ifa moving to True Potential

[Deleted User]

Deleted_User said:

ZingPowZing said:

Deleted_User said:

fred246 said:

Unfortunately IFAs are not very professional. Lacking in the ethics and morals department. It normally takes action by regulators to end their scams.

This is unfair. They are the same humans as everyone else and respond to incentives.   What their clients need to realize is that advisers are meant to advise and that they can be good and bad, same as with other professions.  People need to take responsibility for decisions.  In general, for routine pension investments  cutting out the intermediaries is financially smart but sometimes advice is needed. In all cases clients need to have enough understanding to make an informed decision. 

But it's not as simple as advisers advise/ clients decide because, what is the point of retaining an adviser unless you defer to him?
You're right, Mordko, to say that the buck stops with the individual: it does. But most advisers know very well that their clients expect them to do a better job than the client would do for himself. That is the basis of their relationship. The adviser generally has no problem with this because he gets paid regardless. 
Secondly, most advisers are quite engaging people. I can't speak for grinch53 but those I have known on a short term basis have been very personable. Their clients trust them. They come to their clients' houses. They build a rapport that sustains a long term relationship. So when an adviser says  "Moving to True Potential would be a good move for you" that advice may well be coming from someone the client considers almost to be a trusted friend of the family.

Converting a DB pension to a market-based investment is one example when the advice is totally warranted.
.............................
They did a study in the US when doctors were rewarded for doing a particular type of operation. The number of operations of this type skyrocketed. Then it went down again when the incentive was removed. 

How can you reconcile yourself to both positions?. Because advisers, having been appointed gatekeepers to DB pension transfers, are making decisions in their own interest.

[Deleted User]

ZingPowZing said:

Deleted_User said:

ZingPowZing said:

Deleted_User said:

fred246 said:

Unfortunately IFAs are not very professional. Lacking in the ethics and morals department. It normally takes action by regulators to end their scams.

This is unfair. They are the same humans as everyone else and respond to incentives.   What their clients need to realize is that advisers are meant to advise and that they can be good and bad, same as with other professions.  People need to take responsibility for decisions.  In general, for routine pension investments  cutting out the intermediaries is financially smart but sometimes advice is needed. In all cases clients need to have enough understanding to make an informed decision. 

But it's not as simple as advisers advise/ clients decide because, what is the point of retaining an adviser unless you defer to him?
You're right, Mordko, to say that the buck stops with the individual: it does. But most advisers know very well that their clients expect them to do a better job than the client would do for himself. That is the basis of their relationship. The adviser generally has no problem with this because he gets paid regardless. 
Secondly, most advisers are quite engaging people. I can't speak for grinch53 but those I have known on a short term basis have been very personable. Their clients trust them. They come to their clients' houses. They build a rapport that sustains a long term relationship. So when an adviser says  "Moving to True Potential would be a good move for you" that advice may well be coming from someone the client considers almost to be a trusted friend of the family.

Converting a DB pension to a market-based investment is one example when the advice is totally warranted.
.............................
They did a study in the US when doctors were rewarded for doing a particular type of operation. The number of operations of this type skyrocketed. Then it went down again when the incentive was removed. 

How can you reconcile yourself to both positions?. Because advisers, having been appointed gatekeepers to DB pension transfers, have made decisions in their own interest.

You listen. Get the adviser to provide all options, advantages and disadvantages. All the facts. Then double check from other sources. Then decide. I do not accept that someone else should be making any decisions on what to do with my money as long as I have my faculties. 

[Deleted User]

Deleted_User said:

ZingPowZing said:

Deleted_User said:

ZingPowZing said:

Deleted_User said:

fred246 said:

Unfortunately IFAs are not very professional. Lacking in the ethics and morals department. It normally takes action by regulators to end their scams.

This is unfair. They are the same humans as everyone else and respond to incentives.   What their clients need to realize is that advisers are meant to advise and that they can be good and bad, same as with other professions.  People need to take responsibility for decisions.  In general, for routine pension investments  cutting out the intermediaries is financially smart but sometimes advice is needed. In all cases clients need to have enough understanding to make an informed decision. 

But it's not as simple as advisers advise/ clients decide because, what is the point of retaining an adviser unless you defer to him?
You're right, Mordko, to say that the buck stops with the individual: it does. But most advisers know very well that their clients expect them to do a better job than the client would do for himself. That is the basis of their relationship. The adviser generally has no problem with this because he gets paid regardless. 
Secondly, most advisers are quite engaging people. I can't speak for grinch53 but those I have known on a short term basis have been very personable. Their clients trust them. They come to their clients' houses. They build a rapport that sustains a long term relationship. So when an adviser says  "Moving to True Potential would be a good move for you" that advice may well be coming from someone the client considers almost to be a trusted friend of the family.

Converting a DB pension to a market-based investment is one example when the advice is totally warranted.
.............................
They did a study in the US when doctors were rewarded for doing a particular type of operation. The number of operations of this type skyrocketed. Then it went down again when the incentive was removed. 

How can you reconcile yourself to both positions?. Because advisers, having been appointed gatekeepers to DB pension transfers, have made decisions in their own interest.

You listen. Get the adviser to provide all options, advantages and disadvantages. All the facts. Then double check from other sources. Then decide. I do not accept that someone else should be making any decisions on what to do with my money as long as I have my faculties. 

So, would you say the same to patients in the case of the incentivised operations you cited?  Or just those patients in full possession of their faculties?

[Deleted User]

Yep. Get a second opinion for anything important. Read up. Ask lots of questions. 

[Deleted User]

Deleted_User said:

Yep. Get a second opinion for anything important. Read up. Ask lots of questions. 

When you're on the operating table? It's your fault if the procedure is not in your interest?

Malthusian

Deleted_User said:

They did a study in the US when doctors were rewarded for doing a particular type of operation. The number of operations of this type skyrocketed. Then it went down again when the incentive was removed.

That doesn't mean the operations were inappropriate. The extra operations may have been appropriate for the patients but not worthwhile for the doctors until the incentive. And there is no duty on doctors to carry out operations if they can't make a living by doing so.

How many of the doctors studied were sanctioned for malpractice after the study ended?

If you dramatically increased the commission payable for life insurance then sales would improve significantly, not just as intermediaries flogged life insurance to more people, but more of them entered the market. The number of policies missold as a result would be miniscule if not zero, given how much of the population is underinsured.

It's even more academic in the UK where commission is banned and advisers charge whatever they want to charge for whatever they want to offer, so carrying out that kind of study in the advised financial services market would be illegal.

zagfles

Malthusian said:

Deleted_User said:

They did a study in the US when doctors were rewarded for doing a particular type of operation. The number of operations of this type skyrocketed. Then it went down again when the incentive was removed.

That doesn't mean the operations were inappropriate. The extra operations may have been appropriate for the patients but not worthwhile for the doctors until the incentive. And there is no duty on doctors to carry out operations if they can't make a living by doing so.

How many of the doctors studied were sanctioned for malpractice after the study ended?

If you dramatically increased the commission payable for life insurance then sales would improve significantly, not just as intermediaries flogged life insurance to more people, but more of them entered the market. The number of policies missold as a result would be miniscule if not zero, given how much of the population is underinsured.

It's even more academic in the UK where commission is banned and advisers charge whatever they want to charge for whatever they want to offer, so carrying out that kind of study in the advised financial services market would be illegal.

Really? Is that what banks thought about PPI? Look up the Plevin ruling, it was a mis-sale purely because of the level of commission, even if the insurance was appropriate.

zagfles

Deleted_User said:

ZingPowZing said:

Deleted_User said:

ZingPowZing said:

Deleted_User said:

fred246 said:

Unfortunately IFAs are not very professional. Lacking in the ethics and morals department. It normally takes action by regulators to end their scams.

This is unfair. They are the same humans as everyone else and respond to incentives.   What their clients need to realize is that advisers are meant to advise and that they can be good and bad, same as with other professions.  People need to take responsibility for decisions.  In general, for routine pension investments  cutting out the intermediaries is financially smart but sometimes advice is needed. In all cases clients need to have enough understanding to make an informed decision. 

But it's not as simple as advisers advise/ clients decide because, what is the point of retaining an adviser unless you defer to him?
You're right, Mordko, to say that the buck stops with the individual: it does. But most advisers know very well that their clients expect them to do a better job than the client would do for himself. That is the basis of their relationship. The adviser generally has no problem with this because he gets paid regardless. 
Secondly, most advisers are quite engaging people. I can't speak for grinch53 but those I have known on a short term basis have been very personable. Their clients trust them. They come to their clients' houses. They build a rapport that sustains a long term relationship. So when an adviser says  "Moving to True Potential would be a good move for you" that advice may well be coming from someone the client considers almost to be a trusted friend of the family.

Converting a DB pension to a market-based investment is one example when the advice is totally warranted.
.............................
They did a study in the US when doctors were rewarded for doing a particular type of operation. The number of operations of this type skyrocketed. Then it went down again when the incentive was removed. 

How can you reconcile yourself to both positions?. Because advisers, having been appointed gatekeepers to DB pension transfers, have made decisions in their own interest.

You listen. Get the adviser to provide all options, advantages and disadvantages. All the facts. Then double check from other sources. Then decide. I do not accept that someone else should be making any decisions on what to do with my money as long as I have my faculties. 

Indeed - and never trust a solitarity person to give the correct information just because they've got a qualification, or you think you have some sort of comeback if they give you incorrect information. We've seen loads of examples here of IFAs getting things wrong, both directly and indirectly. Double/triple check anything important.

[Deleted User]

Malthusian said:

Deleted_User said:

They did a study in the US when doctors were rewarded for doing a particular type of operation. The number of operations of this type skyrocketed. Then it went down again when the incentive was removed.

It's even more academic in the UK where commission is banned and advisers charge whatever they want to charge for whatever they want to offer, so carrying out that kind of study in the advised financial services market would be illegal.

You could study how often IFAs recommended commuting DB pension before and after penalties were introduced. Or how often advisers approaching retirement have advised their clients that moving to True Potential would be in their best interest.  Or how often advisers are putting their clients’ money into platforms which require an adviser to act as an intermediary on a permanent basis.  Or how often they set up portfolios which are far too complex and make it more difficult to manage by yourself.  Conversely, how often do they tell the clients that charges imposed by intermediaries on an ongoing basis are not in their clients’ best interest?  I could go on but you get the drift. 

Mickey666

Deleted_User said:

ZingPowZing said:

Deleted_User said:

ZingPowZing said:

Deleted_User said:

fred246 said:

Unfortunately IFAs are not very professional. Lacking in the ethics and morals department. It normally takes action by regulators to end their scams.

This is unfair. They are the same humans as everyone else and respond to incentives.   What their clients need to realize is that advisers are meant to advise and that they can be good and bad, same as with other professions.  People need to take responsibility for decisions.  In general, for routine pension investments  cutting out the intermediaries is financially smart but sometimes advice is needed. In all cases clients need to have enough understanding to make an informed decision. 

But it's not as simple as advisers advise/ clients decide because, what is the point of retaining an adviser unless you defer to him?
You're right, Mordko, to say that the buck stops with the individual: it does. But most advisers know very well that their clients expect them to do a better job than the client would do for himself. That is the basis of their relationship. The adviser generally has no problem with this because he gets paid regardless. 
Secondly, most advisers are quite engaging people. I can't speak for grinch53 but those I have known on a short term basis have been very personable. Their clients trust them. They come to their clients' houses. They build a rapport that sustains a long term relationship. So when an adviser says  "Moving to True Potential would be a good move for you" that advice may well be coming from someone the client considers almost to be a trusted friend of the family.

Converting a DB pension to a market-based investment is one example when the advice is totally warranted.
.............................
They did a study in the US when doctors were rewarded for doing a particular type of operation. The number of operations of this type skyrocketed. Then it went down again when the incentive was removed. 

How can you reconcile yourself to both positions?. Because advisers, having been appointed gatekeepers to DB pension transfers, have made decisions in their own interest.

You listen. Get the adviser to provide all options, advantages and disadvantages. All the facts. Then double check from other sources. Then decide. I do not accept that someone else should be making any decisions on what to do with my money as long as I have my faculties. 

I agree.  It's called taking responsibility.