"Daybreak confusion over pensions today – apology" blog discussion

SnowMan · 16 February 2011 at 4:25PM

brianrhill wrote: »

what a ridiculous post.

Clearly Martin did not personally write the MSE annuity guide. It is a useful guide although the FSA recommends the guide provided by Moneymadeclear. I have also reiterated that I support MSE in making people more financially aware and indeed have Martin's book on our company website. Hardly playnig at criticism is it.

The FSA believes it is critical that all communications with consumers are fair, clear and not misleading. This therefore means a certain amount of redtape, which is par for the course.

Your point regarding Ronnie is comlpetely irrelevant and misses the point entirely.

I think Martin had more involvement with his Annuity Guide than you had with the FSA guide. But for Martin the Annuity Guide wouldn't be available would it? It is not surprising that the FSA would recommend their own guide is it? The public have spoken on which of the two information resources they prefer Money Made Clear or MSE and internet traffic says the winner is MSE.

Overall who do you think has educated the general public on important issues such as the need to shop around at retirement to get the best annuity rate, you, the FSA or Martin? You can argue it is the FSA if you like but it is definitely not you.

I am glad to see you have at last had something positive to say about Martin and the amazing stuff he does, so thank you for recognising that at least. If you are genuinely interested in spreading financial knowledge in all areas then can I politely suggest you expand on what others are doing rather than being so destructive.

I think Jimmy has articulated much better than I on the need to keep it simple so I won't comment on that, but that was all Martin was doing. You can argue over a few words but nobody (and that includes you) is going to get things absolutely spot on in a 4 minute TV slot. However it does gets people thinking and in a position to access more detailed info and that is the most important thing.

brianrhill · 16 February 2011 at 4:57PM

You've missed the point of the whole debate SnowMan. Best move on.

SnowMan · 16 February 2011 at 5:05PM

brianrhill wrote: »

You've missed the point of the whole debate SnowMan. Best move on.

Oh dear. Are you as rude and condascending to your clients?

At least anyone doing business with your company knows what to expect

brianrhill · 16 February 2011 at 5:10PM

Don't think there's much point in responding further to what are clearly stupid comments. End-ex.

Sweet_Pea_2 · 16 February 2011 at 11:15PM

Sorry to be flippant. I did see Martin on Daybreak, I wasn't listening to him (very sorry) as had the hairdryer on. My only thought was that Martin needs to do up an extra button on his shirt, every time I see him on TV he is showing too much chest hair.

JimmyTheWig · 17 February 2011 at 10:43AM

brianrhill wrote: »

You've missed the point of the whole debate SnowMan. Best move on.

Then what is the point of the debate?

Lowflier · 17 February 2011 at 11:20AM

They're nit picking! Any sensible person wanting information about drawdown would not be seeking it from a discussion about proposed gender equality in insurance.

brianrhill · 17 February 2011 at 6:03PM

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

Then what is the point of the debate?

Hi Jimmy

The point of the debate, in my opinion, is that experts should avoid straying outside of their area of experience/expertise/qualification, particularly if it is on live national TV, and particularly if viewers could decide on a course of action or inaction based on what the expert says. I hope you would agree that this applies to any TV expert, not just Martin or money related experts.

I have received countless calls from IFA's and others within financial services supporting this position. A consumer taking action based on what an IFA has told him is likely to have some protection under the Financial Ombudsman Service. The same consumer taking the same action based on what Martin or a mate down the pub has told him, has zero protection.

Consumers clearly say that they rely and act on Martin's advice and do not appear to view him, based on comments I have seen, as a journalist. In fact, I did a short talk on Wednesday evening about this subject - everyone in the audience who was aware of Martin had incorrectly assumed he was a financial advisor.

Whilst some of the headlines could comfortably be described as somewhat inflammatory (not my choice!), regulated products such as pensions and annuities are complex at the best of times and are wrapped up in redtape in order to protect consumers.

If you take out the wrong car insurance when you could have chosen something more suitable, you should hopefully be able to change it a year later. If you choose the wrong annuity, good chance is that you are stuck with it for life. You can divorce your spouse, you cannot divorce your annuity.

Martin has apologised for his errors which was the right thing to do. Some may view the errors as insignificant or without impact in the big scheme of things. The principal of the matter is when a trusted money expert discusses an areas in which he is not an expert and gets it wrong on live TV, and comsumers do not know he has got it wrong. A line in the sand needs to be drawn.

Martin has said that he steers clear of commenting investments. I would ask that the same is applied to equally complex regulated areas of financial advice such as pensions and annuities unless it is clearly stated to viewers/readers that he does not have the expertise in such matters and they should take appropriate advice based on their own circumstances.

A number of people have said "so what if he got it wrong, it doesn't matter". These are probably the same people who would complain bitterly if an IFA got the same things wrong and had advised them incorrectly. In fact I would expect MSE to have a template letter ready to go and I would fully support them doing so!

I would reiterate what I have said many times this week that I along with many of my colleagues continue to support Martin and MSE.

JimmyTheWig · 17 February 2011 at 6:26PM

brianrhill wrote: »

Martin has said that he steers clear of commenting investments. I would ask that the same is applied to equally complex regulated areas of financial advice such as pensions and annuities unless it is clearly stated to viewers/readers that he does not have the expertise in such matters and they should take appropriate advice based on their own circumstances.

Not unlike what I suggested on post #32.

brianrhill · 17 February 2011 at 6:29PM

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

In general, I think that it's probably worth Martin mentioning something along the lines of "it's always best to get independent professional advice when looking into retirement options" when mentioning pensions.

Agreed:beer:

MSE Forum

"Daybreak confusion over pensions today – apology" blog discussion

Replies

Morrisons increases cost of its meal deal

Are DNA ancestry tests worth the money?

Ninja Kitchen 11-in-1 multi-cooker £170