St james Wealth
Discussion
king hell z4chris99 said:
limpsfield said:
You are the poster who keeps on giving. Did your masters teach you what a boiler room actually is?
SJW cold calling, high pressure sales tactics are pretty similar to what goes on are you an IFA by any chance? or work for SJW?
z4chris99 said:
Ginge R said:
A 30 day cooling off period for client and a 6 year cooling off period for StJP is hardly in the spirit of RDR. I understand StJP is eyeing up the far east; logical when profits are down at home because the regulator is finally getting its act together?
Asia has its fair share of these cold callers already, SJP/W will be right at home. The de Vere Group, The Henley Group....
avinalarf said:
limpsfield said:
Absolutely no connection whatsoever to SJP or the IFA world - just get bored by some of the rubbish that gets spouted on here.
Instead of being bored why not make a contribution.I would be pleased to hear your take on the subject.
I don't think the problem is with SJP or any other IFA - I think it is a widespread lack of financial education/awareness that many of us suffer from.
No IFA or financial person has a crystal ball. So relatively high charges do not mean correspondingly higher returns. Until 3 months ago I hadn't sat down with an IFA for about 18 years. But the IFA I had a meeting with in November did make me think about certain areas of my pension that could be better managed.
It's important to understand that no one has a crystal ball - no one knows what fund or market will do the best over the next 1/3/5 years. So maybe we would all be better off just putting our money every month in a simple tracker fund? it's a moot point.
But I think what an IFA can do is force us to look at our finances and at least take some action. Otherwise it is too easy to think - I'll do that next month. 8 inches away from my laptop is a load of pension paperwork that has sat there since the summer, that I am going to deal with when I have time.... I spent two hours cleaning my car today - I have time.
I never think there is any harm in going to talk to these people. No one can deliver guaranteed stellar returns but maybe they will give you something to think about and where to put your money where you wouldn't before.
I have worked in financial markets for about 20 years and I think we are the worst people for not doing anything. The IFAs I saw in the 90s did result in me setting up a couple of pension plans back then that are worth an alright amount now and I am sure that money would have evaporated over the years if I hadn't done it.
Edited by limpsfield on Wednesday 26th February 20:38
By the way, this is a great blog on matters financial and active versus passive (e.g. index tracker) investments
http://www.bankersumbrella.com/blog.html
Ex-Luxembourg Private Banker. Well worth a read. For those of you on the twitter he is on @BankersUmbrella
http://www.bankersumbrella.com/blog.html
Ex-Luxembourg Private Banker. Well worth a read. For those of you on the twitter he is on @BankersUmbrella
avinalarf said:
He might have foreseen that the markets were unstable and suggested putting the majority of your capital into more suitable products .
And when he made that call, which would have gone against the opinion of most others at the time, and the market rose...would you want him to lose out then as well?You don't pay an adviser to second the guess the market for you - he puts you in the right place for you, acknowledging that there will be ups and downs on the path to your goal.
You can't penalise an adviser for a falling market any more than not pay a taxi fare if he runs into a traffic jam.
Tiggsy said:
avinalarf said:
He might have foreseen that the markets were unstable and suggested putting the majority of your capital into more suitable products .
And when he made that call, which would have gone against the opinion of most others at the time, and the market rose...would you want him to lose out then as well?You don't pay an adviser to second the guess the market for you - he puts you in the right place for you, acknowledging that there will be ups and downs on the path to your goal.
You can't penalise an adviser for a falling market any more than not pay a taxi fare if he runs into a traffic jam.
There are times when even a layman can see that certain markets are overpriced and that the usual cyclical correction might take place ,e.g. At the moment the property market in certain parts of the U.K. , investing in China .
Therefore I would expect an IFA to point out these anomalies to a client.
I would not expect an IFA to make the right call every time but would expect him to have a grasp of what was going on,otherwise anyone could call himself a Financial Advisor and just go with the flow.
However I have been told by Limpsfield and yourself that this is not the job of an IFA,and I can see that point,so maybe that is the case and I should calm down.
avinalarf said:
He might have foreseen that the markets were unstable and suggested putting the majority of your capital into more suitable products .
I my business if I call it badly wrong I also suffer the consequences.
i would be cautious about the stock market and property over the next 12 months so if my client had a low/moderate risk profile I would advice accordingly. I understand nobody has a crystal ball just saying not thrilled at taking and paying for advice that doesn't perform.
Anyway not suggesting I am the oracle, I was only making what I considered to be a fair comment.
I would also expect to pay a fee for meeting with the advisor.
Avinalarf, I'm with you 100%.I my business if I call it badly wrong I also suffer the consequences.
i would be cautious about the stock market and property over the next 12 months so if my client had a low/moderate risk profile I would advice accordingly. I understand nobody has a crystal ball just saying not thrilled at taking and paying for advice that doesn't perform.
Anyway not suggesting I am the oracle, I was only making what I considered to be a fair comment.
I would also expect to pay a fee for meeting with the advisor.
The financial industry is self-serving first and foremost. I'd prefer other models of remuneration - say 20% of the gains, or even more if they shared the risk and paid me something back in the event of a loss. Instead the industry is structured so that they are all guaranteed to take a slice of your capital - regardless of the quality of the advice.
Currently it's proving quite hard to get much above 5% without going into highly volatile/risky investments. Typical "industry" fees for the platform, adviser and fund manager (assuming zero entry/trading costs) are a minimum of 1.5%.
So the investor provides 100% of the capital, assumes 100% of the risk, and on a fund returning 5% gets just over two thirds of the return - the industry helping itself to the other one third. Share the risk, share the return but of course the industry wants to guarantee its income year on year regardless of performance.
And then factor in that around 90% of managed funds provide a worse return than their sector trackers over the long term, and you begin to wonder just what all the fees are buying you...
PhilboSE said:
Avinalarf, I'm with you 100%.
The financial industry is self-serving first and foremost. I'd prefer other models of remuneration - say 20% of the gains, or even more if they shared the risk and paid me something back in the event of a loss. Instead the industry is structured so that they are all guaranteed to take a slice of your capital - regardless of the quality of the advice.
Currently it's proving quite hard to get much above 5% without going into highly volatile/risky investments. Typical "industry" fees for the platform, adviser and fund manager (assuming zero entry/trading costs) are a minimum of 1.5%.
So the investor provides 100% of the capital, assumes 100% of the risk, and on a fund returning 5% gets just over two thirds of the return - the industry helping itself to the other one third. Share the risk, share the return but of course the industry wants to guarantee its income year on year regardless of performance.
And then factor in that around 90% of managed funds provide a worse return than their sector trackers over the long term, and you begin to wonder just what all the fees are buying you...
Well Philbo,that is exactly my take on the subject,it's Heads I win tails you lose.The financial industry is self-serving first and foremost. I'd prefer other models of remuneration - say 20% of the gains, or even more if they shared the risk and paid me something back in the event of a loss. Instead the industry is structured so that they are all guaranteed to take a slice of your capital - regardless of the quality of the advice.
Currently it's proving quite hard to get much above 5% without going into highly volatile/risky investments. Typical "industry" fees for the platform, adviser and fund manager (assuming zero entry/trading costs) are a minimum of 1.5%.
So the investor provides 100% of the capital, assumes 100% of the risk, and on a fund returning 5% gets just over two thirds of the return - the industry helping itself to the other one third. Share the risk, share the return but of course the industry wants to guarantee its income year on year regardless of performance.
And then factor in that around 90% of managed funds provide a worse return than their sector trackers over the long term, and you begin to wonder just what all the fees are buying you...
The contrary argument is that an IFA is for guidance on long term investment strategy after discussing the risk profile of the client.
Please remember folks that the majority of IFA's are not fund managers, although there are many IFA's who have also forgotten this. Some choose to run money and do so with the correct permissions and fair play to them. I stopped creating my own advised portfolios when I worked out I could obtain discretionary portfolio management with greater research and oversight than I could hope to provide, for a lower cost. Yes it is my responsibility to recommend the management team, but I'd rather do that than pick the funds with little more DD at my disposal than Joe Public. This means I have time to focus on advising my clients and not just talking about fund performance.
Many threads that appear on PH link the direct fund performance to the performance of the IFA. A good IFA will advise you a on risk appropriate investment strategy which may go down as well as plummet, but they should also ADVISE you on your finances - tax mitigation, income strategies in retirement, diversification with property etc, inheritance planning, lifestyle protection, healthcare, long-term care, lifetime cash-flow modelling, school fees, survivor pension protection etc etc.
It's the "planning" part of financial planning. To my knowledge SJP have fewer tools available due to their regulatory status, but many of their clients will consider what they have to be just fine. Whether their products are always appropriate or good value is another debate all together. I do wonder if SJP Partners involve themselves in much broader financial planning beyond Investment and IHT though? Every SJP client I have met has an expensive Life Bond for IHT planning, a Pension, sometimes an ISA too and that's about it - seems a bit formulaic.
Many threads that appear on PH link the direct fund performance to the performance of the IFA. A good IFA will advise you a on risk appropriate investment strategy which may go down as well as plummet, but they should also ADVISE you on your finances - tax mitigation, income strategies in retirement, diversification with property etc, inheritance planning, lifestyle protection, healthcare, long-term care, lifetime cash-flow modelling, school fees, survivor pension protection etc etc.
It's the "planning" part of financial planning. To my knowledge SJP have fewer tools available due to their regulatory status, but many of their clients will consider what they have to be just fine. Whether their products are always appropriate or good value is another debate all together. I do wonder if SJP Partners involve themselves in much broader financial planning beyond Investment and IHT though? Every SJP client I have met has an expensive Life Bond for IHT planning, a Pension, sometimes an ISA too and that's about it - seems a bit formulaic.
PhilboSE said:
The financial industry is self-serving first and foremost. I'd prefer other models of remuneration - say 20% of the gains, or even more if they shared the risk and paid me something back in the event of a loss...
Phil,Generalisations aside, would your idea not induce those self servers to take more risk with your money for larger remuneration - isn't that just one of the things that got us into this mess in the first place?
Ginge R said:
PhilboSE said:
The financial industry is self-serving first and foremost. I'd prefer other models of remuneration - say 20% of the gains, or even more if they shared the risk and paid me something back in the event of a loss...
Phil,Generalisations aside, would your idea not induce those self servers to take more risk with your money for larger remuneration - isn't that just one of the things that got us into this mess in the first place?
People chasing the best returns taking on risk and then moaning when it goes sour.
The problem has been exasperated by the prolonged very low interest rates.
The typical man in the street was content to receive say 5% return on his deposit in a bank to supplement his lifestyle but that has all changed now.
So he wants to achieve the same return annually but that seems impossible unless you take on more risk.
So where can he turn ,well it appears not to an IFA to guarantee an annual return,so he goes into BTLets ,now that bubble in London is finished for a decent return and if you go further afield other problems arise.
avinalarf said:
Tiggsy said:
avinalarf said:
He might have foreseen that the markets were unstable and suggested putting the majority of your capital into more suitable products .
And when he made that call, which would have gone against the opinion of most others at the time, and the market rose...would you want him to lose out then as well?You don't pay an adviser to second the guess the market for you - he puts you in the right place for you, acknowledging that there will be ups and downs on the path to your goal.
You can't penalise an adviser for a falling market any more than not pay a taxi fare if he runs into a traffic jam.
There are times when even a layman can see that certain markets are overpriced and that the usual cyclical correction might take place ,e.g. At the moment the property market in certain parts of the U.K. , investing in China .
Therefore I would expect an IFA to point out these anomalies to a client.
I would not expect an IFA to make the right call every time but would expect him to have a grasp of what was going on,otherwise anyone could call himself a Financial Advisor and just go with the flow.
However I have been told by Limpsfield and yourself that this is not the job of an IFA,and I can see that point,so maybe that is the case and I should calm down.
IFAs aren't can predict the future, it's not their job. If you choose to invest in risk assets, then you should accept the risk of returns being more or less than you expect.
If even a layman can see that "certain markets are overpriced and that the usual cyclical correction might take place" why haven't you made your fortune by now?
fandango_c said:
avinalarf said:
Tiggsy said:
avinalarf said:
He might have foreseen that the markets were unstable and suggested putting the majority of your capital into more suitable products .
And when he made that call, which would have gone against the opinion of most others at the time, and the market rose...would you want him to lose out then as well?You don't pay an adviser to second the guess the market for you - he puts you in the right place for you, acknowledging that there will be ups and downs on the path to your goal.
You can't penalise an adviser for a falling market any more than not pay a taxi fare if he runs into a traffic jam.
There are times when even a layman can see that certain markets are overpriced and that the usual cyclical correction might take place ,e.g. At the moment the property market in certain parts of the U.K. , investing in China .
Therefore I would expect an IFA to point out these anomalies to a client.
I would not expect an IFA to make the right call every time but would expect him to have a grasp of what was going on,otherwise anyone could call himself a Financial Advisor and just go with the flow.
However I have been told by Limpsfield and yourself that this is not the job of an IFA,and I can see that point,so maybe that is the case and I should calm down.
IFAs aren't can predict the future, it's not their job. If you choose to invest in risk assets, then you should accept the risk of returns being more or less than you expect.
If even a layman can see that "certain markets are overpriced and that the usual cyclical correction might take place" why haven't you made your fortune by now?
I have made a small fortune over the years ,mon ami.
Problem is I started with a large one.
Interesting; comparing IFA with banking or fund/wealth managers.
With respect to specific exceptions, and I stand by to be corrected, the latter are generally focused on money, peer outperformance, assets under management. Financial planners are more concerned about identifying objectives, outcomes, and less (immediately) concerned about relative performance. I look for parameters to guide the appropriateness of absolute performance, not relative.. ie; is the strategy going to produce the end results that you’re looking for as a client, and from that, what are the tactics and are they working?
As mentioned, and this isn't a cop out, but timing the market, selling high/buying cheap and focusing on risk sharing isn't what a good planner should be about. Sure, I maintain an eye on the larger picture and that dictates a macro-perspective. But if you're a client and if you want to blame me for falling 0.2% behind the indices over any one 6 month period or sharing the risk but don't mind me taking my eye of the bigger picture and regulatory and legislative updates, then you need a different service anyway.
Generally, the more involved and complex the case, the more time and labour is spent on it. The more likely too, is that an inheritance tax case is going to be more difficut than someone simply needing term assurance. The fees will be a reflection of the complexity of the work involved and hence some cost more than others.
Advisers want clients who challenge, who are difficult and demanding but who appreciate the 'mission'. If a client wants to focus *purely* on the minutiae of fees rather than the big picture, objectives, parameters, contingencies, value and benefits a decent planner possibly wouldn't engage with them. I am not advocating expense for the sake of it. Far from it.
But I'm meeting one fund manager this week, attending a Trust and IHT workshop, refining two discretionary portfolios with a manager, nailing down costs with one particular platform I am rapidly falling out of love with because beneath the brochure, the service is changing - for the worse. That insight is my value, not in churning funds or justifying pointless additional spend.. there is more to financial planning than timing the market and taking 1% or so for a so called annual review meeting that is invariably little more than an excuse to sell you more insurance.
I reiterate my previous point; I know some pretty shabby IFA and some articulate restricted advisers/salesmen. In general though, I believe that the StJP proposition is one that shackles a client, rather than liberates them. The IFA space is evolving too though, and not always for the best.
With respect to specific exceptions, and I stand by to be corrected, the latter are generally focused on money, peer outperformance, assets under management. Financial planners are more concerned about identifying objectives, outcomes, and less (immediately) concerned about relative performance. I look for parameters to guide the appropriateness of absolute performance, not relative.. ie; is the strategy going to produce the end results that you’re looking for as a client, and from that, what are the tactics and are they working?
As mentioned, and this isn't a cop out, but timing the market, selling high/buying cheap and focusing on risk sharing isn't what a good planner should be about. Sure, I maintain an eye on the larger picture and that dictates a macro-perspective. But if you're a client and if you want to blame me for falling 0.2% behind the indices over any one 6 month period or sharing the risk but don't mind me taking my eye of the bigger picture and regulatory and legislative updates, then you need a different service anyway.
Generally, the more involved and complex the case, the more time and labour is spent on it. The more likely too, is that an inheritance tax case is going to be more difficut than someone simply needing term assurance. The fees will be a reflection of the complexity of the work involved and hence some cost more than others.
Advisers want clients who challenge, who are difficult and demanding but who appreciate the 'mission'. If a client wants to focus *purely* on the minutiae of fees rather than the big picture, objectives, parameters, contingencies, value and benefits a decent planner possibly wouldn't engage with them. I am not advocating expense for the sake of it. Far from it.
But I'm meeting one fund manager this week, attending a Trust and IHT workshop, refining two discretionary portfolios with a manager, nailing down costs with one particular platform I am rapidly falling out of love with because beneath the brochure, the service is changing - for the worse. That insight is my value, not in churning funds or justifying pointless additional spend.. there is more to financial planning than timing the market and taking 1% or so for a so called annual review meeting that is invariably little more than an excuse to sell you more insurance.
I reiterate my previous point; I know some pretty shabby IFA and some articulate restricted advisers/salesmen. In general though, I believe that the StJP proposition is one that shackles a client, rather than liberates them. The IFA space is evolving too though, and not always for the best.
Half yearly complaints data published by the FOS this morning showed that adviser networks and nationals had fewer complaints brought against them than in the previous six months, while the FOS' uphold rate has also dropped in some cases.
St. James's Place Wealth Management bucked the overall positive trend as its complaints numbers stuck at around 96 but its uphold rate surged from 27% to 40%. The company received most complaints about its investment and life and pensions advice.
!!
St. James's Place Wealth Management bucked the overall positive trend as its complaints numbers stuck at around 96 but its uphold rate surged from 27% to 40%. The company received most complaints about its investment and life and pensions advice.
!!
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff