Is an IFA really worth it?

artyboy

Albermarle said:

artyboy said:

I do hope that @Ibrahim5 is ok... 3 pages in to a classic IFA rage bait thread and nothing...

(Sorry OP, just a little in-joke...)

Did you know that this was the Oxford Dictionary Word of the year ?

Of course. It's almost as though you don't realise just how hip, groovy and down with it I really am...

aroominyork

artyboy said:

Albermarle said:

artyboy said:

I do hope that @Ibrahim5 is ok... 3 pages in to a classic IFA rage bait thread and nothing...

(Sorry OP, just a little in-joke...)

Did you know that this was the Oxford Dictionary Word of the year ?

Of course. It's almost as though you don't realise just how hip, groovy and down with it I really am...

Sorry to hear you are down with it. I wish you better soon.

wjr4

Bostonerimus1 said:

IMO most people don't need IFAs as they could manage their own personal finances by doing a bit of reading and following a few simple rules. However, lots of those same people will want an IFA for psychological reasons or because they don't believe that they can manage their own finances. Whether or not an IFA is good value for money really depends on the personal perspective of the client.

I think you’ve been spending too much time with our lovely resident posters who are against anyone who tries to help people with their finances. You’re not going to find many people who will use an IFA/FA on this site as they simply do not have the time to learn on their own. Maybe you’ve just got too much spare time - plenty to spend on being angry over posts on here anyway 😂

wjr4

Cus said:

Honest question to IFA's..
If client 1 has a portfolio of X, an IFA will charge a percentage (call it A%) of that as an ongoing charge.
If they also have another client, client 2, who has a portfolio of 2X, they will charge a percentage likely lower, (let's call it 0.5A%)

Is the charging model based on total fees paid, or is that in reality, the larger the portfolio, the larger the fee charged? And is that because it actually costs more on a like for like basis?  More work?  Or is it that it's a pricing model that clients are willing to pay so why buck the trend even though the cost versus service ratio to the client is worse the more they have?

Edit: this is a business, and pricing models are warped across many industries so this is not a complaint...

Since consumer duty has come into place, most companies will have different service levels with different fees for people who need different things. Eg cheaper cost for people who have pretty basic circumstances but still want help. 

Bostonerimus1

wjr4 said:

Bostonerimus1 said:

IMO most people don't need IFAs as they could manage their own personal finances by doing a bit of reading and following a few simple rules. However, lots of those same people will want an IFA for psychological reasons or because they don't believe that they can manage their own finances. Whether or not an IFA is good value for money really depends on the personal perspective of the client.

I think you’ve been spending too much time with our lovely resident posters who are against anyone who tries to help people with their finances. You’re not going to find many people who will use an IFA/FA on this site as they simply do not have the time to learn on their own. Maybe you’ve just got too much spare time - plenty to spend on being angry over posts on here anyway 😂

I'm genuinely puzzled by your post, particularly the second sentence.

I offer lots of "advice" on here, maybe too much, and that's part of my evangelism. I encourage others to help posters and offer their opinions and I think I have acknowledged that IFAs can be of help to people.

I do have lots of time when I'm not working because I'm retired and social media is a small part of what I do, but an enjoyable way to pass the time on the bus or at a coffee shop.

I hope I don't come across as angry, certainly cynical, but not angry. I think "rankle" is a couple of levels below anger. My signature expresses some of the lack of control and futility that I believe we need to accept in life, as well as when investing, and acceptance is the opposite of anger.

chiang_mai

My industry contains a lot of agents, middle men who insert themselves between the worker and the end client and get paid handsomly for doing so. Agents are facilitators who skim profit by doing work that the workers could do themselves but is often painstakingly laborious. Do they add value and improve outcomes? Not really, they save time and effort mostly. When it comes to investing, I see financial advisors in a similar camp to agents, essential for some, unecessary for others. There is no single answer regarding the need for them or their usefullness.....I think.