Daintree Wealth Management experience

JohnWinder

'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)'

Your suggestion is good. I have no experience or connection with unbiased, and the commentary was negative but what I've seen it was only by one poster who says unbiased is more expensive than they were for advisers, will list any regulated adviser and generate leads. That doesn't seem widely negative from an investor's point of view, in its nature or number expressing concern.

dunstonh

JohnWinder said:

'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)'

Your suggestion is good. I have no experience or connection with unbiased, and the commentary was negative but what I've seen it was only by one poster who says unbiased is more expensive than they were for advisers, will list any regulated adviser and generate leads. That doesn't seem widely negative from an investor's point of view, in its nature or number expressing concern.

Unbiased originally started as an IFA directory.   You had to be an IFA.  IFAs could be listed for free but could pay for an enhanced listing (logo, a bit more text etc).  FAs were not allowed on it.  It was proper directory.

In 2019/20, they turned into a lead generation site. Instead of the firms' contact details appearing and people being able to select who they wanted, they would sell the inquirers' contact details to firms willing to pay for the lead.  They also defaulted to stop showing non-paying IFA firms unless the enquirer unticked a box.    Apparently, most of the leads didn't go anywhere.     They also allowed FAs to be listed and it ceased to be IFAs only.  SJP reps started to appear.

In September last year, they increased the price by nearly tenfold and introduced a charging structure that favoured regional and national firms and salesforces.     

In 2019, it went from £30 pm for that directory entry to £45pm plus £30 for enquiry from a prospective client.   In 2023, it went up to £302pm for the basic option to £3272pm for the enhanced option (largely based on number of locations you wanted to appear).    So, small firms and rural firms were particularly hit as their coverage area is more spread.     

I just did a search using our office postcode.  We don't appear as I don't pay but none of the other small independents appear either.  Not a single advice firm in my postcode prefix or either of the nearest two towns. Indeed, the nearest was 53 miles away and is a firm that appears to have paid to get listed in every postcode.  8 pages of firms listed but you soon realise its the same firms listed again and again.  Indeed, the 1st page showing the "top 10" only has three firms.   Each appears multiple times.   

Its just full of entries for True Potential, SJP, The Private Office any other FAs, wealth managers and regional/national salesforces.

The sad thing is that many still refer to unbiased because they believe it is still the IFA directory it once was.
 

Albermarle

older_and_no_wiser said:

Thank you so much for all the useful feedback. 

I have fed back all the comments - which my girlfriend has raised with the wealth management company. 

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

The UK biase with funds seemed to be answered by some "we are globally diversified" answer and talk of how many companies they invest in which limits any downturn. This doesn't really answer the question in my opinion.

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. However, she says that she doesn't have the time or inclination to do this. She's also worried about making wrong decisions and doesn't want me to advise as she fears it could spoil our relationship. This was mentioned by someone above and I fully respect that decision.

I would really like my girlfriend to speak to a proper independent FA now who would charge less than the one she's seen and hopefully have investment plans more aligned to those who frequent this forum (or mine haha) if she's determined to go down this route.

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? Knowing my girlfriend, she won't want an endless stream of meetings with multiple companies as this would drive her crazy! Personally, I would love this though. :-)

Perhaps someone could PM me with suggestions if we can't post here? 

Thanks again. 

Regarding your comments in bold.
Your girlfriends fund of £108K is on the smaller side with respect to paying for financial advice. So she will not normally get the discounted prices available for bigger funds.
Currently she has been quoted 1% initial fee and 0.35% ongoing fee. This is significantly lower than a typical IFA fees for a fund of that size.
OK there is then the fee for the discretionary managed fund ( 1% ?) which is on the high side and the platform.

So you may well be better off with an IFA in other ways, but not sure she is going to find one that is cheaper.