Problems with IFA!
Discussion
Chaps,
I use an IFA. A large outfit, very well known in the industry, lots of advisors, whose name sounds a bit like "Tory" and has similar branding. My family have used them for 20+ years and they have usuablly been OK.
They have a "Wealth Management Scheme", whereby they wil invest money for you in various things. My understanding of precisely what they do tails off here, but that doesn't bother me - that's what I pay them for. They charge for money in this scheme at a given percentage each year, with the percentage based on the amount you have invested. (Our overall percentage is about 1.3%). They also take 1% of any investment at the point you pay it in. So, as an example, if I gave them £10,000 to invest, they would take £100 (1%) up-front, and then about £130 (1.3%) each year for the service provided. They use our ISA allowance each year to keep the tax down where possible, and also run my pension under the same scheme.
Annual growths for the last two years have been impressive. Much better than any building society account (which would be the alternative place for us to put our money.)
However, the service they provide has been of late pretty shoddy. I have needed some details about the pension, and they have spent a LOT of time digging out the details and eMailing them to me. These details have been (what looks like) a very standard 50-or-so page document describing the status of the pension scheme with regards to tax and so on. The sort of thing that shouldn't take more than 20 seconds to get from a local hard drive and attach to an eMail - and yet it took them more than 2 weeks to do this.
They seem unsure of our name. We have recieved letters addressed to "Mr and Mrs Campbell", at our address. We are not called Campbell, but the letters have been for us. I have just been asked for a scan of my passport and a recent utility bill to prove my identity and address, although I have provided such scans in December last year (less than 2 months ago), in December 2009 and November 2008. When I queried the need for this again I was told that the scans were not clear, which was demonstrably untrue.
I have - just - spoken to our advisor on the telephone, raising a number of these concerns, and been told that they consider me to be using too much of their time and that if I continue I will be expected to pay additional fees. (They charge for advice at around £230/hr.) I expressed my significant surprise at this, and a meeting will be arranged between me, the advisor, and his manager, to discuss the issue.
So, the question. What sort of service should I be expecting from this IFA? Is there any reason for me to have to prove my identity to them on an annual basis? And is it unreasonable that they should expect to charge me additional fees for admininstrative tasks relating to investments that I have made?
All comments welcome - thanks.
Oli.
I use an IFA. A large outfit, very well known in the industry, lots of advisors, whose name sounds a bit like "Tory" and has similar branding. My family have used them for 20+ years and they have usuablly been OK.
They have a "Wealth Management Scheme", whereby they wil invest money for you in various things. My understanding of precisely what they do tails off here, but that doesn't bother me - that's what I pay them for. They charge for money in this scheme at a given percentage each year, with the percentage based on the amount you have invested. (Our overall percentage is about 1.3%). They also take 1% of any investment at the point you pay it in. So, as an example, if I gave them £10,000 to invest, they would take £100 (1%) up-front, and then about £130 (1.3%) each year for the service provided. They use our ISA allowance each year to keep the tax down where possible, and also run my pension under the same scheme.
Annual growths for the last two years have been impressive. Much better than any building society account (which would be the alternative place for us to put our money.)
However, the service they provide has been of late pretty shoddy. I have needed some details about the pension, and they have spent a LOT of time digging out the details and eMailing them to me. These details have been (what looks like) a very standard 50-or-so page document describing the status of the pension scheme with regards to tax and so on. The sort of thing that shouldn't take more than 20 seconds to get from a local hard drive and attach to an eMail - and yet it took them more than 2 weeks to do this.
They seem unsure of our name. We have recieved letters addressed to "Mr and Mrs Campbell", at our address. We are not called Campbell, but the letters have been for us. I have just been asked for a scan of my passport and a recent utility bill to prove my identity and address, although I have provided such scans in December last year (less than 2 months ago), in December 2009 and November 2008. When I queried the need for this again I was told that the scans were not clear, which was demonstrably untrue.
I have - just - spoken to our advisor on the telephone, raising a number of these concerns, and been told that they consider me to be using too much of their time and that if I continue I will be expected to pay additional fees. (They charge for advice at around £230/hr.) I expressed my significant surprise at this, and a meeting will be arranged between me, the advisor, and his manager, to discuss the issue.
So, the question. What sort of service should I be expecting from this IFA? Is there any reason for me to have to prove my identity to them on an annual basis? And is it unreasonable that they should expect to charge me additional fees for admininstrative tasks relating to investments that I have made?
All comments welcome - thanks.
Oli.
All IFAs are regulated by the Financial Seervices Authority. If you do not get a satisfactory response from your IFA you can always write to the FSA with a complaint asking them to investigate things. A complaint may, in fact, be passed by the FSA on to the Financial Ombudsman Service or even to The Pensions Advisory Service to investigate, depending on the fundamentals of the complaint. Complaint investigation at all these organisations is free.
Hopefully you can get the result you want from the IFA without having to go further.
R.
Hopefully you can get the result you want from the IFA without having to go further.
R.
The Leaper,
Thanks. The substance of the complaint isn't around the advice given, it's about the quality of service, and hence I'm not sure whether the FSA would be interested (would they?) I'm sincerely hoping that I won't be having to escalate the complaint anywhere, and that things can be resolved directly with the IFA. (Part of me is wondering whether the individual advisor is not that great and I could simply swap to another advisor, but that's a different discussion.)
While I am here, a more specific question; do they have an obligation to confirm my identity on an annual basis? Is there any reason why they should be asking for repeated scans of a passport?
Oli.
Thanks. The substance of the complaint isn't around the advice given, it's about the quality of service, and hence I'm not sure whether the FSA would be interested (would they?) I'm sincerely hoping that I won't be having to escalate the complaint anywhere, and that things can be resolved directly with the IFA. (Part of me is wondering whether the individual advisor is not that great and I could simply swap to another advisor, but that's a different discussion.)
While I am here, a more specific question; do they have an obligation to confirm my identity on an annual basis? Is there any reason why they should be asking for repeated scans of a passport?
Oli.
THe FSA wont be interested in your complaint.
The Ombudsman might, but only if you have exhausted the firm's internal complaints procedure first.
Don't even phone them until you have gone through that process, the FOS will politely refer you to the internal procedure.
The way financial advice is being paid for is changing as of 01/01/2013, the days of cmission are numbered, instead firms will have to have a discussion about fees with the customer right at the start of the advice process. Sounds like your provider has already worked this out.
All fin services firms are being urged to look at their client banks and see which clients are worth keeping and which aren't. Effectively rate their clients, look after the decentones and either offer the rest a reduced service, or tell them to go poke it. It sounds like you might be in band c (the go poke it brigade)
A fair number of the big firms are struggling under the weight of FSCS levy's and are finding their income streams very squeezed. (At least one pension provider has said it will directly pass on its million pound extra bill to clients.)
None of that is an excuse for the shoddy service you've received, and I would certainly persue it with the firm, but until you have exhausted that route, you are somewhat stuck.
Do they need to have new id docs annually, not to my knowledge. It might be an internal procedure (which the FSA will support under the know your client regs) That being said, if you provided them in December and they were illegible they should have contacted you well before now.
The Ombudsman might, but only if you have exhausted the firm's internal complaints procedure first.
Don't even phone them until you have gone through that process, the FOS will politely refer you to the internal procedure.
The way financial advice is being paid for is changing as of 01/01/2013, the days of cmission are numbered, instead firms will have to have a discussion about fees with the customer right at the start of the advice process. Sounds like your provider has already worked this out.
All fin services firms are being urged to look at their client banks and see which clients are worth keeping and which aren't. Effectively rate their clients, look after the decentones and either offer the rest a reduced service, or tell them to go poke it. It sounds like you might be in band c (the go poke it brigade)
A fair number of the big firms are struggling under the weight of FSCS levy's and are finding their income streams very squeezed. (At least one pension provider has said it will directly pass on its million pound extra bill to clients.)
None of that is an excuse for the shoddy service you've received, and I would certainly persue it with the firm, but until you have exhausted that route, you are somewhat stuck.
Do they need to have new id docs annually, not to my knowledge. It might be an internal procedure (which the FSA will support under the know your client regs) That being said, if you provided them in December and they were illegible they should have contacted you well before now.
I feel sorry for the IFA if your going to make a complaint based on the speed of email responses and having your name wrong on a letter.
Complaints to the FSA have far reaching repercussions, whether upheld or not. This seems to be more of a 'service' issue rather than 'this IFA spent my £50k on trips to Monaco in a helicopter every other weekend, Mr FSA'.
Maybe contact the company and advise them of the poor clerical service you've recieved?
Complaints to the FSA have far reaching repercussions, whether upheld or not. This seems to be more of a 'service' issue rather than 'this IFA spent my £50k on trips to Monaco in a helicopter every other weekend, Mr FSA'.
Maybe contact the company and advise them of the poor clerical service you've recieved?
If you are requesting services over & above any service contract that you have with them, then yes, you should expect to pay additional fees.
We have clients that request additional copies of paperwork (that they have already been supplied with, sometimes more than once), & i would certainly charge for this.
Its also depends on the client, some are very labour intensive & do little buiness, while others generate substantial revenue (either through their own business or referrals) & we would exercise some flexibility with those.
Not sure on the passport isssue as i am offshore & do not have the same regulator.
We have clients that request additional copies of paperwork (that they have already been supplied with, sometimes more than once), & i would certainly charge for this.
Its also depends on the client, some are very labour intensive & do little buiness, while others generate substantial revenue (either through their own business or referrals) & we would exercise some flexibility with those.
Not sure on the passport isssue as i am offshore & do not have the same regulator.
Scotal,
That's a VERY interesting post. Thank you. I presume you are an IFA; whether you are or not it is a very useful view from the inside of the industry. Are we in the 'poke-it' band? Possibly, but they are running the assets from various members of my family (parents and others) as a single account, and the sum they managing isn't insignificant.
I agree that the FSA won't be interested tho'. It's purely a service complaint; I am happy with the way they are treating my investments (in so far as I know what is going on.)
Sarnie,
Simply put, if I am paying a premium rate then I expect a professional service. Getting names on formal documentation is one facet of this. Taking over two weeks to answer eMails about the status of their pension scheme, when I specifically asked them for a quick answer, is not professional. Giving differing estimates (differing by 60%) to do the same piece of work is not professional either. Expecting a busy client to faff around repeatedly scanning his passport, when they could look two months back in their eMail box for the scan he provided then is, again, not professional.
Maybe my expectations are too high, but I pay my plumber less a quarter of what this IFA charges (pro rata) and he knows my name, can give accurate estimates of costs and doesn't expect me to be doing admin work which I think is his responsibility.
Read my posts. You'll see that I am doing exactly as you suggest - raising the poor service with the IFA in the first instance.
Oli.
That's a VERY interesting post. Thank you. I presume you are an IFA; whether you are or not it is a very useful view from the inside of the industry. Are we in the 'poke-it' band? Possibly, but they are running the assets from various members of my family (parents and others) as a single account, and the sum they managing isn't insignificant.
I agree that the FSA won't be interested tho'. It's purely a service complaint; I am happy with the way they are treating my investments (in so far as I know what is going on.)
Sarnie,
Simply put, if I am paying a premium rate then I expect a professional service. Getting names on formal documentation is one facet of this. Taking over two weeks to answer eMails about the status of their pension scheme, when I specifically asked them for a quick answer, is not professional. Giving differing estimates (differing by 60%) to do the same piece of work is not professional either. Expecting a busy client to faff around repeatedly scanning his passport, when they could look two months back in their eMail box for the scan he provided then is, again, not professional.
Maybe my expectations are too high, but I pay my plumber less a quarter of what this IFA charges (pro rata) and he knows my name, can give accurate estimates of costs and doesn't expect me to be doing admin work which I think is his responsibility.
Read my posts. You'll see that I am doing exactly as you suggest - raising the poor service with the IFA in the first instance.
Oli.
Sarnie said:
having your name wrong on a letter.
Their compliance people should have a blue fit if they find out that letters are bveing wrongly addressed.Sarnie said:
Complaints to the FSA have far reaching repercussions, whether upheld or not. This seems to be more of a 'service' issue rather than 'this IFA spent my £50k on trips to Monaco in a helicopter every other weekend, Mr FSA'.
Well, yeah, if that were happening then the guy would simply fold up the company and take his money offshore, leasivng the FSCS to sort out the mess.It is wrong to assume that the FSA will not be willing to investigate a complaint about poor service standards. If the service standards are not satisfactory then that in itself may be considered maladministration which is a justifiable reason for raising a complaint. I've many years experience dealing with complaints at The Pensions Advisory Service and I can assure you that a significant number of copmplaints relate to the result of shoddy service. Most comnplaints come direct to TPAS from the general public, but there are many others that are routed first to to either the FSA or FOS and then to TPAS if the complaint involves a pension matter.
R.
R.
scotal said:
THe FSA wont be interested in your complaint.
The Ombudsman might, but only if you have exhausted the firm's internal complaints procedure first.
Don't even phone them until you have gone through that process, the FOS will politely refer you to the internal procedure.
The way financial advice is being paid for is changing as of 01/01/2013, the days of cmission are numbered, instead firms will have to have a discussion about fees with the customer right at the start of the advice process. Sounds like your provider has already worked this out.
All fin services firms are being urged to look at their client banks and see which clients are worth keeping and which aren't. Effectively rate their clients, look after the decentones and either offer the rest a reduced service, or tell them to go poke it. It sounds like you might be in band c (the go poke it brigade)
A fair number of the big firms are struggling under the weight of FSCS levy's and are finding their income streams very squeezed. (At least one pension provider has said it will directly pass on its million pound extra bill to clients.)
None of that is an excuse for the shoddy service you've received, and I would certainly persue it with the firm, but until you have exhausted that route, you are somewhat stuck.
Do they need to have new id docs annually, not to my knowledge. It might be an internal procedure (which the FSA will support under the know your client regs) That being said, if you provided them in December and they were illegible they should have contacted you well before now.
Plus, a lot of these firms are in a complete mess with regards to their back office, DPA, KYC and TCF. Most are in breach, know it and are fighting to get their sThe Ombudsman might, but only if you have exhausted the firm's internal complaints procedure first.
Don't even phone them until you have gone through that process, the FOS will politely refer you to the internal procedure.
The way financial advice is being paid for is changing as of 01/01/2013, the days of cmission are numbered, instead firms will have to have a discussion about fees with the customer right at the start of the advice process. Sounds like your provider has already worked this out.
All fin services firms are being urged to look at their client banks and see which clients are worth keeping and which aren't. Effectively rate their clients, look after the decentones and either offer the rest a reduced service, or tell them to go poke it. It sounds like you might be in band c (the go poke it brigade)
A fair number of the big firms are struggling under the weight of FSCS levy's and are finding their income streams very squeezed. (At least one pension provider has said it will directly pass on its million pound extra bill to clients.)
None of that is an excuse for the shoddy service you've received, and I would certainly persue it with the firm, but until you have exhausted that route, you are somewhat stuck.
Do they need to have new id docs annually, not to my knowledge. It might be an internal procedure (which the FSA will support under the know your client regs) That being said, if you provided them in December and they were illegible they should have contacted you well before now.
t in order before they get hit with a fine.Most of the time when they ask for new ID docs it is because someone has noticed that your original ones were never scanned onto your account and they are running your account in breach.
Chaps,
Thanks, everyone, for your comments. They are all helpful, and appreciated. I'm meeting with the advisor and his 'manager' next Wednesday so we'll see what happens then. Most of my complaints are easily seen from eMail chains (repeated requests by me for information, which were fudged, and so on), so I'm wondering whether to print them all out and take them to the meeting - or whether this will be too petty.
We'll see what Wednesday brings. Thanks again for your input everyone. It's appreciated.
Oli.
Thanks, everyone, for your comments. They are all helpful, and appreciated. I'm meeting with the advisor and his 'manager' next Wednesday so we'll see what happens then. Most of my complaints are easily seen from eMail chains (repeated requests by me for information, which were fudged, and so on), so I'm wondering whether to print them all out and take them to the meeting - or whether this will be too petty.
DonkeyApple said:
Plus, a lot of these firms are in a complete mess with regards to their back office, DPA, KYC and TCF. Most are in breach, know it and are fighting to get their st in order before they get hit with a fine.
Most of the time when they ask for new ID docs it is because someone has noticed that your original ones were never scanned onto your account and they are running your account in breach.
To be honest, I think this is precisely where the problem is. They are just disorganised, which isn't great. Where it becomes a problem is when they expect me to go to extra effort to fill in for their deficiencies, which I object to. (I raised this precise point on the 'phone today with the advisor, and his words were "we expect you to help us to help you wherever necessary." Which, when it involves covering up their shortfalls, is woefully short of the mark.) t in order before they get hit with a fine.Most of the time when they ask for new ID docs it is because someone has noticed that your original ones were never scanned onto your account and they are running your account in breach.
We'll see what Wednesday brings. Thanks again for your input everyone. It's appreciated.
Oli.
zcacogp said:
To be honest, I think this is precisely where the problem is. They are just disorganised, which isn't great. Where it becomes a problem is when they expect me to go to extra effort to fill in for their deficiencies, which I object to. (I raised this precise point on the 'phone today with the advisor, and his words were "we expect you to help us to help you wherever necessary." Which, when it involves covering up their shortfalls, is woefully short of the mark.)
We'll see what Wednesday brings. Thanks again for your input everyone. It's appreciated.
Oli.
Ask them to bring a copy of their TCF docs, then ask how not sending you account information promptly fits their policy. Then ask how not having your ID docs fits with their KYC docs. We'll see what Wednesday brings. Thanks again for your input everyone. It's appreciated.
Oli.
To be honest, I wouldn't be pushy just make sure you have a clear understanding of what they need/want then ask them to put it in writing to you.
DonkeyApple said:
Ask them to bring a copy of their TCF docs, then ask how not sending you account information promptly fits their policy. Then ask how not having your ID docs fits with their KYC docs.
To be honest, I wouldn't be pushy just make sure you have a clear understanding of what they need/want then ask them to put it in writing to you.
DA, To be honest, I wouldn't be pushy just make sure you have a clear understanding of what they need/want then ask them to put it in writing to you.
Thanks. KYC = Know Your Customer, but what's TCF?
I don't want to be pushy, and I don't want to have to be pushy. I just want a decent quality of service for the money I pay. (And I was shocked when they suggested that I should be paying more for the service I am getting ... )
Currently, my local council can do better than they are doing. And I am not (yet) paying my council anywhere near as much as I am paying my IFA.
Oli.
Treating Customers Fairly. The FSA is coming down on this hard as it is an easy source of revenue and they are also under pressure from the public to favour them over the broker etc.
Most large firms are having a torid time behind the scenes as the switch from comm to fees is a massive change in the model and means some products will become worthless, as will some staff and as will some clients. On top of this most large organisations' back offices are ancient, paper filled systems with very weak online systems meaning that as they shift more and more documents onto electronic systems those systems are collapsing and proving to be redundant and in desperate need of upgrading.
The firms should have made the firm switch to electronic managment and CRM 7/8 years ago but often within these companies there is not enough people who understood (you cannot under estimate the negative impact of all that Y2K st that cost firms millions in IT spend for absolutely nothing. It has jaded many firms against risking IT spend) and there wasn't the money/commitment to do anything but carry on as was.
Most large firms are having a torid time behind the scenes as the switch from comm to fees is a massive change in the model and means some products will become worthless, as will some staff and as will some clients. On top of this most large organisations' back offices are ancient, paper filled systems with very weak online systems meaning that as they shift more and more documents onto electronic systems those systems are collapsing and proving to be redundant and in desperate need of upgrading.
The firms should have made the firm switch to electronic managment and CRM 7/8 years ago but often within these companies there is not enough people who understood (you cannot under estimate the negative impact of all that Y2K s
t that cost firms millions in IT spend for absolutely nothing. It has jaded many firms against risking IT spend) and there wasn't the money/commitment to do anything but carry on as was.Mr Trophy said:
Sorry, but how will the FSA not take interest in the clients complaint?
The same reason that Starbucks would not be interested in your ISA/IFA complaint. It's got nothing to do with them 
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/Pages/about/complaints/compl...
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/Pages/about/complaints/index...
These are the people that you ultimately need to talk to but only after you have made documented attempts to deal with the broker.
http://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/consumer/com...
If you do feel the need to go to the Ombardsmen then you need to have lots of documented correspondence with the brokerage. Never do anything over the phone, always in writing. The more documentation you have that shows that you are being reasonable and the firm is not the more likely it is for the Ombardsmen to pay attention. Remember they are bogged down with a million and one screaming f
kwits claiming thattheir broker caused them to fall off a ladder etc, or they've locked themseves out of their house.Re TCF, this is a good website: http://www.tcfinfo.co.uk/site/107/What_is_a_compla...
What you will find when talking to a broker, even someone from their Compliance Dept is that if you have bones up on this website you will know more than they do re TCF and you'll cause the firm to s
t itself Again, I wouldn't advocate having a pop at a broker as nearly always it is not deiberate but understanding KYC and TCF will enable you to engage them at their level so they cannot patronise you and come to a good resolution. Basically, where these's blame, there's a reason to sit down and sort it out so both parties can move forward positively.
Edited by DonkeyApple on Friday 25th February 11:26
I agree with pretty much everything DA has said. One thing I would say is that the FSA definition of TCF is probably different from yours. It was certainly different to what I thought it would mean.
Having a satisfied customer is not the same as treating a customer fairly, and that works both ways.
Someone who is satisfied with the service they received could still have been trated unfairly.
Someone who is unsatisfied might find they have been treated in line with TCF.
Having a satisfied customer is not the same as treating a customer fairly, and that works both ways.
Someone who is satisfied with the service they received could still have been trated unfairly.
Someone who is unsatisfied might find they have been treated in line with TCF.
scotal said:
I agree with pretty much everything DA has said. One thing I would say is that the FSA definition of TCF is probably different from yours. It was certainly different to what I thought it would mean.
Having a satisfied customer is not the same as treating a customer fairly, and that works both ways.
Someone who is satisfied with the service they received could still have been trated unfairly.
Someone who is unsatisfied might find they have been treated in line with TCF.
Boils down to the quality of the salesman I guess Having a satisfied customer is not the same as treating a customer fairly, and that works both ways.
Someone who is satisfied with the service they received could still have been trated unfairly.
Someone who is unsatisfied might find they have been treated in line with TCF.
Update: I met with the IFA in question and his boss, last week. 'Twas helpful; the guy put his hands up immediately to the various failings (rather too quickly - I suspect that someone else had had a look at the file and had words with him IYSWIM). We discussed what they consider to be 'advice' and what they consider to be 'review of performance', and I now better understand the service that they think they are offering.
There were the ususal attempts at upselling, each of which I considered with care, but when directly asked how they would be of benefit to me there was little in the way of answers so I agreed to leave them.
Thanks for the advice, chaps. Helpful to see a view from the other side of the table (so to speak), and the TCF links were particualarly helpful; they enabled me to be much better informed of what I can and should expect, and had it come to an all-out disagreement I would have been able to quote chapter and verse to them. (Not necessary, as it turned out, but helpful none the less.)
So, thanks for your input. Things are looking brighter as a result.
Oli.
There were the ususal attempts at upselling, each of which I considered with care, but when directly asked how they would be of benefit to me there was little in the way of answers so I agreed to leave them.
Thanks for the advice, chaps. Helpful to see a view from the other side of the table (so to speak), and the TCF links were particualarly helpful; they enabled me to be much better informed of what I can and should expect, and had it come to an all-out disagreement I would have been able to quote chapter and verse to them. (Not necessary, as it turned out, but helpful none the less.)
So, thanks for your input. Things are looking brighter as a result.
Oli.
That's great news.
99% of IFAs and brokers are trying but nearly all are able to try much harder when the face a client and learn that the client knows what they are talking about re obligations etc.
There's rarely a need to be at all arsey, best to think of it as incentivising someone to pay a little more attention to your account over the other thousands that he has to look after. Although, that in its own right is a breach of TCF
The Ombudsman is bogged down with complaints from self righteous plonkers who seem to know their rights but never stopped to actually have meaningful dialog with their broker.
Sadly, the days of leaving your money with the broker and them doing everything is coming to a close. There is so much red tape and admin that in order to remain affordable they have to strip the whole product down. It's the same model as Tesco V Cornershop. As such, people need to take a little more financial responsibility and do more monitoring and questioning themselves. Sadly, this is not pointed out by the regulator or the firms. But self education is very important.
99% of IFAs and brokers are trying but nearly all are able to try much harder when the face a client and learn that the client knows what they are talking about re obligations etc.
There's rarely a need to be at all arsey, best to think of it as incentivising someone to pay a little more attention to your account over the other thousands that he has to look after. Although, that in its own right is a breach of TCF
The Ombudsman is bogged down with complaints from self righteous plonkers who seem to know their rights but never stopped to actually have meaningful dialog with their broker.
Sadly, the days of leaving your money with the broker and them doing everything is coming to a close. There is so much red tape and admin that in order to remain affordable they have to strip the whole product down. It's the same model as Tesco V Cornershop. As such, people need to take a little more financial responsibility and do more monitoring and questioning themselves. Sadly, this is not pointed out by the regulator or the firms. But self education is very important.
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff