Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Si1

I put over £100k into an unregulated property investment and lost the lot, I want compensation

Recommended Posts

SIPPish.

They need to get rid of ifas. They just dont work.

Developer registered in the Marshall islands, middle of Pacific.

Why in fcksake do unregulated schemes not have a huge warning printed on the prospectus?

Edited by spyguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, spyguy said:

SIPPish.

They need to get rid of ifas. They just dont work.

Developer registered in the Marshall islands, middle of Pacific.

Why in fcksake do unregulated schemes not have a huge warning printed on the prospectus?

Being unregulated should be the clue. But it was properdie init. My guess anyway.

Edited by Si1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

His mother has dementia and the advisor gave the money to some developer via an off shore account. The advisor told them that it was in a low risk, easy to access investment.

Blatant fraud on the part of the advisor, I don't think you can blame a old woman with dementia for the fraudulent actions of an advisor.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

His mother has dementia and the advisor gave the money to some developer via an off shore account. The advisor told them that it was in a low risk, easy to access investment.

Blatant fraud on the part of the advisor, I don't think you can blame a old woman with dementia for the fraudulent actions of an advisor.

 

The clue should still be in the fact that it was an unregulated fund.

Awful advice but not fraud.

Moon on a stick. Can't lose with property

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Si1 said:

The clue should still be in the fact that it was an unregulated fund.

Awful advice but not fraud.

Moon on a stick. Can't lose with property

The advisor lied about where the money was invested

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

£65k a year to look after a dementia ridden 89 year old.

Yet the MSM are up in arms about people only being left with 100K from a house that on average costs about 220k.

The daughter got greedy with her mothers money she had POA and thought she found a way to make a quick buck.

It wasn;t poor financial advice that lost her mothers money it was her greed.

Edited by TulipsFromThreadneedle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, spyguy said:

...

They need to get rid of ifas. They just dont work.

...

If you want your wealth to actually generate a sensible real return that you someday might be able to live off I can't see how you can do anything but take some self responsibly and go DIY.  By my calculations if you use a financial adviser or investment manager you could be losing up to 94% of your real return.  Source of calculations.  The book Where Are the Customers' Yachts? springs to mind.

Of course I'm not licensed to give any sort of advice so DYOR on all that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TulipsFromThreadneedle said:

£65k a year to look after a dementia ridden 89 year old.

Yet the MSM are up in arms about people only being left with 100K from a house that on average costs about 220k.

The daughter got greedy with her mothers money she had POA and thought she found a way to make a quick buck.

It wasn;t poor financial advice that lost her mothers money it was her greed.

No, she said she's in advertising and understands finance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, TulipsFromThreadneedle said:

£65k a year to look after a dementia ridden 89 year old.

Yet the MSM are up in arms about people only being left with 100K from a house that on average costs about 220k.

The daughter got greedy with her mothers money she had POA and thought she found a way to make a quick buck.

It wasn;t poor financial advice that lost her mothers money it was her greed.

I agree.  Offspring can go slightly bonkers seeing their inheritance burned by the care home.  Was she was actually trying to put it out of reach of the authorities.

I saw a property porn episode where the Son in Law 'Clive' was steering the Granny to invest in property, what for 25 years?  She'd be long dead.  It wasn't her interests at heart, it were his own, he couldn't take his eyes off of it.  She was going along with it though.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Abstra616 said:

I agree.  Offspring can go slightly bonkers seeing their inheritance burned by the care home.  Was she was actually trying to put it out of reach of the authorities.

I saw a property porn episode where the Son in Law 'Clive' was steering the Granny to invest in property, what for 25 years?  She'd be long dead.  It wasn't her interests at heart, it were his own, he couldn't take his eyes off of it.  She was going along with it though.

 

I just come across this bit 'Alchemy Wealth Management'.  LOL.  Would you...  LOL!  I'd burst out laughing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Abstra616 said:

I agree.  Offspring can go slightly bonkers seeing their inheritance burned by the care home.  Was she was actually trying to put it out of reach of the authorities.

I saw a property porn episode where the Son in Law 'Clive' was steering the Granny to invest in property, what for 25 years?  She'd be long dead.  It wasn't her interests at heart, it were his own, he couldn't take his eyes off of it.  She was going along with it though.

 

The daughter did NOT choose the advisor it was her mother who used the same one for 15 years.

The advisor should NEVER have put the money in an unregulated investment, the mother wasn't a sophisticated investor. The mother is entitled to be protected against bad advice, which why she paid for professional advice. That professional LIED to the mother and daughter as to where the money was invested.

Stop blaming the victim, the IFA is entirely at fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I've never sought advice from an IFA, if they knew what they were doing they'd be doing it with their own money. Having said that, I used an IFA when I bought my annuity, as they have access to databases not available to the public, the IFA got me 7.5% and the best I could find was about 6%, a huge difference with an annuity purchase.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

The daughter did NOT choose the advisor it was her mother who used the same one for 15 years.

The advisor should NEVER have put the money in an unregulated investment, the mother wasn't a sophisticated investor. The mother is entitled to be protected against bad advice, which why she paid for professional advice. That professional LIED to the mother and daughter as to where the money was invested.

Stop blaming the victim, the IFA is entirely at fault.

Yeah but it was properdie init

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Bruce Banner said:

 

Personally, I've never sought advice from an IFA, if they knew what they were doing they'd be doing it with their own money.

 

The reason you use a IFA is to be protected (insured) against bad/criminal investments. Puting a client's money into a development scheme in Wales via a offshore fund isn't bad advice -  its criminal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Si1 said:

Yeah but it was properdie init

No it wasn't. They were never told what the investment was.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Peter Hun said:

The daughter did NOT choose the advisor it was her mother who used the same one for 15 years.

The advisor should NEVER have put the money in an unregulated investment, the mother wasn't a sophisticated investor. The mother is entitled to be protected against bad advice, which why she paid for professional advice. That professional LIED to the mother and daughter as to where the money was invested.

Stop blaming the victim, the IFA is entirely at fault.

+ 1

The trouble is, people are more vulnerable to investment scams because the vested interest of the asset management industry has never been tackled. For the last few decades, IFAs have directed clients into products that, because of the fee structure, have underperformed. This is a big part of where the "pensions are a rip-off, the stock market is a gamble, property is a sure-thing" mindset comes from in the UK. If that's how 'honest' IFAs, and regulated investments, have done then, inevitably, it opens up space for outright fraudsters to sell people snake oil.

Changing that environment would technically be pretty easy, since the government already has a pension scheme set up (Nest). It could take that, open it up to everyone as the default pensions plan and use a robo-advisor that put savings in the equivalent of Vanguard funds and perhaps a sovereign wealth fund. If the asset management industry thought it could do a better job then it would have to compete with those low fees and win customers, rather than relying on being the incumbent pension provider for an employer or bamboozling uninformed investors.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Darby Ram said:

+ 1

The trouble is, people are more vulnerable to investment scams because the vested interest of the asset management industry has never been tackled. For the last few decades, IFAs have directed clients into products that, because of the fee structure, have underperformed. This is a big part of where the "pensions are a rip-off, the stock market is a gamble, property is a sure-thing" mindset comes from in the UK. If that's how 'honest' IFAs, and regulated investments, have done then, inevitably, it opens up space for outright fraudsters to sell people snake oil.

Changing that environment would technically be pretty easy, since the government already has a pension scheme set up (Nest). It could take that, open it up to everyone as the default pensions plan and use a robo-advisor that put savings in the equivalent of Vanguard funds and perhaps a sovereign wealth fund. If the asset management industry thought it could do a better job then it would have to compete with those low fees and win customers, rather than relying on being the incumbent pension provider for an employer or bamboozling uninformed investors.  

Yes. But during a boom anything goes and few people listen to words of caution. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Si1 said:

Yes. But during a boom anything goes and few people listen to words of caution. 

I agree, which is why most people should not have to deal with an IFA at all to sort out their finances - it's an extra layer of cost that's unnecessary unless you're extremely wealthy and adds an extra "someone does something really stupid or fraudulent" risk into the mix. The default option for people's money should be "direct it somewhere cheap and sensible, then do nothing". Then if a member of the family starts getting the idea to invest in a banana plantation in Ecuador, it should be obvious that something unusual is going on because most people just...do nothing.

Basically, my plan to reduce IFA fraud is to make as many as possible of them unemployed.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Peter Hun said:

The daughter did NOT choose the advisor it was her mother who used the same one for 15 years.

The advisor should NEVER have put the money in an unregulated investment, the mother wasn't a sophisticated investor. The mother is entitled to be protected against bad advice, which why she paid for professional advice. That professional LIED to the mother and daughter as to where the money was invested.

Stop blaming the victim, the IFA is entirely at fault.

I agree.

I mena, FFS, the mothers 80+. Investment at that age is pretty simple - cash + near cash.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 27 May 2017 at 9:35 PM, TulipsFromThreadneedle said:

£65k a year to look after a dementia ridden 89 year old.

Yet the MSM are up in arms about people only being left with 100K from a house that on average costs about 220k.

The daughter got greedy with her mothers money she had POA and thought she found a way to make a quick buck.

It wasn;t poor financial advice that lost her mothers money it was her greed.

I think most people have no idea what an extortionate rip off care is these days. £65k to look after one person in a home?

That is the real scandal - not the inheritance/dementia tax nonsense the press has got excited about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MARTINX9 said:

I think most people have no idea what an extortionate rip off care is these days. £65k to look after one person in a home?

That is the real scandal - not the inheritance/dementia tax nonsense the press has got excited about.

Agreed. Assuming you had a spare room I would have thought you could get a live in Filipino nurse and extra cover for less than half that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, MARTINX9 said:

I think most people have no idea what an extortionate rip off care is these days. £65k to look after one person in a home?

That is the real scandal - not the inheritance/dementia tax nonsense the press has got excited about.

And care homes are going bust, because its not enough. The number of dementia patients is going to increase 40% over the next few years where is the money coming from?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   108 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.