Independent Financial Advice

Gavin, care to explain why you're posting only on this thread and the Churchill spam thread?

Care to substantiate?

I was relying to the general concerns from people

relying? says it all really

so are you the same Gavin who called me up trying to sell me financial products?

Some people choose to work abroad for reasons other than making money. We're not cash cows just waiting to be milked.

The supposedly tax-efficient 5% p.a. growth 20-year flexible life insurance policy with a large insurance company which I was persuaded into would have been the equivalent of putting the money in a padlocked shoebox nailed under the floorboards for the first 7 years or so, which was how long it would have taken to show any growth. (Reason: undisclosed commission charges.) And hefty premium payments would have had to be kept up 12 months a year for 20 years for it to be in any way worthwhile.

Yep your quite right, heft commissions, undisclosed, and no growth for 7 to 8 years, stay well away folks

you sound quite p1ssed considering you revived two very old threats

What happened?

He just got fired from one of those big ones no one is allowed to mention. Too much detail and anger to be anything else.

Not Guilty I'm afraid, although I am pleased, not p1ssed that these topics have been brought to the fore once again, it was a shame they had to remove the old ones, but these companies threaten the forums with legal action, as I'm sure you know.

So many people found them useful, it is an honest open debate where swiss citizens and ex-pats can all take what they want from the thread, and judge it for what it is, or they can ignore the opinions and thoughts of those that have contributed and do their own thing.

That is all we ask for. If these companies want to defend their actions that is fine as well, but to threaten legal stuff only backs up the general consensus of the old deleted threads.

As they say in Zimbabwe, "It's all good"

Hi everyone

I have just stumbled over this forum because I have posted an article recently (the irreplaceable nature of capital and fiduciary duties of financial advisors).

I do not know what the initial question/need was, but for independent advise in all kinds of money matters you should check out http://www.vermoegenszentrum.ch/?lang=en-us ; I have never worked with them, but received a lot of positive feedbacks. They are also asset managers, but for that reason I would not choose VZ. I can not tell, if they take kick-backs, but today one has either to disclose that you do not take or you take and how much. If they do not, do not be shy to ask (always force your advisors to disclose).

To be transparent, I am myself an independent asset manager (but not more or not less). If you need advise on that matter, feel free to contact me (via PM please). We do not take any retrocessions or have conflicts of interest.

Hope that was helpful.

What a wonderful first post! From Basel as well no less. Welcome to the forum.

Thanks economisto. My pleasure! Greetings to Zurich

You need to be cautious of anything saying 'tax free'.

I don't know of any place in the world which is tax free. OK, some smart ar5e will say the Caymen Islands or whatever, but we all live in the real world.

The reality of 'tax free' is the profit (growth or dividends) on the investment. So unless you are ploughing in a fortune and the numbers are big, the growth/profit is likely to be somewhere say 5 or 6% per year, and the 'tax free' saving on this is say 20% of the 5%, so in fact a saving of 1% per year.

And it isn't a saving at all because of the frighteningly high charges, much more than perceived 1% 'tax free' bit can ever make you.

OK, what about compound interest? Well, what about the massive charges? the tie in for 20 years? the penalties? etc

Furthermore, it's only tax deferral, when you cash in after 20 years (do you really know where you'll be in 20 years time? or the tax laws in force?) then you have to declare it and pay tax then.

OK, the maths above is a bit dodgy, but then it's good enough to give you the general idea, you can always get a calculator out yourself!

One other 'benefit' of these bonds is you can draw down 5% per year tax free, according to todays tax rules. Well that's after maturity, so you will be paying ongoing managment charges anyway. And I think you can only draw down 25% like this, though someone else can confirm this.

I'll ask the simple question again to those defending these products, does anyone, anywhere know of anyone who has actually seen one of these plans through to maturity and been better off than an alternate, non-bond/insurance wrapper/off shore type scheme, ie, direct investing?

These schemes, the marketing and the salesmen are all there to catch the greedy, careless and gullible.

Please think very carefully before signing on the dotted line.

17Clarence, do you have a specific product in mind when you write this. It seems as if you're responding to a post that isn't there. Offshore is a big subject and you seem to know about one instance where you were apparently offered something you didn't like and keep ploughing on about it, hijacking threads. Moreover you seem to have to idea about offshore or tax-efficiency delivered by strategies utilising tax-efficient jurisdictions (don't worry, I won't mention the Cayman Islands for fear of sounding like a smart arse). And what are you talking about "tie in for 20 years".

Seriously, either you've been traumatised, or you're on the wrong thread.

You may well be correct Economisto, but if my post gets read by one person and saves them getting scammed then I'm happy for you to groan away.

Well whether you're happy or not I don't think an indescriminate attack on...well...tax-efficiency will be constructively helpful to anyone. What would be helpful is a frank and open discussion on a specific product or stragety with which you found fault and the reasons for this. The reality is that whatever product you might be speaking about, it's highly unlikely there was anything wrong with it. It's more likely that the person you dealt with was less than scrupulous (remember, generalisations get us no where) and he was attempting to sell you a product that was less than suitable for your particular circumstances. Do you agree?

Except that those who sell it see it necessary to threaten legal action against anyone who mentions their name in public and demand that all threads mentioning them be deleted. A very typical behaviour for people with nothing to hide and who know all the good arguments are on their side.

I somehow don't think you can blame a handful of unscrupulous individuals for this. This is a corporate strategy of the companies concerned.

I asked the guy who cold called me about this and he denied that his company had threatened legal action against this forum or demanded the deletion of any threads. I repeat, he denied, he didn't say he didn't know or couldn't comment. To be able to deny he must have known there was a policy. And, assuming the moderators of this board weren't lying and deleted these threads of their own accord, that company did demand this action and he was lying. Why?

Amogles you have an excellent point. However it's my point. The companies that are threatening legal action are the sellers not the makers of the products. There are some bad people/companies selling products (and some good people/companies) but the products they generally sell are generally good and potentially profitable. The rub is this:

Product A will pay commission of 1000 CHF (for example). Is this a lot or a little? Neither. It all depends on what you get in return. If you get good financial advice for the life of the product, then it's a steal. If they sell it and walk away with no written service contract, then they're stealing.

It really is that simple.

You are quite right Economisto, I only have a gripe with two companies whom we are not allowed to mention and who seem to be pushing one product fits all scenario, as highlighted here:

Financial Mis-selling to expats

No doubt there are many honest financial advisors out there doing well for their customers, but it ain't these guys, and that's the point I'm trying to get over.

I agree with your point. Let's not mention them ok?