Trail commission spat

After Neil's letter was published online in Money Marketing 97 readers commented on the first day.
Most of them support Neil and many are extremely rude about me. I have added numbers but the text of the messages is unedited.
13 of the comments are anonymous.

 

In chronological order, oldest first
These comments are © 2011 Money Marketing and published with permission

01           David Trenner - Intelligent Pensions | 12 Sep 2011 9:23 am

Excellent letter Neil. I hope he takes you up, but I bet he won't!

02           Kelman Chambers | 12 Sep 2011 9:24 am

Neil,

The story you describe of the service offered for the fee/com. paid will be familiar to many, but it won't stop lazy journalists tarring everyone with the same brush.

Perhaps we should describe every journo as a heartless, phone-hacking drunkard. Let's see how they like it.

03           Peter Davies @ Create Wealth | 12 Sep 2011 9:28 am

Probably the best letter I have read on Money Marketing. Over to you now Paul Lewis @ Money Box BBC, or will you side-step..........?

04           Tony Cohen | 12 Sep 2011 9:28 am

Spot on!

05           Martin Rivers | 12 Sep 2011 9:31 am

I watched BBC Breakfast on Saturday in horror when Paul Lewis made his comment but didn’t listen to his programme. Don't journalists love to sensationalise. I think your reply is perfect Neil. IMHO, those of us who do provide the ongoing service that our clients require and pay for (by either trail or fee) should nothing to fear.

06           Chris Bibb | 12 Sep 2011 9:32 am

Well said Neil! Very eloquently and succinctly put.

07           Anonymous | 12 Sep 2011 9:32 am

Maybe we should tax everyone in the country and then give them free advice, just like the BBC.

08           Martin Hood | 12 Sep 2011 9:33 am

Excellent letter as said before. I would be astounded though if you do get a response. Silence seems to be the only reply when asked for a balanced and informed debate.

09           Patrick Schan | 12 Sep 2011 9:34 am

Great piece Neil. Paul Lewis lacks credibility as a serious journailst but gets away with it because the public are so ignorant of the cost of running an IFA business (not to mention all the other pitfalls). Not long ago he was slagging pensions off but on Saturday he bemoaning the fact the people are not paying into them any more. People like him are actually damaging to the public and his words of 'wisdom' should come with a health warning.

10           Anonymous | 12 Sep 2011 9:35 am

Brilliant letter Neil. I too hope he takes you up on it but will be very surprised if he does.

11           Martin Bonynge | 12 Sep 2011 9:35 am

Good letter in parts Neil but unfortunately again just a lone voice.

12           Anonymous | 12 Sep 2011 9:36 am

That is right, clients do know and are happy with our services that is why the IFA sector remains so strong.

This kind of ploy was to be expected. Its up to IFAs and the likes of AIFA to respond with the positive!!!!

13           Jonathan Fry | 12 Sep 2011 9:38 am

Not enough time this morning to do justice to Neil's excellent letter to Paul Lewis.

Will the media's approach ever change? Massow is a very capable self publicist who seems to have far greater sway with the media than he deserves evidenced by the amount of attention he has attracted in the last few days.

14           Paul Clifford | 12 Sep 2011 9:38 am

Could not agree more with your comments and lets wait and see what if any response you will get regarding a live on air debate around this issue.

15           Gary Moody | 12 Sep 2011 9:40 am

a great response, well written.

i encourage all my clients to have monthly statements when the markets are this volatile, its more emotional but keeps them closer to their money and is something they all appreciate (aside from my regular phone calls). As you stated, all this costs

if Paul is brave enough to give you airtime, i would be very keen to listen in, i hope he does gove you the time but in anyway, he should appologise for this blatant scaremongering and cheap journalism

16           Chris F | 12 Sep 2011 9:41 am

I met Paul Lewis a few years ago. A very nice chap.

It was at a conference in Monaco in 2008, where he was paid by my then employer to give a speech and to "chair" a debate. He received a fee - as he should, plus expenses.

At that time, my employer received a significant proportion of their income from a) Direct Insurance Company subsidy - it was £1m that year and b) Trail commission.

"Jus' sayin' ", as it were.

17           Sean Larkin @ First Financial Management | 12 Sep 2011 9:43 am

Well said Neil, best letter I've read in a long time. Looking forward to the debate -if it ever happens??

18           Lee Whiteside | 12 Sep 2011 9:43 am

Excellent letter Neil. I cannot agree with you more regarding the amount of assistance we do provide our clients with at no extra cost.

I hope he takes up your challenge but I very much doubt he will

19           Anonymous | 12 Sep 2011 9:43 am

The recent PR by Ivan Massow is installing fears into IFAs who deal with pensions and investments - as this will be their only way of earnings after 2013.

The consumer wants more, and pay less. Unfortunately, the days of the IFA are numbered and hence why its time for us to shut up shop. RDR is the biggest threat to IFA's and consumers dont like paying fees, even £100 is enough to put people off.

IFAs do a fantastic job to encourage long term savings and highlight consumers with the correct advice for everything from Pensions to Insurance. Mr Massow doesnt care about servicing his good, long term clients - its more about creaming off 20% of everything that comes in. Hes trying to do a Hargreaves Lansdowne on IFAs to make him millions and I think this is where consumers will get stuck. Things are going to get more difficult, not easier as IFA's.

20           John Blackmore | 12 Sep 2011 9:43 am

Well said Neil.

I take zero Initial and explain to my clients that the 0.25 to 0.5% pa trail is in lieu of the Initial - that it takes me 6 years minimum to catch up with the 3% taken by many and more like 10 to make a profit - from which I pay the fees you mention.

And Yet almost all of the do gooders out there insist that If I receive trail I MUST provide ongoing advice or risk the loss of my trail.

Before being critical it is always a good idea to know the facts. Sorry I forgot the first rule of journalism - never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

21           John Blackmore | 12 Sep 2011 9:43 am

Well said Neil.

I take zero Initial and explain to my clients that the 0.25 to 0.5% pa trail is in lieu of the Initial - that it takes me 6 years minimum to catch up with the 3% taken by many and more like 10 to make a profit - from which I pay the fees you mention.

And Yet almost all of the do gooders out there insist that If I receive trail I MUST provide ongoing advice or risk the loss of my trail.

Before being critical it is always a good idea to know the facts. Sorry I forgot the first rule of journalism - never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

22           Peter Riches | 12 Sep 2011 9:45 am

Informed debate, not something he will sign up for, after all he has his own little empire and we can not find out that the Emperor is disticntly undressed on this one.

23           Anonymous | 12 Sep 2011 9:46 am

Well said Neil

24           phil melville | 12 Sep 2011 9:46 am

Sadly folks he is not alone in his perception of our industry and no amount of complaining is going to change this.

We have to change and the easiest possible way is to embrace complete transparency.

If we dont you can bet your boots that we will be dumped by the providers who will be only too happy to stop paying trail out to IFA's.

25           Paul Smith | 12 Sep 2011 9:48 am

Spot on - it will be interesting to see how some of the more vocal financial journalists respond to this! It is about time good IFAs had the opportunity to put the other side of the story and show up these cowboys up for the cheap, easy & uniformed opinions they voice, maybe good old Hector good choir the debate! I won’t hold my breath.

Like in all professions there are lazy, idle people with bloated egos and self opinionated to the degree of blindness who can’t be bothered to do the through requisite research and present a balanced view but do IFAs tar all financial journalists with the same brush? No we don’t – maybe we should and we would get more informed debate?

26           Another pissed off IFA | 12 Sep 2011 9:49 am

For the BBC to allow its contributors to make such comments is disgraceful. We have to pay for the BBC if we are to watch ANY channel. That is not treating customers fairly.

27           Stella Goodman | 12 Sep 2011 9:50 am

I was asked to participate in a BBC Money Roadshow earlier this year, and was absolutely staggered by the amount of people who attended and waited for over an hour for a 'snippet' of free advice hosted by the BBC.

Will wait with bated breath for their response Neil

28           J. Mir-Shekari | 12 Sep 2011 9:52 am

Well done Neil. A wonderful commentary on the ignorance of our public broadcasters.

Paul Lewis deserves to be castigated in this way and if he had any guts he would take up your challenge and have a public debate.

29           GregB | 12 Sep 2011 9:52 am

A superb piece which sadly sums up not only todays jounalistic bias, but the future issues clients will face when seeking independent advice.

Is it not time our regulator, who seeks to control everything and ensure the public know 'our' status and qualifications, ensures that all comments made by journalists carry the risk warning that they are unqualified and their comment is just a personal opinion to which we are all entitled but not necessarily correct with.

Headlines such as 'your pension has fallen in value' because the FTSE100 has dropped do not help anyone because they may be completely incorrect but no balance is ever given.

I continue to dream of a world where we are respected for our efforts and ethics, but in reality the only people who need to live in that world are the 150 or so clients who want to work with me.

I remember some years ago two headlines in the Evening Standard. The first "Steer clear of the endowment trap" was obvious in its' content, but was then followed exactly 11 weeks later with "Endowments hold a reputation that is less than fair" where the optomist would say balance was at least offered, but where the cynic (or is he) would perhaps wonder who bought the said journalist lunch the days preceeding each article.

30           Peter H | 12 Sep 2011 9:54 am

Very well put Neil, yet nother ivory towered clown with no experience of running a business and doing what we do but hs an opinion that is lestened to and can influence millions. I can`t see him taking you up on your offer somehow !!!

31           Steve Laird | 12 Sep 2011 9:54 am

Good letter Neil. Journalists are a fickle lot - it's the nature of the job. Few people remember their last article (thanks goodness) so they can just make this week's point and then forget about it.

I was disappointed to hear about this, as, imho, Paul Lewis is one of the better ones. His choice of words was unfortunate.

However, those of us who receive trail commission in return for a service have nothing to fear from this.

32           David Moorhouse | 12 Sep 2011 9:55 am

Excellent letter Neil. I was debating some of these issues with my firms compliance director just last week. One point I made was that something under 32% of gross commission payable reaches my firms bottom line as pre-tax profit (and consequently potential dividend payments for me for doing the job) the bulk of the gross paying for a whole host of systems, FSA, CII, FSCS, FOS, staff, premises etc etc. I fear because of the growing cost of running an IFA practise advice for the masses is likely to be a thing of the past - I'm not able to afford to advise the average man in the street.....

33           Bernard King | 12 Sep 2011 9:56 am

Superb letter - well done Neil

I look forward to seeing what happens next.

34           David Cowell, Myddleton Croft | 12 Sep 2011 9:58 am

Excellent stuff Neil.

I had the displeasure to listen to this guy in May. To my discredit I didn't take him up on his twaddle but it takes a better teacher than me to convert the unconvertible.

35           Andrew Moore | 12 Sep 2011 10:00 am

Yes - well said. I heard the MoneyBox programme and I just groaned, yet again, at this pathetic little man. His simpering approach attracts those with nothing - better to ignore him and his invariably one sided programme.

36           Kevin Archer | 12 Sep 2011 10:01 am

Fantastic letter. If carefully managed this letter could be the start of a orchestrated fight back campaign of behalf of the little man versus the establishment.

Get this letter into the press, Get Financial advisers up and down the country to lobby MP's. Show them this letter.

Snd this letter to treasury select committe. Bait the FSA to defend the industry (after it is their job to maintain consumer cofindence).

We all know the problems this industy suffers, but it's high time the general public did.

37           Mark | 12 Sep 2011 10:02 am

There'll only be a 'debate' if someone forwards the letter on to the BBC. It's no good lining up here to slag off Paul Lewis for avoiding debate if he didn't know the 'debate' was going on in the first place.

38           Paul Smith | 12 Sep 2011 10:04 am

Lets see if any of the Financial Journalists who earn a living off the back of our profession are brave enough to challenge Paul Lewis and actually do some good for the industry which enables to pay their mortgage, drive their cars, fund their holidays et al.

If they won’t challenge Paul Lewis then surely they are complicit in perpetuating this misinformation in turn discouraging people from taking action to protect their financial future. The journalists who take no action are allowing the public to be ‘harmed’ and therefore these journalists are no better than the few lazy IFAs from which the story emanates.

Let’s see how many Financial Journalists actually have stories printed in National Papers to put the other side of the story! (not just hot air being talked in Industry Publications to appease IFAs)

39           Malcolm Coury | 12 Sep 2011 10:05 am

Neil, well done for taking the time and trouble to respond. It's sad that so many financial commentors still don't appreciate or value the service provided by the vast majoirty of IFAs. IFAs generally provide huge value for money compared with other professional advisers and it's about time that was recognised. Again, well done.

40           Anonymous | 12 Sep 2011 10:06 am

Very accurate, Lewis won't take you up on the offer though, cowards only make comments like that when they can run away and hide afterwards.

41           Anonymous | 12 Sep 2011 10:07 am

@Mark - It's an 'open letter', so it has been sent directly to Lewis as well as published.

42           Glyn Jones | 12 Sep 2011 10:09 am

What utter tosh, Neil. Most consumers get trashed most of the time by the financial services industry. Most people in the pension chain take a load of money for doing nothing or almost nothing. Percentage commission on pensions is misunderstood by consumers and cheats us (i.e. consumers like me) out of thousands of pounds each year and can easily swipe about a third of our final pension. It's a problem with your industry - and pointing out that a few IFAs are good guys who will do useful stuff on a fixed fee basis or out of the goodness of their hearts in no way wipes out the stains on your industry. Unlike this website, Moneybox is for consumers like me and not a generally dodgy and corrupt industry like yours.

43           Old School | 12 Sep 2011 10:09 am

I'm sure we'll all say what a brilliant letter, but accept that it will make no difference. my wife had seen paul lewis and mentioned it to me. My immediate response was that "they" expect advice for nothing. How will "they" all suvive when there are no more advisors around to pay their unearned, inflated salaries?

44           Toddy | 12 Sep 2011 10:10 am

Neil, Why not forward your letter to https://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/ ?

This way they are forced to make a written response.

45           Peter Herd | 12 Sep 2011 10:14 am

Absolutely brilliant letter and I would agree with all of the points, when BBC going to get off their high horse and recognise the IFA's is running a business with high cost. At the last count I think the industry is down to just over 60,000 authorised individuals that are registered to give advice and this figure is falling dramatically.

I would also address this letter to Martin Lewis of money-saving expert who has a similar type of agenda. It's okay for these so-called journalists to make huge amounts of money from our industry, while not having to pay any of the industry costs for actually giving advice. I also think that some of these journalists are in the pockets of some of the market movers and actually cause more problems and can even create stock market crashes and rises by spreading rumours.

I'm not sure that using the FSA or another regulator to regulate the media is a good idea but there needs to be a counterweight to the one-way story put about by these particular journalists.

46           James Williams | 12 Sep 2011 10:18 am

'Financial advisors' have looted and hence shrunk the pension pots of Britain's savers for decades. Thank God some of these practices are now coming to an end. FAs do not provide objective 'advice'. They are salespeople flogging products that reward them the best. There is a massive pensions crisis coming as people realise how much has been looted from their pots to pay for the overbloated and overpaid 'savings' industry. Much cheaper savings products exist - but you can be sure you won't hear about them from your "financial advisor".

47           chris hawkins | 12 Sep 2011 10:19 am

It’s about time that the powerful media was brought to bear some responsibility for the things they say. Our once proud 'independent' BBC used to stand as a bastion of fair and honest news reporting. Now it just fights for the same sensational headlines with the rest of the dirty pack. Phone hacking is just the tip of an iceberg.

If all stories are reported as badly as those of our industry, with miss-information and dam right lies, then what hope for the stuff we don't know about.

The general public are blissfully unaware and still rely on such journalists without question or

48           Dave Alderson | 12 Sep 2011 10:19 am

The most honest, eloquent and straight forward appraisal I have ever read, with regard to so many public speaking personalities who know nothing of that which they make judgements. Oh boy but they do wind me up.

49           Mark Davies | 12 Sep 2011 10:21 am

Judging by the way many IFA's lie to customers about products just to get their commission I do not see this article as making a big impression on consumers who get ripped off.

50           vee | 12 Sep 2011 10:22 am

Brilliant and accurate (clear and precise). I think we should print this letter and send a copy to our MP's and local papers and to anyone who will listen!

For far too long we have felt the brunt of the media hype about 'commission hungry' sales people when the majority of us genuinely want to help people be more aware and savvy about protection and eveything else financial.

As you rightly say, there are many people out there who give lots of free advice and recommend products for which they do not get paid.

Good luck!

51           Nigel Herrick | 12 Sep 2011 10:24 am

Hear Hear !! its about time somebody took on these so called peoples champions, funded by tax payers, and made them accountable for their comments.How about making them all professionally qualified -like us ??

Come on Paul Lewis, what have you got to say >

52           Steve Shaw | 12 Sep 2011 10:26 am

When the great majority of the working population of this country opt out of 'Nest' plans, and any other pension provision, because they have been led to believe they are being ripped off by our industry, will Paul Lewis and his fellow press pundits face loosing their homes or a potential prison sentence for giving 'incorrect' advice?

53           Steven Moore | 12 Sep 2011 10:29 am

What a fantastic letter Neil, it is encouraging to hear that we are not the only IFA practice that is both outraged and dis-heartened with the whole trail commision debate currently gathering speed, not helped in the slightest by comments from so called money experts.

Bring on the debate!!

54           Mark Allan | 12 Sep 2011 10:29 am

Comments made from fact are sadly rarely listend to, until its to late.

Do not expect a reply to your well written article as he is a common sensationalist, no more!

55           Mike Jordan | 12 Sep 2011 10:30 am

Paul, you do talk rubbish, I always switch you off when you come on and, when I'm at friends, I've found they do the same. You're pompous and out of touch. Let's see you on BBC Breakfast with Neil Liversidge having a proper discussion about this. A tiny percentage of complaints are made about IFAs, you should be encouraging clients to see one and if trail commission helps IFAs to exist and answer queries when needed then surely it's a good thing - stop trying to destroy it.

56           Anonymous | 12 Sep 2011 10:35 am

Excellent response Neil. I have seen in my short time in financial services, (aprox 5 years) a complete and total destruction and attack on IFA's which all seems to be aimed at old school commission hungry advisors. As the face, shape and people within the industry is now changing so quickly I would have thought more positive stories about companies who are acting and have been acting in the public interest could have been produced. I do not get how the FSA and other bodies are not actively promoting good IFA's! It just seems such an uphill struggle to gain the respect of consumers.

Should more individuals come to good quality IFA’s the subsequent promotion of this should increase business revenues and the ability to service these people more effectively. A combination of pushing fee’s on clients, ideally it seems through an hourly rate will reduce the access of many lower earners putting serious decisions on the financially uneducated. Positive promotion would change the image and the value customers see in IFA’s. It needs to be a complete mindset change and the only people who can seriously do this would be the FSA!!

57           Phil Anderson | 12 Sep 2011 10:36 am

Great Reply....spot on!!

58           Anonymous | 12 Sep 2011 10:44 am

It's sad to have witnessed the BBC sinking to the equivalent of 'gutter press' over the last 20 years. Their one sided slant on just about any consumer issue (not just financial services) is aimed at appealing to ill informed hysteria and therefore higher viewing & listener figures. The truth has not mattered to the BBC for a long time.

59           Rod Leonard | 12 Sep 2011 10:48 am

Well said Neil and should he be regulated as he has a huge amount of influence on the public's financial affairs!

60           Jonathan Davis | 12 Sep 2011 10:49 am

Brilliant letter Neil - and I have tweeted so (shame I couldn't find you on Twitter). Brilliantly put together and argued. Of course there remain many sharks in retail (and wholesale) fin servs however for those of us who do a proper job BRAVO Sir!

Money Box is London-centric and left leaning (as is the entire BBC). Everything should be free and all culture should be in London. No asset should ever go down and costs of living and earnings should always rise and banks, who make vast losses, should always be bailed out in the pro Govt BBC. Except the market decides, not the Govt nor the BBC.

61           Chris Greenhill | 12 Sep 2011 10:49 am

Neil you have hit the Nail on the head.

In 10 years time when RDR and the likes of Paul Lewis and Nic Cicutti have decimated this profession, will the MP's of non HNW people stand up and demand support for IFA's so that they can expand to provide the valuable service that is provided to 'ordinary' people now by many honest IFA's? Doubt it.

62           adrian murray | 12 Sep 2011 10:52 am

Have just listened to the Radio Programme. I am an ifa and I thought Paul Lewis was fair enough in his interview. Can't see what all the fuss is about.

TRY LISTENING TO THE PROGRAMME FIRST

PUBLICITY STUNT IMO

63           Mike Saunders | 12 Sep 2011 10:54 am

Brilliantly put Neil !

64           Mark Hughes | 12 Sep 2011 10:55 am

Well said.

65           Chris Green | 12 Sep 2011 11:05 am

Hear Hear. Can't wait for Mr Cicutti comment on your letter.

66           Ken Durkin | 12 Sep 2011 11:09 am

Neil mentions business costs such as rents, utilities, wages, regulatory fees... Who should pay for this? Should it be Neil's clients? Or should it be product providers who are getting their products to consumers by this method?

67           Anonymous | 12 Sep 2011 11:13 am

I haven't listened to that particular programme, but I do think that there is now a need for Mr Lweis to accept a balanced debate with a firm like Neil Liversidge's who provide an ongoing service for their trail commission and the likes of Mr Massow who probably took maximum initial commission and no trail and in anycase sold his clients and then went to the wall too! He now intends trying to take 20% of renewals for doing NOTHING. If a client thinks we are doing nothing for our 100% trail, then we don't want them and they can go to the likes of Mr Massow, but to make that fair, the timebars and the longstop needs to be applied with the timeline starting from when they switch agency.

Come on Mr Lewis, you cannot make sweeping comments and then refuse a balanced debate whilst taking a salary which has come from our licence fee.

68           Harry | 12 Sep 2011 11:16 am

Well said Neil, but why did he say what he did?

1. Sadly most advisers have ignored the investment post sale

2. Renewals will wipe out a significant amount over the long term

3. If the vast majority of advisers were actively looking after their clients, there shouldn't be a problem

I've seen the questions he asks on the BBC website and they are sensible and fair. Advisers like Neil need not worry.

Now READ THIS....which is what Paul Lewis spoke about at a sceptics meeting. What can you say about this?

http://www.paullewis.co.uk/archive/talks/20110621_Skeptics.htm

69           Phil Stebbings | 12 Sep 2011 11:26 am

Fantastic article, this type of negative jouranalism does so much damage to business in the UK. In the long term the general public will lose out from the lack of on going financial advice.and the likes of P Lewis will be retired, probably with a substantial pension. The bad press associated with commission payments to advisers is killing the industry. Why do so many people have inadequate pension provision? Simply because many advisers no longer 'sell' them. a pension is a concept that needs to be sold and the advisers needs to be paid a reasonable sum for their time

70           Nick Bamford | 12 Sep 2011 11:28 am

Neil, I don't think Paul Lewis was talking about you! Or indeed those IFAs, and we all know they are the majority, who deliver a service in return for any commission they receive.

I also thought that the interview was pretty well balanced particualrly the attack on Massow's service just being another one of many and also the challenge about his business history.

Personally I like programmes like this because they force a debate and for any competent IFA (like Neil) these create more opportunities than threats.

All members of the media start off with negative positioning it is then down to all of us to correct the errors and present the positives. I thought Brian did quite well at that in the programme

71           Nick Bamford | 12 Sep 2011 11:28 am

Neil, I don't think Paul Lewis was talking about you! Or indeed those IFAs, and we all know they are the majority, who deliver a service in return for any commission they receive.

I also thought that the interview was pretty well balanced particualrly the attack on Massow's service just being another one of many and also the challenge about his business history.

Personally I like programmes like this because they force a debate and for any competent IFA (like Neil) these create more opportunities than threats.

All members of the media start off with negative positioning it is then down to all of us to correct the errors and present the positives. I thought Brian did quite well at that in the programme

72           Paul Claireaux | 12 Sep 2011 11:32 am

I agree that Paul Lewis talks as much nonsense as sense. His recent rant (as a freelance) to skeptics in the pub in Leicester 21 June about financial advice and advisors can be seen here http://t.co/QhXSh8X and is full of misguided ideas - not least the one that investment is just like buying an antigue chair. Oh dear, where do we start with that one - not enough space here.

I also agree that Mr Massow is looking to make a quick buck for little effort - the competitor tables of exec only services in the weekend papers would not have been pleasant reading for him (or Hargreaves)

But let's be careful to split out fiction from fact.

Some advisers remain under qualified and overcharge. Not all advisers offer good value.

And offering a charging strucutre of a flat rate of c1% on FUA regardless of amount (which many advisers do) seems to invite criticism.

There's only one group that deserve to win out of all of this and that's the honest, competent and good value advisers. It's about time they had their chance in the limelight.

73           Richard McLaughlin | 12 Sep 2011 11:37 am

Congratulations Neil, setting the record straight. I hope you get your debate but you won't because Lewis can only operate in soundbites and not in full comprehensive facts. He, not regulated IFAs, is a great threat to the wealth of people in this country because he is totally unaccountable for everything he says or writes. Pursue him to have this debate

74           Nick Aslam | 12 Sep 2011 11:37 am

re. comment above - Ken where on earth do you think the product providers would get it from? - the clients via policy charges. It doesn't matter what industry or product or service you are talking about, all cost must obviously come from the end consumer (unless of course you happen to be the lucky owner of a money tree), it wasn't the average ifa's fault that costs have increased as much as they have.

75           Fraser Brydon | 12 Sep 2011 11:45 am

Bring it on Neil, can i join the debate? I too have a fortnightly "money matters" radio slot answering all financial questions.- for free! The public need protected form the likes of Paul and Ivan as they are out to feather only their own respective nests.... do they ever try to educate at no cost,no they don't?

76           Brian | 12 Sep 2011 11:46 am

Very well written and to the point and Money Box's response is where?

77           Eddie Kassner | 12 Sep 2011 11:47 am

Absolutely spot on! Brilliant letter Neil. Keep fighting the good fight.

78           John Wood | 12 Sep 2011 11:48 am

Excellent letter Neil - good to see such an eloquent expression of our Industry concerns and frustrations!

79           Jim Collier | 12 Sep 2011 12:09 pm

Excellent letter. Well done for taking the time and trouble to state the case for IFAs so eloquently. Sadly, like many others I fear radio silence !

80           Editor's comments | 12 Sep 2011 12:09 pm

Paul has responded to Neil over the weekend and is hoping to be able to make this response public later on today.

Regards

81           Anonymous | 12 Sep 2011 12:22 pm

This is the first time I have posted a comment on MM. I feel this is a very strong letter and it's about time someone fought back in this sort of potentially high profile way. Consumers are continually urged to derive more value typically for free and as you say, all this is doing is making things worse for our industry and of course ultimately for consumers. The sooner a more balanced view is portrayed to readers and viewers the better. Well done, a superb letter.

82           Terence P.O'Halloran | 12 Sep 2011 12:26 pm

Well stated Neil. Why don't radio 4 set up a public debate, which I would be happy to be on the panel for, a sort of Question Time for financial planning.

Anywhere in the south midlands , to give the whole population a chance. What about it Radio 4?

Put your expertise on the line.

OK WE'LL COME TO LONDON.

83           Nick Bamford | 12 Sep 2011 12:34 pm

If you thought Moneybox was having a go at IFAs then take a look at the front page of today's Daily Express

"Pension pots slashed by 75%- millions may be victims of "rip-off" financial advisers.

Come on Money Marketing stop sitting on the fence and set up the debate. Invite Paul to debate with some financial advisers and let's see the outcome!!

84           tom baigrie | 12 Sep 2011 1:01 pm

If you need a debating "second", I'd be honoured, Paul!

85           huw | 12 Sep 2011 1:35 pm

If any of you fancy your chances 'debating' against tabloid newspapers, good luck. Radio 4 is bad enough. So it seems the old hands in the business who took all their money up front were right all along. Banks are keen on that approach too and have therefore avoided 'ripping off' clients. It seems the next year or two are going to be very very ugly.

86           Paul Rumbold | 12 Sep 2011 1:46 pm

I wonder whether Paul Lewis and Robert Peston are friends? They deserve each other!

87           Mark Mann | 12 Sep 2011 1:53 pm

SUPERB Neil!

About time one of us stood up to the utter nonsense being reported throughout the media.

Maybe you should start a proper trade association to give the majority of IFA's a voice?

Keep talking sense as it makes us all feel better!

88           Alan Chance | 12 Sep 2011 1:58 pm

I am not an IFA and have never given financial advice. But I know that Britain has a fine tradition of independent advice, which you won't find in most European countries. It really saddens me to see this tradition under threat from all sides. Politicians, regulators and the media all seem to favour the large corporate product sellers with their one-size-fits-all financial solutions, and they distrust the local, personal, self-employed advisor. Despite all te evidence that high street products are poorly sold and expensive, and come with little or no professional support or personal service. This letter is one of the best I have ever read on the subject. Thanks. Let's hope the BBC take up the challenge. Alan Chance

89           Peter Herd | 12 Sep 2011 1:58 pm

Have just sent this response on the money box website and will be very surprised if they publish it.

I am a hard-working IFA and provide an excellent service to all of my clients in exchange for fees or commission depending on the client situation. We like many other businesses have overheads like staff, premises, FSA fees and FSCS fees. I would agree fully with a recent open letter responding to this article that has been published in Money Marketing by Neil Liversidge and would encourage people to read it as it gives the viewpoint of honest and hard-working IFA's who are trying to work for their clients best interests. Why is it that the BBC are always concentrating on the negatives and seemed to have a grudge against hard-working IFA practices particularly as a community has a less than 4% complaints record compared with the 96% complaints record of the Banks.

The fact is advice has to be paid for and nothing in this life is for free and the more that the regulator and the FSA does to try and put IFA is out of business the more expensive advice will become as there will be less individuals in the industry to give it. The real problem in financial services at present is the number of individuals that are giving advice without adequate authorisation either claiming journalistic principle like Paul Lewis and Martin Lewis or even those individuals that are doing it without any scruples and just not registering at all.

So I would encourage people to read the below article and I would ask the BBC two in future give a more balanced opinion rather than just having a cheap headline.

http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/story.aspx?storycode=1037598&PageNo=5&SortOrder=dateadded&PageSize=10#comments

90           Bob Donaldson | 12 Sep 2011 2:05 pm

The situation Neil describes is one which many advisors fully understand. We all help on numerous occasions for free yet it never gets recognised.

The main reason being is that we are not free to discuss clients affairs only to generalize as Neil has done here.

On Friday I spent an hour with an individual helping him to compile a complaint against a company for FOS. He wanted to pay me but I felt unable to take money from somebody who had quite definitely been given bad advice by someone in our industry.

I really wish some of these journalists would spend a week in an advisors office to actually see what they do. They might then understand the hoops they we have to jump through to earn our money.

91           Simon Wilson-Davies | 12 Sep 2011 2:16 pm

".....cowards only make comments like that when they can run away and hide afterwards"

Or when they post anonymously when criticising someone!

92           John Joe McGinley | 12 Sep 2011 2:58 pm

A passionate response, which I have tweeted. However, as an industry we are poor at communicating all the hard work and valuable support that is offered to clients pre and post any solution provided.

A major task for us needs to be in ensuring that we detail our service proposition and communicate this in the most appropriate manner to ensure that clients are aware of what we are providing. In fact we want them talking about this value to friends and family.

How many of us have a communication strategy for our service proposition that highlights the tangible support we add? Not as many as we would hope I would venture.

93           Nigel Barker-Smith | 12 Sep 2011 3:08 pm

@Bob Donaldson

Whilst I applaud your intergrity and well meaning service to the client badly advised, not taking the fee makes the problem worse.

We've all got to have faith in the fee payment method or we will never move society away from the perception it's free, especially as in his case it was.

Please take it as an observation Bob as opposed to a criticism.

94           Nigel Barker-Smith | 12 Sep 2011 3:11 pm

@Ken Durkin

Why your obsession with the cost of provider distribution?

It's got nothing to do with the IFA. We are providers of advice. The cost of that is determined by you and/or your business. The client then decides whether to take this based on their perception of value for money.

95           Anonymous | 12 Sep 2011 4:22 pm

I did not see Money Box but groaned at the trailer where did I or did I not hear Paul say it's best to contribute to a pension if you can because you can get 25% (not 20%) tax relief on pension contributions? News to me!

96           Anonymous | 12 Sep 2011 4:31 pm

Excellent letter, but I doubt whether most listeners will ever detect the distortions that I believe this program has always contained.

These are masked by the apparent 'reasonableness' of Paul Lewis's manner.

Sadly, the pressures to 'get something for nothing' will be even worse in the post-RDR world.

97           Martin Burton | 12 Sep 2011 4:32 pm

A touch too sensitive perhaps? Many IFAs are diligent but many are selling financial beta on tasty commission. In short, a rip-off.

I wouldn't get too uppity about Paul Lewis.

98           Jonathan Davis | 12 Sep 2011 8:48 pm

Martin Burton - you are so right. Many 'financial advisers' will not know what you're talking about. Where is my CAPM again? All investors are rational. HAHAHAHAHA

99           Richard | 12 Sep 2011 9:28 pm

I like Paul's response. What a numpty, pointing out all the inaccuracies in your letter.

Who the hell does he thinks he is?

100         Simon Cox | 12 Sep 2011 9:53 pm

Well said, Neil....depressingly typical of a partially informed hack to broadcast just enough information to instil mistrust and misunderstanding in the public they purport to 'inform'...

I't's a shame that there are those in their number as journalists who are so lamentably useless to and abusive of their readership - on this subject and so many others - many of their contemproaries must despair of them....

101         Al | 13 Sep 2011 7:21 am

Clearly the majority of the respondents here are within the industry and are well informed in types of commission and the costs of running an IFA.

However Paul works as a financial journalist trying to help the general public navigate an industry which uses a lot of jargon and which the public are generally obliged to put a lot of trust into without really understanding the money markets and how they operate.

To those 'in the know' perhaps Paul's advice to the public seems alarmist and damaging to your industry but I would suggest that if you were generally more transparent and your products easier to understand this divide between many IFAs and their customers wouldn't exist and the requirement for Paul, as the customers champion, wouldn't exist.

I'm sure many IFAs are hard working and keen to keep their customers informed but some are not and the products you see are sold by companies that certainly are not.

This is an escalating war of words that will only be solved by the industry changing.

102         Bill Wells | 17 Sep 2011 12:22 pm

The BBC is great for drama and wildlife programs - and so they should be given the amount of public money they receive. I feel that many of the so-called celebrities (Norton, Wogan, Ross, Forsyth) and auto-cue readers are paid far too much but, my strongest criticism is that the news and general repoting is massively biased. Lefty, trendy and anti-British would sum up most reportage with programs like Panorama and Newsnight being completely stage-managed to underpin their own view of how the world should be !

I could accept this if it wasn't for the fact that I have to hand over a chunk of money every year to fund this bloated, self-righteous, profligate organization.

If we lived in a democracy the BBC would not exist.

103         Peter Herd | 17 Sep 2011 12:27 pm

The people that have to change are the journalist who continue to use scarce stories and one-liners that do not represent the facts.

IFA's are under strict instructions from the regulator to disclose as much information as possible and it is not our fault if this information comes across as jargon. Many IFA's including myself would like to see the amount of information that we give clients greatly reduced and for plainer language to be used but the regulator does not allow us to do this. The amount of information has also been escalated due to the fact that we are continually attacked legally if we get it wrong.

I many others are willing to work with journalists to improve standards in the industry, but the media needs to stop attacking industry and recognise that we are here to try and solve some major problems in people's finances. Life insurance and pensions do not sell themselves after all even though the regulator things it does.

104         ian marsh | 17 Sep 2011 12:43 pm

Dear Al.

Paul Lewis has been around for many years and knows the 'jargon' very well.

There is no excuse whatsoever for trying to blame the Industry when the journalists are able to access freely information from both Providers and sellers.

Knowing some of wjhaty they are talking about reqires them to be open and honest and to paint the correct picture.What dissapoints me about Paul's comments are that he knows better and should have had the guts to say so!!

Paul how about helping and making an apology?

If in doubt ring Tony Blair and ask his advice!!

105         T H Cass | 18 Sep 2011 9:09 am

Good for you Niel, like most "arm chair" experts, Paul Lewis is like A LIGHTHOUSE IN A DESERT.......BRILLIANT BUT USELESS!!!!


go back to the Writing Archive front page
go back to the Paul Lewis front page
e-mail Paul Lewis on paul@paullewis.co.uk

All material on these pages is © Paul Lewis 2011