Mark Dampier's bluster and bluff (Money Marketing, March 21) cannot alter the fact that Peter Hargreaves admitted his company has been multi-tied for years.
That admission confirmed that Hargreaves Lansdown's claim to be independent in any shape or form is an insult to genuine IFAs who act on behalf of clients rather than selling tranches of products on behalf of providers.
No amount of ranting, raving or rudeness on Mr Dampier's part can change HL's actual role as a distributor of products rather than an IFA.
Whether it was the late unlamented Singer & Friedlander football fund or the current pushing of New Star products, ML is a policy-flogger, pure and simple.
Dampier's claim for HL's “qualitative” research is merely seeking to be a judge in his own cause.
I have no objection to distributor status for HL. Indeed, I welcome such status as exposing the company for what it is.
My objection to CP121 is that it postulates the notion that IFAs must charge fees to rich and poor alike in order to retain independent status.
For those of us living in areas of social exclusion and deprivation, such a notion is nonsensical and can only serve to widen the gap between rich and poor in favour of the former.
Thomas Financial Planning, St Helens