Investments, Stocks and Shares

Benneb777

I have some money to invest and was thinking about going through the Clydesdale bank, via a company called MLC. You pick a portfolio that suits you then you invest cash. They take 4 1/2 % straight off the capital then 1.7% off any dividents that are made throughout the year. Any new capital you invest monthly or yearly also gets 4 1/2 % taken off. The money is left in for 5 years and hopefully makes a profit, but there are no guarantees. I am trying to find out more about investing money in stocks and shares also what are reputable companies.

I would appreciate any assistance that can be given. Thanks:j

Aegis

4.5% initial charge is very high. An IFA would be a lot cheaper and would almost certainly offer a much wider investment range.

If you wanted to go self-select, then investing through either Selftrade (for shares) or Hargreaves Lansdown (for funds) would undoubtedly end up a lot cheaper than this offer in the long term. For example, Hargreaves Lansdown rarely charge more than about 1% initial charge and usually no more than 1.5% annual fee for the majority of active unit trusts and OEICs.

In general, investing via a tied adviser* is frowned upon by the experts that frequent this forum, and I can certainly see why.



* I'm assuming they're tied based on their charges.

dunstonh

From next year, tied "advisers" will no longer be able to call themselves advisers. The FSA has set forward the proposal that the only advisers from 2009 will be IFAs. Tied advisers will have to declare themselves as sales people and not advisers. So, you may as well work on that basis now. Many IFAs are also expected to call it a day under these new rules as the qualification levels are going to be higher (phased in over a period yet unknown). So, if you do see an IFA, it will be worth checking what their plans are.

Aegis

dunstonh wrote: »

From next year, tied "advisers" will no longer be able to call themselves advisers. The FSA has set forward the proposal that the only advisers from 2009 will be IFAs. Tied advisers will have to declare themselves as sales people and not advisers. So, you may as well work on that basis now. Many IFAs are also expected to call it a day under these new rules as the qualification levels are going to be higher (phased in over a period yet unknown). So, if you do see an IFA, it will be worth checking what their plans are.

I'm planning on starting the diploma not too long after completing CeFA. I'm not sure if I have to complete CeMAP first, but one way or another I'll hopefully be starting the diploma units before the end of the year! Might as well stay ahead of the qualifications requirements while I can, even if I'm nowhere near IFA level yet!

dunstonh

You dont need cemap for the diploma. Your CEFA 1-5 will give you 70 pts so you will need to sit 4 diploma level exams to get the diploma status. They are not bad but I think having practical knowledge and experience is likely to be beneficial so you may need more hours than an experienced adviser. On the other hand your head wont be full of old rules and regs in obsolete areas which can muddy the mind at times.

Aegis

dunstonh wrote: »

You dont need cemap for the diploma. Your CEFA 1-5 will give you 70 pts so you will need to sit 4 diploma level exams to get the diploma status. They are not bad but I think having practical knowledge and experience is likely to be beneficial so you may need more hours than an experienced adviser. On the other hand your head wont be full of old rules and regs in obsolete areas which can muddy the mind at times.

When I said that I might have to complete CeMAP first, it's more of a company requirement than anything else! I was pretty sure it wasn't necessary to have that to get the Diploma, but it's always nice to get confirmation from an insider.

I'll almost certainly start a thread asking for advice on which exams to take in which order, but that can wait until CeFA 4 is out of the way!