Daintree Wealth Management experience

JohnWinder

'Am I allowed to ask this forum for suggestions on IFAs that could meet this criteria (North Manchester area) or is this forbidden? If so, are there any directories online I can check for this? '

I don't know what investment plans align with readers of this forum, but you can ask for guidance to a Manchester IFA, indicating your interest in low cost, diversified funds or something else via this service: https://www.evidenceinvestor.com/find-an-adviser/. You sound smart enough to know whether this service is one that might get you started.

I am not connected to the evidenceinvestor site, as it would not be appropriate to mention it on the MSE Forum if I were.

artyboy

JohnWinder said:

'Am I allowed to ask this forum for suggestions on IFAs that could meet this criteria (North Manchester area) or is this forbidden? If so, are there any directories online I can check for this? '

I don't know what investment plans align with readers of this forum, but you can ask for guidance to a Manchester IFA, indicating your interest in low cost, diversified funds or something else via this service: https://www.evidenceinvestor.com/find-an-adviser/. You sound smart enough to know whether this service is one that might get you started.

I am not connected to the evidenceinvestor site, as it would not be appropriate to mention it on the MSE Forum if I were.

For someone 'not connected', you do seem very keen to push that website, despite the criticism it has generated on other threads, including from actual IFAs... What I've taken from this is that there really are no great unbiased IFA directories out there, and any that do get suggested may perhaps need a clearer health warning...

LHW99

It is often suggested that a small local IFA my be appropriate for most people. Google can help, although you should confirm the IFA status, and that the FCA registration is correct.

dunstonh

They are not independent and have said the VAT issue is being discussed with HMRC currently. 

They are way behind the curve.  Back in 2020, HMRC ruled that "DFMs supplying model portfolio services were exempt from VAT".   That followed a European court case in Denmark that established the tests required.   As an EU member, the UK followed but HMRC published no guidence

That was the second DFM to get that ruling from HMRC.   Then a consultation on it was issued in 2022 and confirmed in 2023 that it was non-vatable.  Further guidance was issued earlier this year as some have been sluggish to react, saying that the VAT exemption can continue to apply in 2024 and beyond.

I did say that it isn't necessary for her to use a FA and this can easily be managed as DIY with a broader multi asset fund.

Some MPS are cheaper than mutli-asset funds.  So, don't rule out an MPS.   It just has to be the right MPS.  Timeline, HSBC and Vanguard all operate MPS that are low cost.

Am I allowed to ask this forum for suggestions on IFAs that could meet this criteria (North Manchester area) or is this forbidden?

Most IFAs are small localised firms of 1-5 advisers.   Whilst small solicitors and accountants have gone through mass consolidation, its early days with IFAs.     So, asking the web for suggestions is a bit like asking us what a good butcher is in your area.

 If so, are there any directories online I can check for this?

In our area, most of the independent IFAs (i.e. not tied to anyone or networked) do not appear on any listings.  They don't need to pay to be on them as they don't need the business generated as it comes in naturally.    The ones that are on listings tend to be more salesforce-orientated or new or trainee advisers.   A couple of regional firms appear but they are the type that follow the model that your partner has already seen.    Google is a good way to find local IFAs who are not advertising.

JohnWinder

'For someone 'not connected', you do seem very keen to push that website, despite the criticism it has generated on other threads,'

I'm certainly not connected and certainly don't mind a bit of criticism (on any matter) as it allows us to explore the issues so that interested folk have more of what they need to guide their own decisions. I think I addressed the criticism it has generated.

But consider where we are.  At short intervals new people ask how to find an adviser, perhaps disinclined to trawl back over countless discussions where earlier suggestions were made. What to do? We used to suggest unbiased.co.uk but that was roundly criticised recently and I don't recall anyone having suggested it since. 

And then we have the well intentioned suggestion from different people, 'google it'. Really, are we not passed needing to guide people to google searching?

I draw attention to Powell's site because there seemed no alternative that is as easy (and free) as writing what you want and providing a reply email address in the hope of getting a useful suggestion for an adviser to phone or visit. But now that I look further there is a 'vouchedfor' website in UK where advisers are suggested.

My sense is there is not much business heading Powell's way despite it all. We don't hear back from people scorched by the experience of using it, or saying it's better than sliced bread.

dunstonh

I draw attention to Powell's site because there seemed no alternative that is as easy (and free) as writing what you want and providing a reply email address in the hope of getting a useful suggestion for an adviser to phone or visit. But now that I look further there is a 'vouchedfor' website in UK where advisers are suggested.

Vouchedfor is expensive.  They take a cut of the adviser fees on clients that use them and adviser firms often increase their fees to the client to cover it.

The PFS find an adviser is free and lists all advisers that are members of the PFS (professional body)
https://www.thepfs.org/membership/find-an-adviser/
The limitation is that it doesn't say whether they are FA or IFA but its also not promoting any other types of business offshoots and not a lead generation site.

gm0

Spivving never changes

I agree with the look for provider businesses locally (nearby city/large town) on google maps idea. 

Then do some of your own due diligence.  And contact a couple.

There isn't an I want to avoid a mistake but I don't have any time to do my own checking short cut - which has real integrity rather than the fake brand building kind.  Business model. Sorry.

Desire for avoid mistake / seems legit / have not time to do it - is exactly why the look at me - digital convenience spivs picking up directory listing and lead nickels - and indeed branded FAs overcharging egregiously can readily continue to work over mug punters. 

It gives the illusion of shopping around for a checked trustable branded product across the market but without the reality.

Ignore the spivs running directories to their own benefit. They don't have all the providers anyway because it is a market that doesn't need intermediating from the small providers perspective.  Regulated advice is not a self service web scale self service transaction.  It's a small number of clients per adviser that can be serviced with personal advice per year.  Leveraged with para planners and admin and some automation and outsourced stuff around fund monitoring and tools.

Prices have largely converged but some wealth managers continue to take the mickey while providing a tightly regulated service.  And then a product that isn't really very different regardless of hyperbole and hoopla
 
Guidance on sensible target pricing for the main options is readily found here from people not selling you something. 

No real value is added by the provider must pay to belong paid directories. 

Similar pay for listing paper trade directories in many sectors all died out.  Killed by internet search.  This is just that idea - again - on the web.  The big tech platforms with their advertising business model are themselves an exercise in spiv intermediation taking a drink from providers using digital lead acquisition to remain visible. And the threat of becoming invisible to search in practice if advertising dues are not paid.

Directories are a minor convenience to find a few websites and phone numbers at best.  They don't do anything resembling real product or provider screening and due diligence on the listed providers.  Structured provider form filling and then paying more to be a "premium provider"

There is arguably an unmet market access and navigation need at the consumer end. 

But current directory providers are not meeting it. And cannot.  The fat wallet high fee providers can afford to offer a drink to the lead generator - at the consumer's expense. The smaller and better value providers don't have the fat margins to allow the 2nd hand in the till.  The one you want.  Is probably not on there.

It's not quite as desperate as the building and green energy portal wannabees wishing to take a big drink for lead referral to buy a heat pump

A pox on them all anyway. 

A parasitic business activity of no real value.

artyboy

JohnWinder said:

'For someone 'not connected', you do seem very keen to push that website, despite the criticism it has generated on other threads,'

I'm certainly not connected and certainly don't mind a bit of criticism (on any matter) as it allows us to explore the issues so that interested folk have more of what they need to guide their own decisions. I think I addressed the criticism it has generated.

But consider where we are.  At short intervals new people ask how to find an adviser, perhaps disinclined to trawl back over countless discussions where earlier suggestions were made. What to do? We used to suggest unbiased.co.uk but that was roundly criticised recently and I don't recall anyone having suggested it since. 

And then we have the well intentioned suggestion from different people, 'google it'. Really, are we not passed needing to guide people to google searching?

I draw attention to Powell's site because there seemed no alternative that is as easy (and free) as writing what you want and providing a reply email address in the hope of getting a useful suggestion for an adviser to phone or visit. But now that I look further there is a 'vouchedfor' website in UK where advisers are suggested.

My sense is there is not much business heading Powell's way despite it all. We don't hear back from people scorched by the experience of using it, or saying it's better than sliced bread.

Perhaps I was rather harsh in putting 'not connected' in quotes, but my concern here is that every new thread you suggest this on, there really needs to be those health warnings and that debate - as we are again seeing here. I know you added in your 'do your own research' proviso to the OP, but I suspect the OP is a bit more clued up than the average punter that visits these forums. For them, those health warnings are a lot more important or there is a risk it will be seen as a recommended trusted source. 

Perhaps a single thread is needed to hash this one out and see if there is a consensus, because if evidenceinvestor does end up going the way of unbiased.co.uk, there will be a load of threads on this board seemingly giving credence to them that will end up compounding the 'do a google search' issue...

JohnWinder

Perhaps I was rather harsh in putting 'not connected' in quotes, but my concern here is that every new thread you suggest this on, there really needs to be those health warnings and that debate - as we are again seeing here. I know you added in your 'do your own research' proviso to the OP, but I suspect the OP is a bit more clued up than the average punter that visits these forums. For them, those health warnings are a lot more important or there is a risk it will be seen as a recommended trusted source. '

No, not harsh as I took it, just quoting me.

If health warnings are needed for Powell's service, then I like your passive verb use: anyone can post such a warning. I'm not convinced it needs a warning other than 'specify independent...'.

Reflect for a moment on what using this service involves: you can give any name, an email alias if you're spam-wary, give some vague non-identifying information of location/occupation/assets value, and say what you want. Then, presumably, you're given an adviser(s)' contact information which you can ignore or make contact with. At that level I don't see a health warning is relevant. Of course, one could be taken advantage of through that process, but so could creating an account with Argos. 

My sense is that Powell is trying to help the average punter; unbiased and the rest of them don't have punter-level personal investing educational material you bump into free when you use his find an adviser service. He's been campaigning for a better deal for ordinary folk for years now; you'd expect there to be push back from the industry.

It was useful to get the pfs link above, because I defy anyone to find a list of advisers by simply going to the home page; it's not set up for us, it's for them the members.

I'm not convinced unbiased ought to be beyond the pale now, perhaps you could say why you think it ought not be mentioned. As well, you might be right about a health warning for Powell; would you like to try to compose one as you see what's wrong with it?

artyboy

JohnWinder said:

Perhaps I was rather harsh in putting 'not connected' in quotes, but my concern here is that every new thread you suggest this on, there really needs to be those health warnings and that debate - as we are again seeing here. I know you added in your 'do your own research' proviso to the OP, but I suspect the OP is a bit more clued up than the average punter that visits these forums. For them, those health warnings are a lot more important or there is a risk it will be seen as a recommended trusted source. '

No, not harsh as I took it, just quoting me.

If health warnings are needed for Powell's service, then I like your passive verb use: anyone can post such a warning. I'm not convinced it needs a warning other than 'specify independent...'.

Reflect for a moment on what using this service involves: you can give any name, an email alias if you're spam-wary, give some vague non-identifying information of location/occupation/assets value, and say what you want. Then, presumably, you're given an adviser(s)' contact information which you can ignore or make contact with. At that level I don't see a health warning is relevant. Of course, one could be taken advantage of through that process, but so could creating an account with Argos. 

My sense is that Powell is trying to help the average punter; unbiased and the rest of them don't have punter-level personal investing educational material you bump into free when you use his find an adviser service. He's been campaigning for a better deal for ordinary folk for years now; you'd expect there to be push back from the industry.

It was useful to get the pfs link above, because I defy anyone to find a list of advisers by simply going to the home page; it's not set up for us, it's for them the members.

I'm not convinced unbiased ought to be beyond the pale now, perhaps you could say why you think it ought not be mentioned. As well, you might be right about a health warning for Powell; would you like to try to compose one as you see what's wrong with it?

I think this rather reinforces my point above - if you feel there is still merit in unbiased (and not having used them, I have no dog in that race, but the more recent commentary on them here has been widely negative), then that might be better suited to a single thread rather than further taking up space on this one...