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.
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!!!!