HBOS shares

esbo

Aegis wrote: »

Couple more interesting quotes from that article:


So, we have what boils down to a "he said, she said" situation regarding threats, and a note that of the 13% of endowment complaints brought against IFAs, only 40% of those were actually successful.

Naturally the no-win, no-fee compensation companies are going to claim that those they're targeting are terrible people, etc, but that doesn't make those allegations true.

The way to look into it is via the FOS complaints list, and I'm sure that some of the other regulars would be happy to point you in the direction of that unbiased source of raw data.

The onus is on *you* to back up your claims *not* me.
So, as they say, either put up or shut up.

I back up my claims, why can't you?
You have made several claims without poviding any evidence whatsover to back them up.

Aegis

esbo wrote: »

The onus is on *you* to back up your claims *not* me.
So, as they say, either put up or shut up.

I back up my claims, why can't you?

You haven't backed up your claims. You've provided 2 articles with incomplete data about the endowment problems, which have nothing to do with whether IFAs are the best providers of financial advice. You've admitted that you have no experience with IFAs, and have utterly refused to back up your claims that they're somehow worse than some other mythical "good adviser" that you've failed to define.

In short, you've made a lot of claims and should in your own words "put up or shut up".

I do a lot of debating in my free time, and understand the principle of the burden of proof. In this case, you've come on to a forum with an opinion that differs completely from the status quo, which is a position held by numerous people with experience as IFAs or of doing business with IFAs, while you are neither. As such, any claim you make that differs from the general consensus of the forum automatically ranks lower than other opinions simply because you claim to have no experience of dealing with or being an IFA, so without backing evidence your claims are merely conjecture. Conjecture ranks below informed subjective opinion, which ranks below expert testimony, which ranks below objective evidence.

Of course, the only objective evidence we've actually seen is that 13% of endowment complaints were made against IFAs, and only 40% of those were actually upheld. All in all, not the worst possible result for the IFA profession.

dunstonh

I don't expect many people use a IFA for a mortage in the first place, most will just
go with their bank so 13% seems a relative high figure.

Over 80% of FTBs go to brokers. Brokers accounted for more business than branch networks for many of the major lenders. So you you are wrong.

Futhermore it does seem it is much more difficult to get a complaint against an IFA
resolved due to their obstructive attitude and perhaps if they are still in business.

The FOS reject more complaints against IFAs than other distribution channels pro rata. They are the best benchmark to use as you dont have adviser or claims company "opinions". There has also been acknowledgement from Lord Hunt that some claims companies are putting in false claims in the hope of success. IFAs are more likely to reject these as its widely acknowledged that documentation of IFAs is superior to salesforces.

esbo

Aegis wrote: »

You haven't backed up your claims. You've provided 2 articles with incomplete data about the endowment problems, which have nothing to do with whether IFAs are the best providers of financial advice. You've admitted that you have no experience with IFAs, and have utterly refused to back up your claims that they're somehow worse than some other mythical "good adviser" that you've failed to define.

In short, you've made a lot of claims and should in your own words "put up or shut up".

I do a lot of debating in my free time, and understand the principle of the burden of proof. In this case, you've come on to a forum with an opinion that differs completely from the status quo, which is a position held by numerous people with experience as IFAs or of doing business with IFAs, while you are neither. As such, any claim you make that differs from the general consensus of the forum automatically ranks lower than other opinions simply because you claim to have no experience of dealing with or being an IFA, so without backing evidence your claims are merely conjecture. Conjecture ranks below informed subjective opinion, which ranks below expert testimony, which ranks below objective evidence.

Of course, the only objective evidence we've actually seen is that 13% of endowment complaints were made against IFAs, and only 40% of those were actually upheld. All in all, not the worst possible result for the IFA profession.

1. I have backed up my claims with evidence, links to web pages, you have provided no
backing evidence whatsoever.

2. I have not admitted I have no experience of IFA's try reading the thread.

3. I have backed up all the claim that I have made, I don't not have to back up
the cliams you suggested I have made because well I have not made them.
Again if you wish me to back up a claim you must first provide evidence I have
made it, ie a quote or link.

4 A good adviser needs no explaination, it is self explanatory, expect perhaps in the
world of IFA's.

5. I back up the claims I make, I don't need to back up the claims you falsely claim I made.

6 Again you repeat the lie that I have no experience of IFA's and launch into a diatribe based upon this falsehood.

7. You left out the evidence about the threatening and harassment used by IFA's
against people who made complaints against them and you also left out the evidence
about what appears to amount to a bribe from the IFA's union to a firm dealing with
the complaints inorder to get them to drop the complaints, with the added incentive that
the IFA won't pay up even if the complaint suceeds because they go out of business.

Pretty underhand tactics.

esbo

dunstonh wrote: »

Over 80% of FTBs go to brokers. Brokers accounted for more business than branch networks for many of the major lenders. So you you are wrong.


The FOS reject more complaints against IFAs than other distribution channels pro rata. They are the best benchmark to use as you dont have adviser or claims company "opinions". There has also been acknowledgement from Lord Hunt that some claims companies are putting in false claims in the hope of success. IFAs are more likely to reject these as its widely acknowledged that documentation of IFAs is superior to salesforces.

Again another one who cannot back up the claims he makes.
I have posted evidence that IFA's will use unscruplous methods to have complaints made against them dropped.

esbo

dunstonh wrote: »

I think its time to stop feeding this troll. There is only so much BS he can keep pumping out.

I note you now resort to abuse when you are actually asked to back up your claims.

breezeblock

And regarding HBOS shares!!!!

Aegis

esbo wrote: »

1. I have backed up my claims with evidence, links to web pages, you have provided no
backing evidence whatsoever.

I have no claims to provide evidence for, other than that the IFA profession has more products to choose from than any other form of financial advisor, which is simply part of the definition. You've then claimed that IFAs allow commission to essentially rule their recommendations, which differs from the majority of information I have about IFAs, whether from dealing with them in person or discussing strategies and recommendations online. Additionally, as I previously mentioned, many IFAs include commission-free products like NS&I savings certificates in their recommendations as part of the safer element of a client's portfolio. If all IFAs are purely commission driven, then these products simply wouldn't be recommended anywhere near as much.

2. I have not admitted I have no experience of IFA's try reading the thread.

Admission by omission. You've been asked on numerous occasions why you have these opinions, and the closest you've come to answering questions on whether you have been or have done business with an IFA is "I don't need financial advice". The only rational conclusion to draw is that you have no experience whatsoever, and are essentially just ranting for the sake of ranting.

3. I have backed up all the claim that I have made, I don't not have to back up
the cliams you suggested I have made because well I have not made them.
Again if you wish me to back up a claim you must first provide evidence I have
made it, ie a quote or link.

All you've done is post "evidence" which doesn't actually back up the point you were trying to make. If I'm trying to claim that exercise is actually bad for you, then posting an article about a drug scandal at a local sports competition is entirely irrelevant.

4 A good adviser needs no explaination, it is self explanatory, expect perhaps in the
world of IFA's.

It DOES need an explanation if you're going to claim that IFAs are somehow inferior to this "good adviser", who by definition would have to be an IFA to best meet his client's requirements. You've still not pointed out what sort of adviser this would be (tied, multi-tied or independent adviser) or what qualities would allow them to use the title "good adviser" under your system of operation.

5. I back up the claims I make, I don't need to back up the claims you falsely claim I made.

You claim this, but the evidence doesn't support your claim.

6 Again you repeat the lie that I have no experience of IFA's and launch into a diatribe based upon this falsehood.

Then go ahead and answer the question. Show everyone why my comments are false? You've given nothing but vitriol against IFAs so far, and without some sort of reason for that (which you have ignored numerous requests for) all you're doing is trolling.

7. You left out the evidence about the threatening and harassment used by IFA's
against people who made complaints against them and you also left out the evidence
about what appears to amount to a bribe from the IFA's union to a firm dealing with
the complaints inorder to get them to drop the complaints, with the added incentive that
the IFA won't pay up even if the complaint suceeds because they go out of business.

And you glossed over the counter claim to the same effect, and the fact that I stated it was a "he said, she said" type of situation. Both sides claimed that one side was conducting harassing behaviour. That's hearsay, not evidence. Show me a list of upheld complaints or a press statement from the FOS that backs up your statement, rather than a baseless comment from a group with a vested interest in making IFA firms look bad.

jem16

esbo wrote: »

2. I have not admitted I have no experience of IFA's try reading the thread.


6 Again you repeat the lie that I have no experience of IFA's and launch into a diatribe based upon this falsehood.

From another thread.

jem16 wrote: »

She would be extremely daft to go to anyone other than an IFA if she wanted proper financial advice.

What is your personal experience of IFAs that you base all your posts on?

esbo wrote: »

I don't need financial advice, I am more than capable of making my own financial
decisions, from what I have seen of some who calim to be IFA's here I can't
say I am very impressed, rather quite the opposite. Futhermore the very title
IFA is misleading, they are not independant if they are receiving a commission on the
products they that sell, so they fall at the first fence in that respect.

setmefree

Share price now 351.25...Ah that's the thread back on track