Stocks & Shares ISAs

Hi Brand- thank you for your most relevant response, the most helpful I've seen on this thread so far. You do seem to have a superior understanding of my situation above others. You seem to grasp that I bought this product through CIS on the understanding that there would be some kind of ongoing support (which to some extent they did, when the market crashed and I called them to see what was happening and they offered alternatives). I knew there would be some risk to this type of ISA but not the extent, because yes - I did almost lose the lot, down to 10% of the original investment not long after making it "buying high, would-be selling low". I hadn't been told I would be "buying high" by long or short term history. In addition, from what they told me, there would be some guidance at the point which - yes - I would be making the decision to sell, whenever that was or would be. How naive was I in those days - apparently because (as is inferred in the unhelpful posts) I didn't ask for a contract specifying exactly what services the fees would be covering (unconscious incompetence). My known "conscious incompetence" was the reason I turned to the "old faithful" Co-op who I believed would be my family support in the way they'd been with other products. This is the reason I feel I was "mis-sold" the concept. MSE pioneered the rebellion against finance institutions who sell us things which are unsuitable or without sufficient explanation of what service they actually offer (in my case the unsuitability being the 'known-to-them' way that the product would have to be sold on a guessing basis with no guidance). I have checked several times with Royal London and they told me that "unlike CIS we do not have any Financial Advisors to guide you through selling" - and it was quite obvious that they'd been asked about this many, many times. In fact, they subsequently published and distributed to ex-CIS customers a leaflet explaining the difference for the ex-CIS customers they have "bought" and offering no service. So it appears that my business was gained on one understanding, but sold on with a different one - and neither I nor any other "passed on" customer was consulted or advised of this at the time of the business sale. I am no chavvy "compo-seeker" which I've been branded as on here, just a naive customer (the ex-CIS's bread-and-butter business). The only redress I want for being mis-sold a product or service which I believed I'd bought but don't have is a lever to gain the actual advice I need and which I believed I had already paid for. Thank you Brand for taking the trouble to understand and to humbly offer your real expertise. May I ask you where this graph is that you mention, which has a guiding line to get me on the right track? If Martin Lewis has come across this type of situation before, I'd love to see him raise a campaign of some sort to get me and others in the same boat the support we believe we've paid for.

Not wishing to labour the point and drag out this thread much longer... because you are only reacting positively to the people that say things you want to hear, perhaps in advance of them finding out the full facts (like "you bought ongoing advice from CIS, so RL now owe you that advice in relation to selling up"), rather than the factual things that you don't want to hear (like RL cannot possibly give you advice because they are not regulated to do so).

But anyway.

You said in post #286 that you asked for risks to be medium, and in post #303 that the investment dropped to 10% of its original size not long after making it. So either that is an extremely high front-loaded advice and management fee, or it was a massive 90% loss that wouldn't be acceptable even in the short term on a portfolio alleged to be "medium risk".

Assuming you complained at the time, when it was clear they had sold you something inappropriate that lost 90% when it was only marketed as medium risk and you had paperwork on the initial "fact find" to say you wanted medium risk- what was their reaction /explanation /compensation?

Secondly if you asked for something with only medium risks and it dropped 90% in a short period, then their advice is clearly not worth having, and you know they only sell their own products and not anybody else's. So, why would you want someone like that to advise you whether to sell this year or wait for next year instead?

You say that all you want out of this is to get the advice of when to sell, which you believe you are owed. But whoever you think owes it you is not in business, and RL can't give it you because they are not qualified. So MSE or Martin Lewis are not gong to bring CIS back from the dead and make them give you advice.

But if the initial advisers' track record of giving good advice is simply "buy this, it's suitable for you and only medium risks"... [proceeds to lose 90% of the investment very swiftly], then surely you do not want any advice from them, because their advice was not really worth having?

The way forward is to simply decide for yourself now whether you still want an investment that you don't understand, or not. Seems to me that the only rational answer can be "not".

As such, it doesn't matter what it's worth. If it is worth a lot, great. If it is not worth much compared to what it would be worth in 2019, because markets have a lot further up to go over the next couple of years, that's fine, because after taking the cash you could just invest it somewhere else and have it go up over the next couple of years.

So take the money and run. You then have a 3 way choice : keep it in cash, engage an independent advisor to help you invest it, or invest it yourself. If you don't know how to do the latter option, research investing or trust it all to luck. If you are going to trust it all to luck you will of course risk a worse result than just leaving it be.

Again thanks Brand. Even with the correction I still find your overview and advice to be concise, helpful and showing a greater respectful understanding of how it was, and is. Others appear to have their own pompous condescending agenda and assumptions with little comprehension of how things were pre-current financial legislation and for those of us who at that time spent our energies on bringing in enough income to support our families without the state support available today too, and when "Finance" wasn't our specialist subject. I'm now better able to learn about such issues, and welcome your respectful practical supportive suggestions. MSE and Martin Lewis have made "finance" understandable and less of a taboo subject, and seeks to make redress - in generic terms - for those of us who were led to believe that we were buying a suitable service (another although different example is PPI). MSE and ML don't differentiate between companies which still exist and those that don't. It's the mis-selling principle that he upholds the fight against and seeks whatever is appropriate redress for. Please could you tell me where the graph that you mentioned with a guide-line on it is, Brand? Many thanks