Why is it that advisers such as Hargreaves Lansdown, Chase de Vere and Torquil Clark, all of whom have “teams of analysts and res-earch tools to monitor and track fund performance” (MM, August 9), consistently push funds which have nothing to recommend them other than the respective firms' endorsement?
I have read literature from all the companies in question and can find no evidence of research of any kind.
There is sufficient infor-mation from investment publications, providers and on the internet to make solid recommendations based on the latest information.
IFAs who utilise such resources provide very good reasons why clients should invest in specific funds. Unlike the two-line nonsense that passes for fund knowledge from National IFAs.
Thomas Financial Planning,
I was very interested to read the article from Peter Hargreaves in Money Marketing and wonder whether you have had any response to his very well argued points from other IFAs.
We here, a relatively small (10 RIs) firm of IFAs, feel very strongly that we should not be asked to pay comp-ensation, some of which has gone to pay the shareholders in Towry Law, who have either been very badly advised by their professionals (in which case, the latter should be sued) or have been incompetent.
It is no fault of the bulk of IFAs that Towry Law got themselves into this mess and it is indeed quite sickening to see Douglas Black featured in Money Marketing trumpeting how many IFAs he wants to employ in the next few years.
Surely Peter Hargreaves is right in that either the directors of Towry Law were incompetent and should therefore not be remunerated for their shares or their advisers did not do their homework correctly and that they should therefore be sued by the ICS to recover some or all of this money?
I think the whole episode is disgraceful and for Mr Black to say that they industry is better off because of the way the deal was constructed is downright insulting.
Chairman and chief executive,
John K Miln,