Your Shout: Letters to the editor

Financial Adviser Letters

Financial Adviser Letters

This week...

Consider listed real estate

The article ‘Regulator questions set up of property funds’ (Jan 15) raises a poignant issue around cash management to mitigate the risk of holding illiquid assets in liquid fund structures.

Article continues after advert

But it begs the question, why are investors exposed to this risk at all? 

Advisers should consider recommending listed real estate more widely because they provide truly liquid access to diverse real estate investments.

Listed real estate also operates a more efficient model where cash is returned to investors or reinvested, rather than sitting on the balance sheet.

Real estate is a critical part of a balanced portfolio. Advisers should simply be providing their clients with the best way of accessing the asset class.

Dominique Moerenhout

European Public Real Estate Association


Hypocritical charging rules

An interesting, if not unsurprising, article: ‘PFS reveals adviser concerns on CMCs’ (Jan 23). Good to see the Personal Finance Society airing the views of the advice industry. 

As a financial adviser I am well aware of the unscrupulous activities of some claims management companies. 

One thought occurs to me, which you might like to consider as a ‘campaign’. As an adviser of more than 30 years standing I am not allowed to work with my clients on a contingent charging basis for some areas of advice. 

This is a direction of travel and clearly the way the regulatory regime is heading. 

But, CMCs can blatantly advertise their services – all in the customer’s interests – against the investment adviser sector on an out-and-out contingent charging basis. 

There is no other way to describe “no win, no fee”. 

Does the Financial Conduct Authority not think this is an unfair contradiction? I do, and I dare say anyone with an ounce of decency would agree.

Why can’t CMCs charge an upfront fee like we IFAs have to, irrespective of the outcome? 

Maybe this would be a challenge for the FCA, but it might take a few wheels off the parasitic bandwagon that is causing no end of trouble for honest and experienced advisers.

Keith Jarman

In Focus Asset Management


Happy SJP customer

You find a neverending supply of complainers about charges at St James’s Place (‘Why SJP will not review its charges’, Jan 19).

I have been with them a while. I have a self-invested personal pension with them, which, over the past 12 months, revealed a 8.1 per cent performance after all charges were taken into account.

After chatting to friends and colleagues, had I been with another company I’m not so sure I would have fared as well.

It is the outcome that matters, not the charges.

Stuart H Watson


‘Spotless’ regulator

One wonders how this tiny fine (‘FCA fined £2k for pension scheme failures’, Jan 27), which is not even petty cash for the FCA, compares to the kind of fines the FCA and The Pensions Regulator levy on adviser and company miscreants? Not even in the same ball park.