InvestmentsSep 11 2019

Your Shout: Letters to the editor

twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by
comment-speech

Regarding the rallying cry from Scott Stevens about the need for there to be more training for advisers (September 2): Firstly, may I completely agree with the need to train new advisers.

However, I found the article most concerning.

Specifically the inference in the article that you can take a person off the streets and turn them in to an independent financial adviser in three months, which is what Quilter does.

The article referred to a diploma, but implied as soon as you have a diploma you are fit to advise. 

Personally I would not let someone in front of a client without a diploma plus a minimum of two years working within the industry and having had extensive supervision and product training.

We are a profession, and to imply that a greenhorn is fit to advise three months after entering the industry is regrettable.

Peter Emery

Emery IFA

 

Bringing in female talent

With female advisers representing less than 16 per cent of the adviser population, according to Cerulli Associates, I feel it is time for more females to be targeted and recruited.

Having been an adviser for nearly 30 years myself, it has been a brilliant career for me, bringing rewards such as combining work with family and time flexibilities, but most importantly the satisfaction of helping people make decisions about their money.

I personally feel the needs of vulnerable clients and their families is a particular area where female advisers can bring another caring dimension to the advice and support they offer.

Vulnerability is far further reaching that the elderly and disabled: one-in-seven people have the literacy skills of an 11-year-old, with one-in-three having the numeracy skills of the same age. There are a huge number of clients/potential clients out there who would benefit massively from financial advice but are afraid to seek it due to a wide number of reasons – including who to trust.

Helen Hamilton

Foster Denovo

 

Scams going strong

I feel very sorry for people who have lost money to scammers, but the amateurish antics of the Financial Conduct Authority will never fully eradicate the ruthless expertise of professional scammers.

The FCA is always busy trying to find fault with the very largely honest IFA community which tries to keep pace with FCA rules and provide a good client outcomes.

Regulators have an appalling reputation for preventing large scale fraud by organisations and individuals who do not give a stuff about such things; hit and run and let others pick up the cost of reparations.

Scammers succeed by playing to people’s greed, overriding common sense and caution.

The only way to beat scammers is to educate people about the difference between regulated and unregulated products and also not to be too trusting just because the set up is impressive.

Scammers will also be very persistent in closing the deal quickly.

British people do not seem to have learned much since the bad days of slick, ruthless timeshare bandits.

Scammers will rely on their victims’ ignorance, greed and general antipathy towards checking things out.

If you are being persistently pushed to make a financial decision, just walk away.

Clive Fox

Retired IFA

 

CII funding

Regarding your article about the Chartered Insurance Institute launching an exclusive qualification with St James’s Place (September 6): I have some concerns that I fund the CII and they have built an exam exclusively to a competitor network. 

I am not saying this is wrong as the qualification on inclusive financial planning is one that is clearly needed. 

However, I would be interested to know if some of the resources I fund through subscriptions is used for such a project. 

Name and address supplied

 

FCA must be accountable

The FCA should be held accountable for its actions if it deems itself fit to authorise a company, be it an advisory company or a investment provider, that later goes bust. 

I have worked in the financial services industry for my whole career – the past 20 years as an adviser. I initially worked as a tied adviser for HSBC Bank for the first four years. 

I feel everyone deserves whole-of-market independent advice irrespective of their wealth and only by assessing the whole market will they secure the best cover, investments and mortgages. 

I have seen a lot of changes over the years, normally relating to fees levied by the regulator, although I fail to understand what is provided in return –the regulator seems to be untouchable and never held to account. 

You will see that the regulator has given authorisation to numerous investment companies for which the advisory market accepts that the investment they are recommending has gone through rigorous scrutiny and checks by the regulator and are satisfied with the stability and nature of the product. 

When the product or provider goes bust the regulator pushes the blame on the adviser who recommended the product and seeks redress via the Financial Services Compensation Scheme. I am not surprised we are currently seeing a massive shortage of advisers, which is predicted to get even worse over the next couple of years. 

Who’s responsible for the British Steel pension fall out? 

How are advisers supposed to predict when an investment provider is going to be insolvent when the regulator, which has much wider access to a providers’ business model and financial information and is content to grant authorisation, is supposed to be held accountable?

I fear for what the future holds. 

Lewis Harmer

Lewis Harmer Financial Planning Services