By avoiding publicly describing oneself as a financial adviser and not applying a fee (not sure if a quid pro quo is legally equivalent to a fee), cowboy advisers may still slant around getting socially gullible people to misinvest their hard-earned money.
It's one thing to advise friends and family - even at times forcefully so if they are on a dangerous road and in no position to lose - on matters where you'd have experience yourself. You might almost call this a family or human obligation.
It's entirely another to extend this practice to cover anyone naive enough to raise personal finance matters with us. Here the response ought to be simply "I'm not equipped for that one, Mr X. Go see a good FA."
If they were sneaky enough, they could have a deal in place with the investment/policy provider such that part of the commission on every named sucker quoting them as their referrer that takes out that investment would be kicked back to some account to their benefit.
@LDF: If they were sneaky enough, they could have a deal in place with the investment/policy provider such that part of the commission on every named sucker quoting them as their referrer that takes out that investment would be kicked back to some account to their benefit. I suppose that in this day and age this might include investments signed up for online.
Of course, some people are not (mis-)advising for direct monetary gain.
They may have a bad case of CCC (county councillor's complex) and like to be at the centre of as much as possible for as many as possible.
@tmcg: By giving the stock advice:
"See a good FA, JJ. There's too much at stake for someone like me to be advising you. I had to do the same thing myself. 'Tis worth it all in the end."
...
In that situation, someone somehow has to blow a whistle.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?