Bamfords: Come and see how we work

What colour envy?

To Nick and Martin That's a very noble offer from you both, but in all honestly, those whinging IFAs probably wouldn't appreciate any insight you can give so personally I wouldn't let them through your door. You might be better directing them to your book, which I read alongside Peter Hargreave's autobiography on holiday this year. Both very interesting reads. At least that way you don't have to let them into your offices! It's a shame that success leads to such envy/spitefulness towards both yourselves and PL...

Posted by: You must be joking

It's true

I can confirm that what Nick is saying is true. I've had a couple of conversations with Martin and he was happy to invite me to his offices to illustrate the points I was asking about.

Posted by: Tina Weeks

Unfair criticism or denying ANY criticism

It is kind of Informed Choice to invite other advisers to see what they do and I may well take up the offer in the New Year. Looking at the issue of the letter Martin, in his position of MD of Informed Choice (he referred to We rather than I) wrote ato his MP which whilst much of it was factually correct, excessively used the world Truth, which implied (or that is how m several who read his letter felt, including me), that it's excessive use implied anything we said which differed from his opinion was a lie. Martin apprantly, according to his father has taken some posters comments as a personal attack. Mine were suppossed to be a criticism of the wording rather than the content. Martin has then gone on to post on his own blog stating people have made personal attacks against him and that they should pick up teh phoen to him. I therefore asked his father directly whether he (Nick) felt I had attacked his son Martin, but Nick has not replied saying whether he felt I have made personal attacks and instead replied and I quote from Nick "I think Martin thinks you are...The substance of his letter is spot on I appreciate that the use of the word "truth" could have been better thought through" So Nick confirms Martin thinks I am having a go, but he also accepts that the word "truth" could have been better thought through which was my contention all along. Martin in his blog has said rather than have a public spat, people should pick up the phone, which I agree is very sensible and is why I provided my phone number on the Blog Nick was reading. Instead of hearing from either, I read this latest article on IFA On-line. Once again I will provide my number for Martin or Nick to phone should they wish 01843 588311. Tou you must be joking, can you confirm you have read the letter and if you wish to respond having a go at me, have teh decency to use your own name please as I would do.

Posted by: Phil Castle

Bad Cop.....Good Cop

Great idea Informed Choice. Martin tells us all that the RDR is brilliant and anyone who thinks otherwise is a Dinosaur, not capable of giving advice.....enter now Nick (Good Cop) who offers all the lowely IFA's a chance to see how good Informed Choice are and be a friend to IFAs...this is media spinning at it's very best. hats off to you guys (Bad Cop...Good Cop) you certainly know how to raise your profile.

Posted by: way to spin the media

Phil...

Phil, you appear to be suffering from some form of paranoia. I did not mention you AT ALL in my post (and don't think for a minute that, if I had intended to 'have a go at you', I would have omitted your name). My comment was purely about RDR in general and the B's offer for IFAs to go and see how they do it - particularly with regard to adviser charging! YMBJ

Posted by: You must be joking

False names and anon postings

To "way to spin the media" I do wish you would use your own name if you wish to make these sort of comments as you are proving Martin's point that some people do make personal attacks which are unwarranted if you are not willing to stand by your comments (as I do) and that detracts from the substance of what is being said. I have no doubt as to the passion belief and committment of both Martin and Nick, but I have a right to question their logic and the probable outcome of the RDIP, just as you do.

Posted by: Phil Castle

Small Fry

Having downloaded the Bamfords accounts for 2009, I don't think they could teach anyone anything much! It's on companies house web site for all to see.

Posted by: paolo standerwick

You must be joking

Whetehr you were having a go at me or not is immaterial, referring to anyone as "those whinging IFAs", when you don't specify who you are referring to means you could be including me as "whinging IFA" as I freely admit I do criticise, but I DO suggest alternatives and possible solutions to and I try hard not to stiffle debate by implying I am the only person telling the truth. (That is not direcetd at you YMBJ and I freely admit, it is a critcisim, but NOT a personal attack of the wording used in Martin's letter rather than the factual content) The idea of a free press and comments freely offered in public (as Martin did with his letter) is to be able to discuss the content and not stiffle it if the desired aim is not achieved as has occurred in this case.

Posted by: Phil Castle

do yourself a favour

I have had the fortune to work with Informed Choice and their financial planning team. I've also worked with a vast array of adviser firms from the national behemoths to the small sole trader. The model that Informed Choice operate is robust, it's safe (both for their business future and for their clients) and it's scaleable. It's amongst the best I've seen (if not possibly the best). If there are any doubters as to the hype around the Informed Choice model then the best thing you can do is take up the offer of attending an open day and seeing for yourself. As for the comment about company accounts... that's a little naive and unjust. If you understood the Informed Choice model you would understand that it is a family run business. The fact that it has a media profile that is national and a reputation that is international is testament to the Bamford's work in the media and in their industry. You probably expected accounts that were in line with a national IFA firm.....? I suggest you go to one of their open days and see for yourself rather than judging based on paper without understanding!

Posted by: Ian Laverty

Fair comment

Ian - Your comment is fair. I have met Paulo and he is passionate about what he does, just as Martin is. I think Paulo should go and see what Informed Choice do, but arguably, perhaps Martin should visit Paulo or otehr small IFAs to get a better understanding of their situations(I have emailed Lizzane and ccd Martin who I understand is away today) in order to do so. There are pro RDR adviser and anti RDR advisers, but there is an awful lot in between and I would include myself in the in between and it is for this reason it is important that both extremes listen to what the middel groun try to say rather than try and discount what we say be putting us to one side and instead of asking and MP to listen to the debate and draw their own conclusions, telling them to effectively ignore anyone who is not for OR against. I believe (but I do not know the TRUTH as I have not seen others letters), that many advisers writing to their MPs have asked them to have a Parliamentary debate on the RDIP, NOT to ignore the legitimate concerns of their constituences and to consider, exam debate and come to a conclusion about whether the RDIP combiend with all the otehr things going on at the moment including capital adequacy plans are the right thing to fully implement over what is now a relatively short timescale and smack bang in a period of belt tightening.

Posted by: Phil Castle

RDR gives no choice to consumer

I don't regard myself as a big shot in all this. But it's all about consumer choice e.g. more than one way to skin a cat. My business has made most of it's money in the last 3/4 years or CAR so no one can accuse me of being close minded. The close mindedness comes from one size fits all. As I have been around over 30 years and I know what my clients want. CHOICES - CAN YOU HEAR ME OUT THERE? And if we all have to go down this route I will make the most of it. Thanks for your support Phil

Posted by: paolo standerwick

Thank you

Thank you for all of your comments. I have been off work today, but it was nice to see the response to this offer, both here and in terms of the IFAs who have been contacting my office. We will get back in touch ASAP with those who want to get together to suggest some dates. @way to spin the media I can assure you that this offer is not part of any media strategy; simply an olive branch offered to those advisers who have been critical of our stance on the RDR recently (and those who simply want to take advantage of the offer). For the sake of clarity, I don't think that those opposing the RDR are dinosaurs or incapable of giving advice. Sorry if you have come to that conclusion because your opinion differs from mine. @paolo standerwick Thank you for taking the time to download our abbreviated accounts for 2009 from Companies House. I will look up your email address now and send you across our latest published accounts (submitted to Companies House but not scanned and online yet) as a lot changes in a year. One thing that hasn't changed is that we are still a profitable firm; in fact we have made a comfortable profit in each of our sixteen years of trading. I would always rather be small and profitable than big and habitually loss-making, as seems to be the approach adopted by many of our larger peers.

Posted by: Martin Bamford

RDR or RDIP

Thank you for making that statement Martin. I would just like to highlight that is it not just a matter of Pro and anti RDR. The RDR has finished, the stage we are at now is the RDIP and it is the timing of the RDIP I am questioning. Note I am not saying I am for or against the RDIP, I am questioning it's short term outcomes for consumers and firms, which is what the FSA has acknowledged my be detrimental to consumers but failed to justify why this deadline has to be so hard and fast rather than a transition as at one point I think the RDR said RDIP would be. If of course a move to level 6 is what they mean by a transition over time, then I can see that woudl eb a transition, BUT in that case I would have to stand firmly against the whole RDR as whilst level 4 may be a sensible goal, level 6 is certainly NOT neccessary for most advisers dealing with your average consumer. So I repeat, RDIP is the issue for me and NOT RDR.

Posted by: Phil Castle

Flawed Regulator = Flawed RDR

Dear Martin Thanks for your invitation and accounts. However, there was no need. Your gesture of inviting IFAs to your firm is positve and honourable. However, my problem is the article below which represents your firms sentiments towards RDR whilst appeasing the failed regulator. Citiwire article Quote Bamford tells MP to reject RDR naysayers' claims Adviser Martin Bamford has written to his local MP urging her to back the retail distribution review (RDR) in a debate on its proposals in the House of Commons on Wednesday. Bamford (pictured), managing director of Informed Choice, has written to Conservative MP for Guildford Anne Milton to argue the case for the RDR and asking her to ignore the arguments put forward by IFAs wishing to ‘maintain the status quo’. Unquote I happen to totally disagree with the regulatory interference we have had from the discredited F-Pack over many years. Corporate abuse comes clearly to my mind and most IFAs and city people would fully support my view. What we don't need is to fuel the bad regulator. If you wish to run your model in a particular way that's for you to decide, as I would run my model they way I see fit and not de dictated by some pen pushing civil servant with very little knowledge. My method of remuneration is agreed between the client and me and I don't see why the regulator needs to interfere with this. For the sake of repetition, most of my firms fees have come from CARs over the last few years. However, this fails dramatically with the younger generation as they have very little real money with small salaries to pay for fees. And most would not like to see 50% of their premiums disappearing for the first 1 to 2 years to pay for the advice. As they say if it's not broke why fix it? Pre 1997 we had the best privately funded pension schemes in the world and more money in private pensions than the whole of Europe put together. Now we have a decimated private pension sector, and thanks to interfering politicians and the F-Pack. Just in case you don't believe how bad the regulator is, I have attached the two CPS reports written in 2000 and 2005. You should familiaries yourself with these as perhaps you may understand others' views on the subject of regulations/manipulation. Interestingly Andrew Tyrie was involved in the 2000 report and he now he sits on the Treasury Select Committee. It'll be interesting how he will take this forward in future. So supporting RDR which has been hobbled together by a incompetent regulator doesn't seem right and in my view short sighted.

Posted by: paolo standerwick