Cut old people's benefits, they'll die soon anyway

[sidicks]

V8 Fettler said:

Flailing = sharp one-line retorts with little logical, coherent relevance to the issues. Primarily aimed at scoring cheap points.

Says the person who still expects advisors to predict the future..

V8 Fettler said:

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".

The same incorrect comment based on the same incorrect assumptions.

V8 Fettler said:

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.

Still wrong. Again.
I've explained what the 'advice' from an advisor does and does not cover (and for anyone with an understanding of financial markets, what the advice can reasonably expect to cover).

By repeating the same nonsense that has already been dismissed you're emphasising your prejudice and ignorance rather than wanting a credible discussion.

V8 Fettler said:

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.

The reality is you're ignorant about financial services and are happy to stay that way. Which is fine.

Edited by sidicks on Monday 12th October 07:40

[crankedup]

sidicks said:

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).

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

Yes agreed, it is a poor analogy that I have used. Maybe the purchase of a Thoroughbred race horse is more accurate, you expect it to do well due to its pedigree but no warranty exists and it could break a leg!

In the end it is up to the customer to pay due diligence regarding investment, looking at each investing company past track record (not a warranty to future performance)look at the particular investment fund manager, some are extremely good at finding those returns we all would like. Decide upon your investing strategy regards risk and short/medium/long term. Have a wide spectrum of sectors and keep your own eyes open for stormy waters. And as Sidkicks mentions, drip feed.
Looks like we broadly agree, makes a nice change!

[sidicks]

crankedup said:

Yes agreed, it is a poor analogy that I have used. Maybe the purchase of a Thoroughbred race horse is more accurate, you expect it to do well due to its pedigree but no warranty exists and it could break a leg!

In the end it is up to the customer to pay due diligence regarding investment, looking at each investing company past track record (not a warranty to future performance)look at the particular investment fund manager, some are extremely good at finding those returns we all would like. Decide upon your investing strategy regards risk and short/medium/long term. Have a wide spectrum of sectors and keep your own eyes open for stormy waters. And as Sidkicks mentions, drip feed.
Looks like we broadly agree, makes a nice change!

That's a better analogy!

I think we agree on quite a lot - particularly on 'outcomes', we just disagree on how best to achieve those outcomes!

[RYH64E]

crankedup said:

Yes agreed, it is a poor analogy that I have used. Maybe the purchase of a Thoroughbred race horse is more accurate, you expect it to do well due to its pedigree but no warranty exists and it could break a leg!

In the end it is up to the customer to pay due diligence regarding investment, looking at each investing company past track record (not a warranty to future performance)look at the particular investment fund manager, some are extremely good at finding those returns we all would like. Decide upon your investing strategy regards risk and short/medium/long term. Have a wide spectrum of sectors and keep your own eyes open for stormy waters. And as Sidkicks mentions, drip feed.
Looks like we broadly agree, makes a nice change!

So just another form of gambling then? Where the bookies/financial institutions always win and financial advisors are akin to tipsters? I'd go with that analogy.

[sidicks]

RYH64E said:

So just another form of gambling then? Where the bookies/financial institutions always win and financial advisors are akin to tipsters? I'd go with that analogy.

It appears that some people are unable to differentiate between uncertain markets and randomness, as if there is nothing in between.

[crankedup]

V8 Fettler said:

RYH64E said:

sidicks said:

RYH64E said:

That's not what I hear when it comes to bonus time...

Meaning what exactly?

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.

Massive uncertainty = massive guesswork with no responsibility. Why pay for guesswork?

In fairness I have found that the broad mix of investments are the sensible way forward for offering the highest degree of certainty (such as that is) of future growth. As I have mentioned already mix it up and pick your (hopefully) winners from the multitude of investment houses. Any fund manager that turns in poor performance will soon be out on his ear, businesses cannot afford to harbour duffers. So if you find a Company you are happy with go for it. Take the good years with the less good and downright awful years and balance it over the long term, trend should be upwards. Alternately invest into property, wines, cars or any number of alternatives. Or mix it all for a truly wide spread portfolio.
ps nobody could have been a more outspoken critique of the finance industry than me(?). There are certain things in life that we know will undoubtedly occur, death and another financial crash, its just not knowing when

[drdel]

Having worked all my life without taking anything from the State and the getting taxed for anything they feel like I have no hesitation in turning the tables and getting back all I possible can for as long as I can !!

[crankedup]

RYH64E said:

crankedup said:

Yes agreed, it is a poor analogy that I have used. Maybe the purchase of a Thoroughbred race horse is more accurate, you expect it to do well due to its pedigree but no warranty exists and it could break a leg!

In the end it is up to the customer to pay due diligence regarding investment, looking at each investing company past track record (not a warranty to future performance)look at the particular investment fund manager, some are extremely good at finding those returns we all would like. Decide upon your investing strategy regards risk and short/medium/long term. Have a wide spectrum of sectors and keep your own eyes open for stormy waters. And as Sidkicks mentions, drip feed.
Looks like we broadly agree, makes a nice change!

So just another form of gambling then? Where the bookies/financial institutions always win and financial advisors are akin to tipsters? I'd go with that analogy.

Yes to a point I agree, it is a gamble and risk, risk that investors usually ponder deep and long. The thing in the punters(me)favour is that I am free to make the decisions prior to commitment of money. Look at the financial house as just another business, if they are good at what they do then they will succeed, along with the punters. That's a win/win which is what we all want. Good businesses employ good staff, good staff cost money, but like any business poor quality staff are out on their ear.
Alternatives can also include investing 'under the mattress'.

[V8 Fettler]

sidicks said:

V8 Fettler said:

Flailing = sharp one-line retorts with little logical, coherent relevance to the issues. Primarily aimed at scoring cheap points.

Says the person who still expects advisors to predict the future..

You're twisting and squirming again. It's about using professional judgement and expertise to assess the likely future performance of a product. It won't be an absolute prediction, and even a good adviser won't always get it right, but if there's a fee to be taken then there should responsibility for future performance associated with that fee.

sidicks said:

V8 Fettler said:

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".

The same incorrect comment based on the same incorrect assumptions.

Which part is incorrect?

The financial adviser (the expert) advises the purchase of specific financial products. That is irrefutable. because that's what financial advisers do.

If the performance of the products is poor then the advice associated with the purchase of those products is also poor. How can the advice to buy a poor performing product be anything but poor? It can hardly be good advice.

The correct advice being "avoid like the plague". The only good advice concerning a poorly performing product is "avoid". What other good advice can there be?

The only assumption I make is that a professional should take responsibility for the providing professional advice where a fee is extracted. Are you stating that it's perfectly acceptable for a professional to recommend a product and then walk away with the fee when it's shown that the product is flawed and should not have been recommended to the punter?

sidicks said:

V8 Fettler said:

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.

Still wrong. Again.
I've explained what the 'advice' from an advisor does and does not cover (and for anyone with an understanding of financial markets, what the advice can reasonably expect to cover).

There is a logical argument that you are missing: the primary function of the professional advice is to enable the punter to gain financially; leaving aside ethical investments, what other reason would there be to invest in the financial sector? A financial adviser should take responsibility for the advice because he receives a professional fee for that advice. Or are you suggesting that it's perfectly OK for a financial adviser to profit from poor advice?

sidicks said:

By repeating the same nonsense that has already been dismissed you're emphasising your prejudice and ignorance rather than wanting a credible discussion.

Nonsense? My view hinges on the principle that a professional adviser (so that's an adviser that takes a fee) should be accountable for the quality of that advice. If the core element of that advice involves recommending financial products and it transpires that the financial products are flawed and perform poorly then the financial adviser (or his PI cover) should be accountable for that failure.

sidicks said:

V8 Fettler said:

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.

The reality is you're ignorant about financial services and are happy to stay that way. Which is fine.

I was certainly ignorant about financial services a few decades ago, my knowledge and understanding has increased over the intervening years, which is clearly something you find difficult to deal with, hence the squirming.

sidicks said:

V8 Fettler said:

Massive uncertainty = massive guesswork with no responsibility. Why pay for guesswork?

With each post you demonstrate more and more of your lack of knowledge about financial markets!

Your words. The primary solution when dealing with massive uncertainty is to guess. Might be good guesses but still guesses nevertheless.
The "no responsibility" refers to your mantra that a financial adviser will not take responsibility for recommending poorly performing products. My view is that the financial adviser should take responsibility for the performance of the products recommended, because taking responsibility in return for a fee is the definition of a professional.
On the other hand, if the advice is based on guesswork then this needs to made clear to all at the outset.

[sidicks]

[V8 Fettler]

crankedup said:

Yes agreed, it is a poor analogy that I have used. Maybe the purchase of a Thoroughbred race horse is more accurate, you expect it to do well due to its pedigree but no warranty exists and it could break a leg!

In the end it is up to the customer to pay due diligence regarding investment, looking at each investing company past track record (not a warranty to future performance)look at the particular investment fund manager, some are extremely good at finding those returns we all would like. Decide upon your investing strategy regards risk and short/medium/long term. Have a wide spectrum of sectors and keep your own eyes open for stormy waters. And as Sidkicks mentions, drip feed.
Looks like we broadly agree, makes a nice change!

Would you do that and then employ a financial adviser? Or is this instead of employing a financial adviser, which would make more sense.

[V8 Fettler]

sidicks said:

Is that it?

[crankedup]

V8 Fettler said:

crankedup said:

Yes agreed, it is a poor analogy that I have used. Maybe the purchase of a Thoroughbred race horse is more accurate, you expect it to do well due to its pedigree but no warranty exists and it could break a leg!

In the end it is up to the customer to pay due diligence regarding investment, looking at each investing company past track record (not a warranty to future performance)look at the particular investment fund manager, some are extremely good at finding those returns we all would like. Decide upon your investing strategy regards risk and short/medium/long term. Have a wide spectrum of sectors and keep your own eyes open for stormy waters. And as Sidkicks mentions, drip feed.
Looks like we broadly agree, makes a nice change!

Would you do that and then employ a financial adviser? Or is this instead of employing a financial adviser, which would make more sense.

Yes, it is instead of employing a financial advisor.
However, certain investments or loans may require employing a financial advisor, for example when taking out a mortgage loan perhaps. Or if considering investing into a relatively unknown product/service. Still due diligence is, imo, wise. Focus upon the actual person or Company that this person is working for, same criteria applies. Past performance records, cost and scope of activity within the investment portfolio. Invest and forget may be OK for some, others not, with so many variables its impossible to be anything other than broadbrush remarks.

[sidicks]

V8 Fettler said:

Is that it?

You've just repeated the same nonsense over and over again, so no idea why you think the response is going to be any different?

[V8 Fettler]

sidicks said:

V8 Fettler said:

Is that it?

You've just repeated the same nonsense over and over again, so no idea why you think the response is going to be any different?

Good to see that you've given up on the squirming, I recognise that it's difficult to defend the indefensible.

[V8 Fettler]

crankedup said:

Yes, it is instead of employing a financial advisor.
However, certain investments or loans may require employing a financial advisor, for example when taking out a mortgage loan perhaps. Or if considering investing into a relatively unknown product/service. Still due diligence is, imo, wise. Focus upon the actual person or Company that this person is working for, same criteria applies. Past performance records, cost and scope of activity within the investment portfolio. Invest and forget may be OK for some, others not, with so many variables its impossible to be anything other than broadbrush remarks.

Yes, that would make sense.

[sidicks]

V8 Fettler said:

Good to see that you've given up on the squirming, I recognise that it's difficult to defend the indefensible.

Once again, no squirming needed. You clearly don't understand how markets work and most importantly have no intention of finding out so in that case, I suggest you stick to your electrics!!

Edited by sidicks on Monday 12th October 19:56

[V8 Fettler]

sidicks said:

V8 Fettler said:

Good to see that you've given up on the squirming, I recognise that it's difficult to defend the indefensible.

Once again, no squirming needed. You clearly don't understand how markets work and most importantly have no intention of finding out so in that case, I suggest you stick to your electrics!!

Edited by sidicks on Monday 12th October 19:56

You've defined your own understanding of the financial markets as "massive uncertainty", meaning you have no idea what path the financial markets will take. On that basis, please tell me that you have no involvement with the investment strategies of any pension funds.

You squirmed in response to logical, coherent argument, and now you've stopped squirming, so that's good.

[sidicks]

V8 Fettler said:

You've defined your own understanding of the financial markets as "massive uncertainty", meaning you have no idea what path the financial markets will take. On that basis, please tell me that you have no involvement with the investment strategies of any pension funds.

You squirmed in response to logical, coherent argument, and now you've stopped squirming, so that's good.

Keep dreaming!

[Derek Smith]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

There's nothing like a generalisation.

Mine certainly didn't 'sound too good to be true'. Going via the route of the endowment would have cost more, compensated to an extent by the 'free' life insurance. Supported by the figures the chap produced we were made aware that it was the more responsible route as, if interest rates increased dramatically, the endowment could be increased to soften the blow. This was fantasy but as neither I nor my father understood the intricacies of the system, we believed it. After all, as the chap said, he didn't make much money out of selling endowments, his unbiased advice ensuring that he became someone to trust. Or words to that effect.

Funny enough, that mad me suspicious of him and I think he sensed it. Later in the chat he casually mentioned that the first 'n' payments went to him. Presumably, that was a lie as well.

So for me, it wasn't greed. Given that conmen normally stick to the same story I assume it is the tactic he used all the time. It is, I believe, called 'stroking' in the business, or was then. So for those others he took money from corruptly, it wasn't greed either.

But in any case, what is wrong in going for the better option? I'm considering a new car in the nearish future and I've looked at different methods of finance. Leasing seems to be the most sensible option for me, being cheaper for the term I have in mind. Is that an example of what you would call greed? What is the point of going for the more expensive route if there are no benefits?

People like him and the company he worked for, which was complicit, gave rise to the TV consumer programmes on TV and the movement which started Which? where such practices were exposed.

Due diligence isn't something like crossing your fingers. If you go to a professional to seek advice, that to me is exercising due diligence.