FAQ'S AND OBJECTIONS

Over the years we have met different fears and objections, so let us try and address some of those;

Q1)  What is stopping you from running off with my money?

Other than it would be theft and fraud, this question shows misunderstanding of Anti Money Laundering policies and of our industry.

We have neither the ability or the inclination.  

Nobody, including you, could access your capital without various checks and even then it may only be paid into a UK bank account registered in your name. 

All of the scams we have seen first hand resulted from people trying to avoid professional services to save on fees  -  in other words, they did it themselves.

Use the correct channels and view investment fees as an incentive and protection for the portfolio to flourish

Nobody has permission to withdraw your capital, even with a signed client form.  

​​

​

Q2) So you could pick a random provider or manager that I’ve never heard of and I have to trust that?

​

Okay, we can see your point.  It isn't an issue for us (as we are familiar with all of the firms), so if you only wish to see giant household names within your recommendations please let us know at the first meeting and we shall accommodate.  

We can't promise that those multi-million-pound offices were achieved by being the best value provider to the clients, but if that brand name is important for your peace of mind we can apply a filter for you.

The recommendations presented to you at our second meeting will be in your best interests.  It is not through random selection but after extensive research that we generate our advice.  

All recommendations are FCA regulated, professional and accurate. 

We do not offer unregulated advice or investments.  Most of those use potential high yield temptations such as Crypto currency, Film, Forests and Hotels as their 'invitation to treat'.  

​

Our firm is legally liable to you and insured for all of our recommendations.

Q3)  I could do it myself and save the fees

​

I am often surprised with this one. 

​

The most profound point is that you would not achieve the same results as us.  We are happy to compare.  I have not met a client yet whose financial position we have not improved compared to their own attempts. 

I spoke in the Spring with a perfectly sensible guy, good job, intelligent, yet he had his entire pension and savings invested in 4 similar equity funds recommended by a workmate.  He doesn't know it but he is entirely in one asset class with zero diversification.  Bonkers but blind to the danger.  

​

The workmate had even created a spreadsheet to show how much advice fees would erode his returns over time.  Oblivious that he would never achieve the same returns as us in the first place and the figures used on factsheets were not inclusive of fund manager fees. 

​

Fees are important of course, but they are not a driver, otherwise expensive hedge funds would never exist.  So long as they are worth it, I would never discount a method due to fees alone.

​

The University of Google can be a dangerous place, it makes you wonder how they are allowed.  Which unit price, unit type, asset class, wrapper, trade time, investment location, tax consequence, allowances, currency and risk level?  Would you hold tangible assets or synthetic?  Would you consider CFD's, ETF's, OEIC's, IT's?  Where would you trade them and how?  Are you sure which are covered by FSCS or equivalents?

​

The consequence of DIY is heavy!  Look at this report in the FT Jan 24;

When Mr XXXX got access to his pension aged 55, he had £220,000 in his pot but is now left with just £3,000. 

The 62-year-old told FT that he lost most of his pension in just three years by being able to put his savings into high-risk investments within his DIY Sipp.

The FTSE-100 listed pension company said there was nothing they can do to help Mr XXXX further. 

​

​

​

Q4)  I just need a form signing, I know what I am doing

We can only sign off our own work.

We made the decision that to avoid causing any offence we would deny sign-offs across the board, irrespective of the fees being forfeited.​

​​

Q5)  My existing provider says it will be a scam and they are safer.

​

This is very common issue now and should be addressed by the regulator.  This disturbance technique is employed to retain your capital.  

If the old provider was the best environment, we would of course recommend them.  Unfortunately, some scams do exist however the fear of that have now become a tool for the old providers to retain capital despite being uncompetitive.

​

Q6)  Cash is better & it's free!

​

Cash is not free - interest awarded is always below inflation, usually around 2% below as it currently stands.  That is effectively the bank's fee as they buy their cash wholesale (Libor).  Would you expressly pay 2% pa for cash account if it was made clear?  

​

The 5% Cash ISA awarded for £1000per month regular contributions for 1yr is great, but only 1 payment of the £1,000pm was in there for 1 year, so it really works out at less than 3% interest.  Clever marketing.

​

Any asset type would be higher risk if that was the only asset you employed.  

No asset type is immune from risk.  Cash hold custodian risk (bank could go bust. currency risk (currency could devalue) and inflationary risk (erodes buying power).