Pension Review - Reeves IFA

sabsharpe

I have recently started to review my pension pot and have and was contacted on LinkedIn by a company called Reeves IFA (https://www.reevesifa.com/) they are 92nd on the FT Top 100 IFA list and have a TrustPilot score of 4.7 from 96 people https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.reevesifa.com
What they had to say seemed reasonable but the fact they contacted me on LinkedIn and seem to have more people from Admin and Marketing on their staff makes me a little nervous.
Some of my colleagues had been contacted by them and had either not engaged or felt like it was quite pushy sales.
I found an old thread on here from 2019 but was interested if anyone had any positive or negative experience with them? 

TVAS

You are asking the wrong question. What did they want? A Pension Review? Probably looking to make money by transferring from previous schemes. Your colleagues have done the right thing so why don't you.

eskbanker

sabsharpe said:

I have recently started to review my pension pot and have and was contacted on LinkedIn by a company called Reeves IFA

It looks like you probably omitted at least one word there, but was their approach a coincidental cold call or had you done something that led them to contact you?

dunstonh

 they are 92nd on the FT Top 100 IFA list and have a TrustPilot score of 4.7 from 96 people

I am not going to comment on a particular company but will comment on ratings/reviews etc.

The vast majority of IFAs are small localised firms with 1-5 advisers.    They will never appear on any top 100 lists as they never promote themselves to those compiling the list.   Indeed, most IFA firms carry out no advertising or promotions apart from entries on the free directories.   Some may pay small amounts to enhance an entry on a given directory.

Trustpilot is used by a minority of firms. Typically those that need to obtain business by promoting themselves via that method.   Trustpilot does not work well with financial firms as most positive reviews are left right at the start when the person is likely to be at their happiest.  Sometimes the client is encouraged/badgered to leave a review and feels obliged to be positive.    Whilst most negative reviews tend to be on legacy issues or lack of understanding.    

I looked up firms using trustpilot a year or two back and there were only a couple in the whole county.    Both of which had reputations for employing newer advisers or had high staff turnover.  So, needed every possible method to obtain business.   None of the top firms as I would rate them appeared on there as they didn't need to pay the ridiculous amounts that trustpilot costs.  

 I was contacted by one of these directory firms some years back and they wanted to take a high percentage of the fee income (a bit like Just eat and deliveroo).  We would have had to increase fees to cover it.   So, I am pretty negative with these style directories.   Although to be fair, I have the luxury of being able to be.

kuratowski

I too was recently contacted on LinkedIn by someone who claimed to be a marketing officer at a largeish firm of IFAs.  Although the firm itself checked out according to the FCA register, I had no guarantee that the individual really represented the firm stated, and in any case I take the same view as your colleagues - if they were that desperate to be randomly contacting people on LinkedIn then they are probably not very good.

If you are looking for the services of an IFA:
https://adviserbook.co.uk/
On the first page, enter your location.
On the second page, select 'Confirmed Independent'

sabsharpe

eskbanker said:

sabsharpe said:

I have recently started to review my pension pot and have and was contacted on LinkedIn by a company called Reeves IFA

It looks like you probably omitted at least one word there, but was their approach a coincidental cold call or had you done something that led them to contact you?

Apologies, multi-tasking (badly).
Reeves have a number of young "good looking" females and males who cold call contact over LinkedIn. They found me rather than the other way round.

sabsharpe

My current pension is based on 1.34% AMC which has an employee discount as should be 1.74%
Reeves wanted 1.25% transfer in (which seems reasonable)
plus 1% yearly fee + Fund AMC 0.86% + Product AMC 0.27% (Transact platform) + 0.03% Admin fee totalling 2.16% pa which seems quite high.

Albermarle

Reeves have a number of young "good looking" females and males who cold call contact over LinkedIn

Reputable companies do not cold call you about financial products . So that tells you everything .

2.16% pa which seems VERY high.

zagfles

kuratowski said:

I too was recently contacted on LinkedIn by someone who claimed to be a marketing officer at a largeish firm of IFAs.  Although the firm itself checked out according to the FCA register, I had no guarantee that the individual really represented the firm stated, and in any case I take the same view as your colleagues - if they were that desperate to be randomly contacting people on LinkedIn then they are probably not very good.

If you are looking for the services of an IFA:
https://adviserbook.co.uk/
On the first page, enter your location.
On the second page, select 'Confirmed Independent'

Another quick check you can do is search for any FO decisions against them, it's likely to be negative but if so you'll only waste 10 seconds: https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decisions-case-studies/ombudsman-decisions

If there are some could be quite revealing.

dunstonh

plus 1% yearly fee + Fund AMC 0.86% + Product AMC 0.27% (Transact platform) + 0.03% Admin fee totalling 2.16% pa which seems quite high.

Transact is a good platform.  I rate its software highly but I don't use it much.   Its aimed at very large investors and alternatives with adequate software but cheaper often come into play.   Transact have my pet hate of charging different amounts for different tax wrappers. That is unusual on the intermediary side.  Plus, they have small initial charges on fund switches/purchases. They are very small but I prefer switches/purchases to be clean of charges. 
The adviser charge at 1% is fairly common on small values nowadays.   Whereas for medium/higher values, you still see the 0.5% as the dominant figure used by advisers.  If you are at £100k, then 1% is ballpark. If you are at £500k then 0.5% is ballpark.
Transact doesn't have any insured funds. So, they won't use AMCs.   It will be OCF or TER.   0.86% suggests a fully active portfolio (rather than a passive or hybrid - passive would be about 0.1x%-0.2x%,  hybrid about 0.2x%-0.4x% .       Whether you should invest fully passive, fully active or hybrid is a matter of opinion.   However, fully active would be the most expensive way.

Most posters here tend to fully passive or hybrid. You don't see many fully active investors posting (or at least they don't say they are)

TVAS

You seem like a bright chap. 1.34% AMC is still expensive for an employer sponsored scheme however you have omitted to inform us of the fund selection and if it is active or passive. Reeves would put you into a more expensive arrangement and an ongoing adviser fee of 1% p.a. are high. 

Some employers allow you to transfer to another arrangement and remain within the scheme for future contributions if so you could get a TOTAL cost cheaper than 1.34%. This cold call via linked in enquiry should prompt you in doing further research rather than considering going with them.