Cut old people's benefits, they'll die soon anyway
Discussion
V8 Fettler said:
You're still squirming and avoiding the issues, although you do offer sharp, slick one-liners with meaningless content. Have you trained as a financial adviser?
No squirming required - I've tried explaining things in terms that a simpleton will understand but it still appears to be too complex to you, so I give up.V8 Fettler said:
I can summarise our differing viewpoints in a couple of paras:
My view is that if a professional adviser provides professional advice for a fee then that advice should be good advice; if that advice is subsequently proven to be poor then the professional adviser (or his PI insurer) should take responsibility for the poor advice and risks / costs resulting from that poor advice, that's because he was paid for the professional advice. This describes the typical punter / professional adviser relationship outside of the financial sector.
Your view is that if a professional adviser provides professional advice for a fee, and if that advice is subsequently proven to be poor then the professional adviser can relinquish responsibility for the advice and expect the punter to be liable for the risks / costs resulting from the poor professional advice despite paying for the professional advice. Bizarre.
A blatant misrepresentation, as anyone with an IQ of more than 15 will be able to confirm by reading the previous posts The fact that you still don't understand this says it all. My view is that if a professional adviser provides professional advice for a fee then that advice should be good advice; if that advice is subsequently proven to be poor then the professional adviser (or his PI insurer) should take responsibility for the poor advice and risks / costs resulting from that poor advice, that's because he was paid for the professional advice. This describes the typical punter / professional adviser relationship outside of the financial sector.
Your view is that if a professional adviser provides professional advice for a fee, and if that advice is subsequently proven to be poor then the professional adviser can relinquish responsibility for the advice and expect the punter to be liable for the risks / costs resulting from the poor professional advice despite paying for the professional advice. Bizarre.
Your summary is as inaccurate as your knowledge of financial services - I suggest you give up now.
Your inability to understand the issue being discussed is what I think is 'bizarre'.
One thing is clear, amongst all this chat there remains one constant, financial 'houses' are not there for the enrichment of 'punters'. Sure they will suggest that you can earn good returns blah de blah,that's their advert' BUT they are in the business to earn money for themselves. The punter (me) might be able to receive a reasonable return for my investment but if the investment house see's a loss in the particular sector it's going to hurt.
Don't forget the punter pays for the service so that's 1 / 2 or 3% of your cash gone for payment of expertise, you the punter are the ones taking most of the risk. Make your due diligence deep and sound on any finance house you are considering with your cash pile. If you have the expertise to match or exceed the finance house 'go it alone' your already 1-3% up! Just make sure you factor in your time spent keeping a beady eye on your investments. Have a close look at where the investment house is investing, if its plenty of blue chip then why pay that management fee, on the other hand if you have selected a more risky approach that 1 - 3% could be money well spent.
For me its a simple equation, can I beat the investment professional. Like I said I do have that 1 - 3% advantage to start and be master of my own destiny.
Of course the professional will be under pressure to perform and turn in a decent return, without which the investment house will soon go under.
I may have confused myself now
Don't forget the punter pays for the service so that's 1 / 2 or 3% of your cash gone for payment of expertise, you the punter are the ones taking most of the risk. Make your due diligence deep and sound on any finance house you are considering with your cash pile. If you have the expertise to match or exceed the finance house 'go it alone' your already 1-3% up! Just make sure you factor in your time spent keeping a beady eye on your investments. Have a close look at where the investment house is investing, if its plenty of blue chip then why pay that management fee, on the other hand if you have selected a more risky approach that 1 - 3% could be money well spent.
For me its a simple equation, can I beat the investment professional. Like I said I do have that 1 - 3% advantage to start and be master of my own destiny.
Of course the professional will be under pressure to perform and turn in a decent return, without which the investment house will soon go under.
I may have confused myself now
crankedup said:
One thing is clear, amongst all this chat there remains one constant, financial 'houses' are not there for the enrichment of 'punters'. Sure they will suggest that you can earn good returns blah de blah,that's their advert' BUT they are in the business to earn money for themselves.
We seem to have moved from financial advisors onto asset management firms which are entirely separate entities - not sure if this is deliberate or not.Of course asset management firms receive fees based on assets under management (and have mainly fixed costs) so they have every incentive to invest your money wisely (in line with the investment strategy that YOU choose). Lower performance= reduced fees.
crankedup said:
The punter (me) might be able to receive a reasonable return for my investment but if the investment house see's a loss in the particular sector it's going to hurt.
Don't forget the punter pays for the service so that's 1 / 2 or 3% of your cash gone for payment of expertise, you the punter are the ones taking most of the risk.
Don't forget, you the punter are getting the vast majority of the upside too!!Don't forget the punter pays for the service so that's 1 / 2 or 3% of your cash gone for payment of expertise, you the punter are the ones taking most of the risk.
crankedup said:
Make your due diligence deep and sound on any finance house you are considering with your cash pile. If you have the expertise to match or exceed the finance house 'go it alone' your already 1-3% up! Just make sure you factor in your time spent keeping a beady eye on your investments. Have a close look at where the investment house is investing, if its plenty of blue chip then why pay that management fee, on the other hand if you have selected a more risky approach that 1 - 3% could be money well spent.
For me its a simple equation, can I beat the investment professional. Like I said I do have that 1 - 3% advantage to start and be master of my own destiny.
Of course the professional will be under pressure to perform and turn in a decent return, without which the investment house will soon go under.
I may have confused myself now
Few asset management houses charge more than 1% or 1.5% for pure asset management, so be careful you are comparing like-with-like!For me its a simple equation, can I beat the investment professional. Like I said I do have that 1 - 3% advantage to start and be master of my own destiny.
Of course the professional will be under pressure to perform and turn in a decent return, without which the investment house will soon go under.
I may have confused myself now
sidicks said:
V8 Fettler said:
You're still squirming and avoiding the issues, although you do offer sharp, slick one-liners with meaningless content. Have you trained as a financial adviser?
No squirming required - I've tried explaining things in terms that a simpleton will understand but it still appears to be too complex to you, so I give up.V8 Fettler said:
I can summarise our differing viewpoints in a couple of paras:
My view is that if a professional adviser provides professional advice for a fee then that advice should be good advice; if that advice is subsequently proven to be poor then the professional adviser (or his PI insurer) should take responsibility for the poor advice and risks / costs resulting from that poor advice, that's because he was paid for the professional advice. This describes the typical punter / professional adviser relationship outside of the financial sector.
Your view is that if a professional adviser provides professional advice for a fee, and if that advice is subsequently proven to be poor then the professional adviser can relinquish responsibility for the advice and expect the punter to be liable for the risks / costs resulting from the poor professional advice despite paying for the professional advice. Bizarre.
A blatant misrepresentation, as anyone with an IQ of more than 15 will be able to confirm by reading the previous posts The fact that you still don't understand this says it all. My view is that if a professional adviser provides professional advice for a fee then that advice should be good advice; if that advice is subsequently proven to be poor then the professional adviser (or his PI insurer) should take responsibility for the poor advice and risks / costs resulting from that poor advice, that's because he was paid for the professional advice. This describes the typical punter / professional adviser relationship outside of the financial sector.
Your view is that if a professional adviser provides professional advice for a fee, and if that advice is subsequently proven to be poor then the professional adviser can relinquish responsibility for the advice and expect the punter to be liable for the risks / costs resulting from the poor professional advice despite paying for the professional advice. Bizarre.
Your summary is as inaccurate as your knowledge of financial services - I suggest you give up now.
Your inability to understand the issue being discussed is what I think is 'bizarre'.
It was beholden't upon the financial services to provide the best information to the customer regards to the customers requirement. (we take this for granted now). Back then it was cloudy, to say the least. The very fact that financial services sales packages have had to be fully transparent tells its own story. They took full advantage of lax regulation alongside a trusting, and some might say naive customer, hence all the fall-out we have seen over the past five years or so.
crankedup said:
In all fairness I see both sides of this debate as being the epitome of wrongdoing on the financial services sector and the misunderstanding of the client. Lets be clear, it is the client that is the customer, if I go into my local butcher and ask for advise on the very best hunk of beef I expect my butcher to tell me, in return I spend my hard earn't with that butcher. If the beef is rubbish I expect to be compensated (money back or another cut of beef)
It was beholden't upon the financial services to provide the best information to the customer regards to the customers requirement. (we take this for granted now). Back then it was cloudy, to say the least. The very fact that financial services sales packages have had to be fully transparent tells its own story. They took full advantage of lax regulation alongside a trusting, and some might say naive customer, hence all the fall-out we have seen over the past five years or so.
The analogy fails because the butcher can see the beef and assess whether it is good or not. That only works in financial services with the benefit of hindsight (as far as investment returns are concerned).It was beholden't upon the financial services to provide the best information to the customer regards to the customers requirement. (we take this for granted now). Back then it was cloudy, to say the least. The very fact that financial services sales packages have had to be fully transparent tells its own story. They took full advantage of lax regulation alongside a trusting, and some might say naive customer, hence all the fall-out we have seen over the past five years or so.
Financial services involves a considerable amount of uncertainty and unknowns - no-one knows what the best asset class is going to be next week, next month, next year etc. All a credible advisor can do is to explain the nature of different asset classes - in particular the potential risk and volatility associated with different assets - and assess (and explain) whether this type of risk-return profile is appropriate for the investor.
That is what you are paying an advisor for, not for predicting the future! If they could do that reliably they'd be multi-millionaires and wouldn't need to bother advising customers where to invest their £25 per month ...!!
Edited by sidicks on Sunday 11th October 19:21
sidicks said:
crankedup said:
One thing is clear, amongst all this chat there remains one constant, financial 'houses' are not there for the enrichment of 'punters'. Sure they will suggest that you can earn good returns blah de blah,that's their advert' BUT they are in the business to earn money for themselves.
We seem to have moved from financial advisors onto asset management firms which are entirely separate entities - not sure if this is deliberate or not.Of course asset management firms receive fees based on assets under management (and have mainly fixed costs) so they have every incentive to invest your money wisely (in line with the investment strategy that YOU choose). Lower performance= reduced fees.
crankedup said:
The punter (me) might be able to receive a reasonable return for my investment but if the investment house see's a loss in the particular sector it's going to hurt.
Don't forget the punter pays for the service so that's 1 / 2 or 3% of your cash gone for payment of expertise, you the punter are the ones taking most of the risk.
Don't forget, you the punter are getting the vast majority of the upside too!!Don't forget the punter pays for the service so that's 1 / 2 or 3% of your cash gone for payment of expertise, you the punter are the ones taking most of the risk.
crankedup said:
Make your due diligence deep and sound on any finance house you are considering with your cash pile. If you have the expertise to match or exceed the finance house 'go it alone' your already 1-3% up! Just make sure you factor in your time spent keeping a beady eye on your investments. Have a close look at where the investment house is investing, if its plenty of blue chip then why pay that management fee, on the other hand if you have selected a more risky approach that 1 - 3% could be money well spent.
For me its a simple equation, can I beat the investment professional. Like I said I do have that 1 - 3% advantage to start and be master of my own destiny.
Of course the professional will be under pressure to perform and turn in a decent return, without which the investment house will soon go under.
I may have confused myself now
Few asset management houses charge more than 1% or 1.5% for pure asset management, so be careful you are comparing like-with-like!For me its a simple equation, can I beat the investment professional. Like I said I do have that 1 - 3% advantage to start and be master of my own destiny.
Of course the professional will be under pressure to perform and turn in a decent return, without which the investment house will soon go under.
I may have confused myself now
off to the pub now.crankedup said:
For me this will be an interesting debate, one that I would like to return to and will try keeping it useful or illuminating from my POV as a punter and yourselves as the pro'. Back tomorrow to discuss advise v Investment value v responsibility off to the pub now.
Enjoy off to the pub now.
sidicks said:
That is what you are paying an advisor for, not for predicting the future! If they could do that reliably they'd be multi-millionaires and wouldn't need to bother advising customers where to invest their £25 per month ...!!
That reminds me of the quip about teachers, 'Those who can, do; those who can't, teach', I guess in the financial world it becomes 'Those who can, make millions; those who can't, become advisers'.RYH64E said:
That reminds me of the quip about teachers, 'Those who can, do; those who can't, teach', I guess in the financial world it becomes 'Those who can, make millions; those who can't, become advisers'.
As above, no-one can predict financial markets with any degree of certainty - the majority of the best managers are mainly looking at relative performance (rather than absolute performance) and doing extensive research to identify companies that are best placed to outperform over a certain period, based on what is known about the wider investment environment.There is still massive uncertainty though, despite would some people would believe.
sidicks said:
V8 Fettler said:
You're still squirming and avoiding the issues, although you do offer sharp, slick one-liners with meaningless content. Have you trained as a financial adviser?
No squirming required - I've tried explaining things in terms that a simpleton will understand but it still appears to be too complex to you, so I give up.V8 Fettler said:
I can summarise our differing viewpoints in a couple of paras:
My view is that if a professional adviser provides professional advice for a fee then that advice should be good advice; if that advice is subsequently proven to be poor then the professional adviser (or his PI insurer) should take responsibility for the poor advice and risks / costs resulting from that poor advice, that's because he was paid for the professional advice. This describes the typical punter / professional adviser relationship outside of the financial sector.
Your view is that if a professional adviser provides professional advice for a fee, and if that advice is subsequently proven to be poor then the professional adviser can relinquish responsibility for the advice and expect the punter to be liable for the risks / costs resulting from the poor professional advice despite paying for the professional advice. Bizarre.
A blatant misrepresentation, as anyone with an IQ of more than 15 will be able to confirm by reading the previous posts The fact that you still don't understand this says it all. My view is that if a professional adviser provides professional advice for a fee then that advice should be good advice; if that advice is subsequently proven to be poor then the professional adviser (or his PI insurer) should take responsibility for the poor advice and risks / costs resulting from that poor advice, that's because he was paid for the professional advice. This describes the typical punter / professional adviser relationship outside of the financial sector.
Your view is that if a professional adviser provides professional advice for a fee, and if that advice is subsequently proven to be poor then the professional adviser can relinquish responsibility for the advice and expect the punter to be liable for the risks / costs resulting from the poor professional advice despite paying for the professional advice. Bizarre.
Your summary is as inaccurate as your knowledge of financial services - I suggest you give up now.
Your inability to understand the issue being discussed is what I think is 'bizarre'.
V8 Fettler said:
I see very little explanation from you, although I do see flippant one-liners. Feel free to offer some detail to support your claim that I have made a "blatant misrepresentation" of the facts.
Feel free to actually read my posts and evidence that I've said the views that you ascribe to me.Your continued error is in your lack of understanding as to what a good financial advisor can (and most importantly) cannot do. Without understanding this, or conclusions will continue to be fundamentally flawed.
sidicks said:
V8 Fettler said:
I see very little explanation from you, although I do see flippant one-liners. Feel free to offer some detail to support your claim that I have made a "blatant misrepresentation" of the facts.
Feel free to actually read my posts and evidence that I've said the views that you ascribe to me.Your continued error is in your lack of understanding as to what a good financial advisor can (and most importantly) cannot do. Without understanding this, or conclusions will continue to be fundamentally flawed.
V8 Fettler said:
Your view is that if a professional adviser provides professional advice for a fee, and if that advice is subsequently proven to be poor then the professional adviser can relinquish responsibility for the advice and expect the punter to be liable for the risks / costs resulting from the poor professional advice despite paying for the professional advice. Bizarre.
sidicks said:
As above, no-one can predict financial markets with any degree of certainty - the majority of the best managers are mainly looking at relative performance (rather than absolute performance) and doing extensive research to identify companies that are best placed to outperform over a certain period, based on what is known about the wider investment environment.
There is still massive uncertainty though, despite would some people would believe.
That's not what I hear when it comes to bonus time...There is still massive uncertainty though, despite would some people would believe.
V8 Fettler said:
You're flailing.
So you keep claiming but with nothing to support those claims.V8 Fettler said:
I had hoped that you would at least attempt to provide some detail to refute:
At no point have I ever said that a financial advisor is not responsible for poor advice. In fact I've quite explicitly said the opposite.Because you don't understand investment markets and what the job of a financial advisor is (despite it being explained to you in numerous posts), you will continue to make the same mistakes and make the same false claims.
sidicks said:
RYH64E said:
That's not what I hear when it comes to bonus time...
Meaning what exactly?RYH64E said:
Meaning that when things go well it's due to individual brilliance and indispensable talent that must be rewarded, no mention of massive uncertainty. It's only when things go wrong that uncertainty is mentioned.
I guess you (deliberately) missed the bit about the extensive work that goes on to position a portfolio for a given market outlook? sidicks said:
V8 Fettler said:
You're flailing.
So you keep claiming but with nothing to support those claims.V8 Fettler said:
I had hoped that you would at least attempt to provide some detail to refute:
At no point have I ever said that a financial advisor is not responsible for poor advice. In fact I've quite explicitly said the opposite.Because you don't understand investment markets and what the job of a financial advisor is (despite it being explained to you in numerous posts), you will continue to make the same mistakes and make the same false claims.
The financial adviser (the expert) advises the purchase of specific financial products. If the performance of the products is poor then the advice associated with the purchase of those products is also poor, the correct advice being "avoid like the plague". You have stated that a financial adviser is not responsible for the performance of the products recommended by the financial adviser, therefore you are stating that the financial adviser is not responsible for the poor advice associated with the flawed recommendation to buy poorly performing products.
The reality is that "financial adviser" is a misnomer, "financial guesser" being a better description. "Financial chancer" is probably a bit harsh as a general description.
RYH64E said:
sidicks said:
RYH64E said:
That's not what I hear when it comes to bonus time...
Meaning what exactly?Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff