Job of the week
Latest jobs
Poll
|
|
New look Professional Adviser
The magazine is heavily focused on our Better Business section, which supports advisers in the run-up to RDR and beyond, and Investment.
Coffee Lounge
Not only is there a huge selection of games but why not try your hand at our Daily Sudoku
sponsored by
Comments
Treasury is working under a misapprehension
In para 4 of the above article it says, in effect, that the Teasury believes clients are financially disadvantaged by the 'more frequent failure of small firms such as IFAs'. What do they mean? Whether an IFA retires or otherwise ceases trading, how does that affect clients? After all, IFAs are intermediaries and the work of investment, providing life assurance, mortgage finance, etc. is the business of companies that are still going ahead with their work and services. Anyone would think from the article that IFAs underwrote any business, managed investments, provided life assurance and mortgage finance from ther own pockets. Is this really what the Treasury think? Is this really why all IFA fees are so high?
Posted by: Olando Furioso
The Fairy Government
This sounds hopeful, in that it would eliminate IFAs subsidising bank and investment house failures; and, as already pointed out, the closing down of an IFA, for whatever reason rarely causes clients financial loss, fraud and negligence excepted. However, the tone of the article indicates a different thought profile from the current administration. One does wonder whether the Government and its advisers are connected to the real world - regrettably we are aware that the FSA and the FOS are not.
Posted by: Glen McKeown