WEALTH at work?

cfw1994

Wondering if anyone has recent experience with this firm of financial advisors?
A search showed me they have done a lot in the past with BT (curiously enough, after the Pension Planning Bigwig at BT moved to them 🧐)

Helping a relative with some pension stuff....they had W@W visit their local authority, and sat online with them on a followup virtual visit (which was info gathering).
It wasn't made clear that W@W are FAs, not IFAs - I discovered this afterwards - which raises big question marks to me,,, 

They have another chat in December, and have sent a hefty 54-page document 🤪  I've had a first-pass skim read for light Sunday entertainment.....

My relative has a reasonable authority pension, which W@W rightly suggest not touching, plus they also have a sub-£100k DC pot.

W@W recommend transferring that DC pot to the W@W SIPP to "take advantage of the discretionary managed portfolio service".
Their conclusion showed a comparison with the relatives existing Aviva DC pot....with a low/med/high forecast.....
....but all three forecasts show their SIPP results as being lower than Aviva!

Given they charge a hefty 2% initial transfer, then over 1.5% +VAT annual (versus the 0.875% Aviva all-in costs), their tied solution would need to make serious headway over the Aviva fund (which has behaved well enough in recent years.
I'm thinking the next stage will be to say "thanks, but cheerio", but wondered if anyone had anything good to say about them, or indeed any searching questions to ask them!

dunstonh

Given they charge a hefty 2% initial transfer, then over 1.5% +VAT annual (versus the 0.875% Aviva all-in costs), their tied solution would need to make serious headway over the Aviva fund (which has behaved well enough in recent years.

There should be no VAT.    DFMs used to have VAT but that was abolished last year.   If they are still charging VAT then it suggests a slow reaction to changes.   

<div>Their conclusion showed a comparison with the relatives existing Aviva DC pot....with a low/med/high forecast.....</div><div>....but all three forecasts show their SIPP results as being lower than Aviva!</div>

It is a requirement to cost compare.   Projections using identical growth rates is a good way to compare the impact of charges.   If the difference is small and you feel the investment portfolio of the alternative is better then it can be viable.  If the difference is large then would the alternative be likely to make up that difference?

The general rule of thumb here is that you should either use an IFA or DIY.  Not use an FA.

MallyGirl

W@W are offered by my employer - I have the 1st free session this week. I will listen because they might mention something useful but I have no intention of giving them any of my money

zagfles

Other general rule of thumb is if your employer, or even your union, offer a session with a financial advice company, treat it like any other sales spiel. Maybe take notes, ask questions, learn stuff, but shop around and see if you can get better value elsewhere. I suspect in most cases the employer/union has been paid by the IFA/FA company for the opportunity to give staff a sales spiel, but maybe I'm too cynical.

Friend of mine works for a LA with an excellent DB pension, and his LA got an IFA in, their sales message was if they want to retire early they should consider investing with them rather than AVCs, because AVCs can only be taken at the same time as the main pension and they'd suffer high early retirement factors if they took it early. Which is true, so that message was right, but the product they were offering was high charge. He questioned this and got some vague performance examples verbally, but which they wouldn't put in writing! Says it all!

Clueless56

Yes, I had a session with them also through the LA I work for.  I didn't like the hard sell tactics, avoidance of questions I asked and refusal to send me any of the examples that were shown to me on screen during the online meeting.  Their charges are very high and the salesman/FA didn't give a credible explanation as to why I should pay so much more than currently.  What he quoted was more than 2.5 times what I pay my current DC platform yet he kept downplaying that: 'for a small amount more...'.  The whole experience made me feel so uncomfortable I wouldn't have been surprised if it had turned out to be a scam.  (It is a bona fide company.)  I would recommend giving this outfit a wide berth.

Albermarle

What he quoted was more than 2.5 times what I pay my current DC platform yet he kept downplaying that:

No doubt you made the right decision but to be fair you can not compare with what you pay for a DC platform and a package from an advisor.

DIY investor - platform + investments costs - can be anything from 0.1% to 1.5%

Advisor cost + platform + investments costs - can be anything from 1% to 2% , or even a bit more for the really expensive ones.

However in  the second case you get professional advice , which does not come for free .

There are arguments  for and against paying for advice , but one thing is for sure , it will never be free . So it is not a direct comparison .

Clueless56

Thank you, Albermarle, I agree with you to an extent.  The trouble was that he couldn't give a good account of what added value I would get for my money.  His advice was rather vague and the investment options seemed limited; also, he wouldn't discuss the VAT or the trading charges that I would have to sign to agree to up front yet he kept trying to wave away as not being relevant.  After much pressing from me, he agreed that he couldn't beat the performance my investments already had and that all I would get extra would be chats with him twice per year, where presumably he wouldn't answer more of my questions.  It didn't seem worth any extra money to me, so I thanked him and walked away.  I have no problem with paying for professional advice but he didn't convince me he was going to give me any.  He seemed uncomfortable that I'd read the whole 50-page blurb he had sent me and had prepared specific questions.

Alexland

MallyGirl said:

W@W are offered by my employer - I have the 1st free session this week.

Are you even told about the commercial relationship between your employer and this provider? Are W@W somehow paying for a steady stream of juicy lambs? 

cfw1994

dunstonh said:

Given they charge a hefty 2% initial transfer, then over 1.5% +VAT annual (versus the 0.875% Aviva all-in costs), their tied solution would need to make serious headway over the Aviva fund (which has behaved well enough in recent years.

There should be no VAT.    DFMs used to have VAT but that was abolished last year.   If they are still charging VAT then it suggests a slow reaction to changes.   

Their conclusion showed a comparison with the relatives existing Aviva DC pot....with a low/med/high forecast.....

....but all three forecasts show their SIPP results as being lower than Aviva!

It is a requirement to cost compare.   Projections using identical growth rates is a good way to compare the impact of charges.   If the difference is small and you feel the investment portfolio of the alternative is better then it can be viable.  If the difference is large then would the alternative be likely to make up that difference?

The general rule of thumb here is that you should either use an IFA or DIY.  Not use an FA.

I guess the cost-compare is to their serious detriment here: shows us that with them, my relative would be worse off, and then says "I conclude you should allow us to manage your money" 🤣

VAT is most definitely shown (with my comment on the right!):

I also VERY firmly agree with your last line - already told my relative this after sitting on their first call a couple of months back.

Clueless56 said:

Yes, I had a session with them also through the LA I work for.  I didn't like the hard sell tactics, avoidance of questions I asked and refusal to send me any of the examples that were shown to me on screen during the online meeting.  Their charges are very high and the salesman/FA didn't give a credible explanation as to why I should pay so much more than currently.  What he quoted was more than 2.5 times what I pay my current DC platform yet he kept downplaying that: 'for a small amount more...'.  The whole experience made me feel so uncomfortable I wouldn't have been surprised if it had turned out to be a scam.  (It is a bona fide company.)  I would recommend giving this outfit a wide berth.

I have to say he had a reasonable manner, & didn't particularly hide things: I didn't get a feeling of "scam" about it....
....but we have established they are worth avoiding already: charges way too high, no clear reason as to WHY to use them at all!

Alexland said:

MallyGirl said:

W@W are offered by my employer - I have the 1st free session this week.

Are you even told about the commercial relationship between your employer and this provider? Are W@W somehow paying for a steady stream of juicy lambs? 

I do wonder about that: I did read older messages referencing BT a lot....& a short dig showed, lo & behold, that they had taken on someone very senior who had, funnily enough, been the Pension Planner at BT....hmmmm, juicy lambs indeed  👀


Thanks for all the comments!

Ibrahim5

It's the same with all these 'advisers' whether FA or IFA. You want what's best for you and the adviser wants what's best for him. So there's a conflict of interests. Ideally the adviser should say "I am too expensive. Go with someone else" but that doesn't help their business. Their business is more important than the needs of the customer.

dunstonh

Intermediation is not subject to VAT.   I really do not have a clue why they are charging it.  I thought initially it was the DFM charge but to see it on the advice charge does not sound correct.

Basically, everywhere else giving advice won't have VAT on it.