WEALTH at work?

Marcon

dunstonh said:

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. 

Be interesting for OP to ask them the question about VAT and see what they say....

Alexland

cfw1994 said:
hmmmm, juicy lambs indeed  👀

I find the business model of turning up with the unexplained endorsement of the employer to encourage you into paying potentially excessive charges unsatisfactory. There should be legal caps on advice / portfolio management and suggested own or connected brand fund management charges to outlaw those acting entirely in their own interests. FAs should be legally required to explain clearly in writing the full commercial situation which caused the meeting to be scheduled. The FCA needs to get tougher with FAs.

Albermarle

Ibrahim5 said:

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.

The statement above could relate to almost any private business looking to make a profit .

You want what's best for you and the adviser wants what's best for him
The same with any business you deal with . A middle ground has to be found.

 Ideally the adviser should say "I am too expensive. Go with someone else"

So when you go to your local shop to buy an item , would you expect the owner of the shop to say 'my goods are more expensive , I suggest you go somewhere else' ?

Their business is more important than the needs of the customer.

It is good if a business and customers can align their needs, but when push comes to shove, then for any business  their bottom line will be more important than any customer needs ( whatever fine words they may say this is the reality )

zagfles

Albermarle said:

Ibrahim5 said:

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.

The statement above could relate to almost any private business looking to make a profit .

You want what's best for you and the adviser wants what's best for him
The same with any business you deal with . A middle ground has to be found.

 Ideally the adviser should say "I am too expensive. Go with someone else"

So when you go to your local shop to buy an item , would you expect the owner of the shop to say 'my goods are more expensive , I suggest you go somewhere else' ?

Their business is more important than the needs of the customer.

It is good if a business and customers can align their needs, but when push comes to shove, then for any business  their bottom line will be more important than any customer needs ( whatever fine words they may say this is the reality )

Indeed. The problem is a lot of clients don't realise it. If they go into DFS looking for a new sofa, or a car showroom looking for a new car, they know full well that the salepeople will be trying to flog them a sofa/car at as high a price possible and they should look to get the best value they can by negotiating on price, and shop around at other sofa stores/car showrooms/brokers etc.

But when they go to see an IFA/FA/bank etc, ie someone in financial services, and they talk to someone who has a title "...adviser" eg IFA, mortgage adviser etc, they seem to think they're getting "advice" which will be in their best interests, rather than a sales spiel.

Which is why there are so many mis-selling scandals in financial services, pensions, PPI, endowments, card protection plans etc.

BritishInvestor

Albermarle said:

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 .

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

Or even a bit less than 1% for large pots.

BritishInvestor

cfw1994 said:

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!

"take advantage of the discretionary managed portfolio service"

Would be useful to understand what that advantage might be.

cfw1994

Alexland said:

cfw1994 said:
hmmmm, juicy lambs indeed  👀

I find the business model of turning up with the unexplained endorsement of the employer to encourage you into paying potentially excessive charges unsatisfactory. There should be legal caps on advice / portfolio management and suggested own or connected brand fund management charges to outlaw those acting entirely in their own interests. FAs should be legally required to explain clearly in writing the full commercial situation which caused the meeting to be scheduled. The FCA needs to get tougher with FAs.

I agree: I am aghast that Local Authorities even countenance the use if FAs.   When they don't highlight the non-independent nature of the 'service' being offered, it does start to make one wonder what backhanders might have greased palms: an unsavoury thought.

BritishInvestor said:

"take advantage of the discretionary managed portfolio service"

Would be useful to understand what that advantage might be.

Yup, I might be of a mind to ask that.   I don't think the conversation will last that long, tbh!

Marcon said:

dunstonh said:

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. 

Be interesting for OP to ask them the question about VAT and see what they say....

I will certainly raise that one early on!!

Alexland

BritishInvestor said:

"take advantage of the discretionary managed portfolio service"

Maybe they intended to say "be taken advantage of by the discretionary managed portfolio service"?

MallyGirl

well that was quick - it turns out my appointment was with a financial coach and not a financial advisor. Apparently I should have had a pre-session link to fill in some financial info but I didn't get one of those. 5 mins conversation and they decided I fell outside their criteria and they were unable to help me.

k6chris

MallyGirl said:

well that was quick - it turns out my appointment was with a financial coach and not a financial advisor. Apparently I should have had a pre-session link to fill in some financial info but I didn't get one of those. 5 mins conversation and they decided I fell outside their criteria and they were unable to help me.

Q1 "Do you have the slightest clue about how pensions work" [if yes, client should be removed from sales advice list]