Nic Cicutti, writing in Money Marketing, discusses an email from an investor in which his correspondent suggests that fees from financial advisers are simply too high or in other words around 3% or £10,500 upfront and then an ongoing annual charge of 1.1 per cent from inquiries made.
Interestingly the person concerned has two DB pensions and a DC pension at what you might call the mid level of savings.
Actually, the comments are well worth a read here – 43 in all - with some advisers saying the fees sound too high but also mentioning that there may need to be planning around the DB schemes even without any advice to transfer in which case the upfront fee may not be too far out of line.
In the Financial Times, Jonathan Ford suggests that due to a combination of passives and momentum investing, markets are mispricing shares with risky shares arguably priced too high. He says we need more but better Woodfords. Certainly, one idea to throw into the mix.
Experts suggest that Hargreaves Lansdown could be sucked into FOS complaints surrounding Woodford. I think that is very likely. It will be interesting to see FOS's view concerning consumers who think they have been misled as opposed to consumers who have been. Clearly the debate about information versus advice is very much in play. Could have huge implications.
On the Professional Adviser podcast Martin Bamford discusses why he will no longer be talking about investment funds in the national press.
The November budget is cancelled though it is difficult to imagine how it was ever going to happen in the first place.
Citywire looks at how its cover stars invest with active versus passive the main discussion point. Saw some brickbats being thrown by the passive advocates given how many of the stars were active or a bit of both.
The Sunday Times looks at four fund managers who lost more than Woodford – yes but they didn’t have to gate. All getting a bit silly now.
