolio has ramped up over the years as no rebalancing has ever been done

Not bothering to move funds into ISA’s is shocking, it suggests he doesn’t give a damn. Some years back I discovered I had been paying 1% a year from a fund to an advisor for nothing, that was back in the days when hidden commissions were allowed, it cost me thousands. Such disreputable practices were widespread. These days they are supposed to work for a living. 

Though the real lesson is to keep an eye on things and not trust anyone else, sadly.

That is certainly a lesson, but I still consider the practice disreputable and it is surely part of the reason many distrust finance professionals.  

Cus

BananaRepublic said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

An IFA comparing themselves to a surgeon is the funniest thing I have read on this site so far this year.

Exactly, only a clown would make such a comparison. 

No one directly compared an IFA to a surgeon as that is ridiculous.  However quoting numbers like 4-6 for IFA, 4-7 for medical is very misleading.  (Oh, a 7, that's only one more than a 6...)  Does not take into account the selection policy, length of study, difficulty etc.

A teacher who gains a PGCE (like first year after a degree) is a level 7 qualification.  Having personally seen the standard that some people are with that, makes me think a multi year studied level 6 IFA gets a bad rep..

I work with a number of people with a level 8 qualification (PhD) who imo just sit there for a career wasting their brains writing software code for financial companies.
You can be an IFA with a level 4 allegedly. One level above an A level and 2 below a BSc.  It's all meaningless.

dunstonh

The_Green_Hornet said:

An IFA comparing themselves to a surgeon is the funniest thing I have read on this site so far this year.

If I was to compare them to any profession it would be a horse racing tipster.

I know.  I don't know why BananaRepublic even tried to.

If I was to compare them to any profession it would be a horse racing tipster.

That bit doesn't make any sense in comparison though.

cloud_dog

Guys and gals, I think it was myself that commented on a doctor, although I probably should have specified General Practitioner (for my personal experiences),  but, like everything on t'internet it has been taken out of its meaning to meet other peoples perspectives. 

I think my comment related to the 'trust' in a doctor and the 'oversight' of said professional (via the GMC).  I stand by both in relation to this discussion based on my own experiences, both work related and personal. 

BananaRepublic

dunstonh said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

An IFA comparing themselves to a surgeon is the funniest thing I have read on this site so far this year.

If I was to compare them to any profession it would be a horse racing tipster.

I know.  I don't know why BananaRepublic even tried to.

I said no such thing. You claimed that an IFA qualification is close to that of a medical degree as an IFA qualification is level 4-6 whereas a medical degree is level 4-7. Yeah right. Such ridiculous remarks make you look like a clown.

As an aside, I have a PhD in physics, and although I can use the title Dr, I would never compare myself to a medical doctor. The level of training simply does not compare.

dunstonh

BananaRepublic said:

dunstonh said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

An IFA comparing themselves to a surgeon is the funniest thing I have read on this site so far this year.

If I was to compare them to any profession it would be a horse racing tipster.

I know.  I don't know why BananaRepublic even tried to.

I said no such thing. You claimed that an IFA qualification is close to that of a medical degree as an IFA qualification is level 4-6 whereas a medical degree is level 4-7. Yeah right. Such ridiculous remarks make you look like a clown.

That was just stating the levels.  Virtually all qualifications in all professions work to that scale.
You were the one that brought up the medical profession in your post of 16 January at 10:19AM.  I replied to your post.  I was actually wrong on the level 7 front. They go up to level 8 but then an IFA can have level 8 qualifications as well. As can anyone in the country if they put their mind to it.      You could work in Mcdonalds and have a level 8 qualification.
The levels are a basis of fact. I don't set the levels but they are meant to be broadly similar relative to the subject.   And as mentioned higher up, there is a lot of difference in how you get to those levels and much debate on the value of some over others.

BananaRepublic

dunstonh said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

An IFA comparing themselves to a surgeon is the funniest thing I have read on this site so far this year.

If I was to compare them to any profession it would be a horse racing tipster.

I know.  I don't know why BananaRepublic even tried to.

I quote:

dunstonh said:

 So not trivial by any means, but not at all comparable to a medical degree.

having had a quick look at medical qualifications, they have the same level 4 minimum but go up to level 7 depending on the area of speciality.  So, they share the same base level but can rise to one level higher.       For the general public, there isn't a need to for financial to go to level 6 or higher.    A lot of advisers nowadays have modules from level 6 that compliment their business rather than getting all the modules from level 6.  

Hohum. Why be dishonest?

dunstonh

BananaRepublic said:

dunstonh said:

The_Green_Hornet said:

An IFA comparing themselves to a surgeon is the funniest thing I have read on this site so far this year.

If I was to compare them to any profession it would be a horse racing tipster.

I know.  I don't know why BananaRepublic even tried to.

I quote:

dunstonh said:

 So not trivial by any means, but not at all comparable to a medical degree.

having had a quick look at medical qualifications, they have the same level 4 minimum but go up to level 7 depending on the area of speciality.  So, they share the same base level but can rise to one level higher.       For the general public, there isn't a need to for financial to go to level 6 or higher.    A lot of advisers nowadays have modules from level 6 that compliment their business rather than getting all the modules from level 6.  

Hohum. Why be dishonest?

Please explain how it is dishonest?    I am open minded to be corrected but I visited a website that gave the levels for various medical roles and they gave 4-7 as the range required.  If you have more accurate information then please give it.  Maybe you should clarify the role as there is a large range and the requirements at the upper end of the medical professions are significantly higher than at the lower end.