General Chat

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

Basically at my parents house for the weekend.... they've deliberately arranged a meal with our family (grandparents etc) for today (rather than the more convenient day of tomorrow) and they've still not finished cooking it now. And family rules - not allowed to leave the table as it's rude. So I can't even go to the ppub to watch it meaning I'm going to have to try and sneak away for the second half and as I'm blocked in on the drive I can't leave to the pub, so I'll need a stream.

:x Bottom line parents being dicks.

Next time I'm not bothering to go to the rents house, I'm staying at mine. Or go into work on the weekend. Either one's better.

Thank God I have a family both sides are into their football, they'd never make me do anything while Villa are on, mainly cause Dad's a Villa fan so obviously he wants to watch football and Moms BF a Villa fan so she can'tmake him do anything while game is on.

I feel for you.

[AVFC_Hitz]

Ahh ok so you live somewhere else! You've gone to your parents house! I see.

So they still have control over you even if you don't live with them. I'd tell mine to do one till after the match.

[theunderstudy]

The worst thing is my Dad used to be a semi-professional footballer for Nuneaton Borough.

And the rest of my family (save my brother) don't care much for football. Bleeeurgh got dinner now. If I'n any time in the next 2 hours, I'm doing well!

[PompeyVillan]

Parents- 'Hey Understudy, fancy coming around for lunch on Saturday?'

Understudy- 'Would love to, but Villa are on, maybe next week, unless Villa are playing of course'

Parents (offended)- 'Oh, so you prefer football to having a family meal?'

Understudy- 'Exactly, have a lovely meal'.

Parents- :/

Understudy-

[AVFC-Prideofbrum]

Understudy is the lucky one

[theunderstudy]

I managed to eventually watch it, albeit after complaining I had stomach cramps and went "for a lie down upstairs"

Shame about the **** game.

[Lombardo]

What happens when one of your accumulator bets is called off due to weather? Does the rest of the bet go ahead?

[Milfner]

Depends on who you bet with.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

England well beaten by South Africa. Scotland just about beat Samoa. Wales vs New Zealand is usually a decent game so that should brighten up the day.

[Brumerican]

What happens when one of your accumulator bets is called off due to weather? Does the rest of the bet go ahead?

Usually, yes. (In my experience with the main bookies)

I was paid out on a small acca today that included Brest from France. The game was abandoned during play and that's with Ladbrokes.

[Milfner]

At Coral they just payout the bet. I.e, if it's a 5-fold, it just gets reduced to a 4-fold.

[Milfner]

10 years today since Damilola Taylor was killed.

Shiiiiiiiiiiiiiit.

[theunderstudy]

Really? I thought that was only about 6 years ago.

[Villaninireland]

Took 12 hours to get from Great Wyrley to Castledermot thanks to Dublin airport being shut due to half inch of snow and only having 1 deicing machine . Feel for the poor sods who had been at the airport since 6 this morning.

[theunderstudy]

Sounds like a bitch Villaninireland, longest I've been at an airport was 15 hours at Jersey Airport in 2001. That was a fun evening/night, at least the England 5-1 thrashing of Germany helped.

[claret75]

England well beaten by South Africa. Scotland just about beat Samoa. Wales vs New Zealand is usually a decent game so that should brighten up the day.

New Zealand cruised it, even with Carter not being at his best. I heard the biggest ever World Cup bet was put on New Zealand to win it today. They look favourites atm, especially it being in NZ, although they normally find a way to **** it up

[tonyh29]

Seems America's next president has let slip a change of foreign Policy today :-)

Interviewer: How would you handle a situation like the one that just developed in North Korea?

Palin: Well, North Korea, this is stemming from a greater problem, when we're all sitting around asking, 'Oh no, what are we going to do,' and we're not having a lot of faith that the White House is going to come out with a strong enough policy to sanction what it is that North Korea is going to do. So this speaks to a bigger picture that certainly scares me in terms of our national security policy. But obviously, we've got to stand with our North Korean allies – we're bound to by treaty....

[JulieB]

It may go un-noticed with all the hue & cry about Ireland & the Eurozone's financial turnoil, however there is a major debate on Monday about the future of financial services and the retail distribution review. As an IFA who regularly sees how double standards are applied within our financial regulations...we've been asked to make written submissions to our MPs & the Treasury Select Commitee as a consultation....

I'm snowed in & not feeling too well. I have no interest in bolitics, however as this involves my livelihood I think I have every right to express an opinion on what's been allowed to happen..... so took the opportunity to email my submission to the TSC today.

I will be listening intently to the debate on Monday & following with interest the outcome of the consultation ordered by the Treasury over the next few months. Most politicians & the wider public are ignorant of what's been going on with a totally unaccountable regulator with a seemingly hidden agenda to support their mates in the Banks. It is also atrocious that the failed FSA's sucessor organisation - the Consumer Protection Agency is to be made up of 2/3rds of FSA staff!!

Statements from Hector Sants, Hoban & Lord Turner in the last few weeks have angered IFAs intensely and although we represent a tiny minority many are simply leaving the industry in despair....

The Retail Distraction Review!!

Dear Treasury Select Committee, Mark Garnier MP, Rory Stewart MP & Harriet Baldwin MP

In anticipation of Monday's discussion in Parliament regarding the Retail Distribution Review proposed by the FSA and further to the Treasury Select Committee's request for written evidence regarding the RDR -

I would like to state that it seems to me that the RDR is a huge distraction away from the real issues as to who is responsible for giving bad advice within UK financial services and how this is to be tackled.

The FSA's stated ambitions as reiterated by Hector Sants this week are for the RDR "to deliver specific improvements to investors" A number of years ago the FSA introduced a regime of "Treating the Customer Fairly",

which has rigourously been enforced in the case of mortgage brokers & IFA practices but made little difference to the industry as a whole.

In a speech given at ThomsonReuters’ offices in London on 12th March 2009, Hector Sants said: “A principles-based approach does not work with individuals who have no principles.” He continued: “In future, we will seek to make judgements on the judgements of senior management and take actions if, in our view, those actions will lead to risks to our statutory objectives " He also promised a more “intrusive and direct style of supervision” and warned that bankers should be “very frightened” of the watchdog".

Currently the Bankers are now in open defiance of the FSA with regard to how they deal with misold Payment Protection Insurance and yet NOTHING has been done. So where is Mr Sants aspersions that the Bankers should be "very frightened" of the regulator?!!

Who are the people with no principles?...The FSA's own figures show that 98% of complaints referred to the Ombudsman (FSO) are from advice given by the High St Banks. About 80 - 90% of these complaints are upheld. Presumably this comes at huge costs to the FSO. Yet IFAs account for about 1 or 2% of complaints and only about 39% of these are upheld by the FSO - this represents overall a tiny fraction. Therefore how can it be argued that in the main IFAs are offering bad advice to the general public or are unprincipled? Whilst absolutely decrying unprincipled brokers and IFAs it appears to me the arrows of the bow are being pointed in the wrong direction.

Lord Turner & Hector Sants said this week that it was acceptable that IFAs be culled by 30% & in fact this may lead to a reduction in administrative costs to the consumer. IFAs fund the FSA to the tune of 28%, yet we cause them the least amount of complaints! If the IFA sector is greatly reduced. am I to presume that the regulator's costs will be culled to the same tune? No we're told that costs will increase significantly under RDR.

Oxera, the market research firm employed by the FSA to assess the costs and benefits of the changes, expects the net present value of the compliance costs to the industry to reach between £1.4 billion and £1.7 billion. Worryingly, the estimate in 2008 was £600 million. That cost will be passed directly to consumers. The latest estimate represents an astonishing 180% increase.

Therefore any remaining IFA practices funding 28% of the costs of the regulator will see their individual compliance costs increase dramatically as there will be less IFA firms to share the costs out to. Consequently any clients of remaining IFA practices will see their Fees for any advice necessarily have to be increased in order that the practice generate any kind of profit or indeed maintain it's capital adequacy requirements. I put it to Lord Turner & the TSC that his mathematics are entirely flawed, in fact the truth of the matter is quite the opposite. The majority of the general public will feel the costs of advice post RDR will be too high to seek out independent advice so they will be forced to consult the Bankassurance sector & their version of "free advice".

In fact the RDR rewards these same organisations and fails to reward professional, ethical advisers. To quote the words from a banker Paul Selly from HBOS : "Bancassurers are set to benefit from the RDR" Apart from their advisers taking exams, paid for entirely by their employers... NOTHING will change for restricted advisers they will be able to misuse commission & missell to the public to their hearts content just the same as at present.

Do the TSC really think that making the bank advisers take more exams will make them more principled? In the same manner do the TSC really think that IFAs passing exams makes someone more professional or ethical? No it does not. I've taken & passed 4 exams this year, which might have given me the required credentials, however it's not made a jot of difference to the advice I give because I was technically & morally proficient anyhow. Living in a rural area of Cumbria, I wouldn't have a business if I didn't look after my clients and what makes me angry is how much of my time is spent on undoing some of the bad advice offered by the Bank Assurance sector to clients who are referred to me.

In short the arguments over exams, grandfathering & RDR miss the point. I absolutely applaud the stated objective to make the value of independent advice more professional, more relevant and clearly & transparently renumerated. However surely the main point is that Independent Financial Advice & Financial Planning for a client has NOTHING in common with what's dished out by salespeople (masquerading as advisers) meeting sales targets. Surely the RDR should be about dealing with bad advice & unprincipled advisers whichever sector they come from.

Whilst the waters are muddied & the value of good advice is undermined by the disgraceful tactics employed by the Bankassurers and bad advisers whilst seeing numbers of decent over-regulated advisers reduced, the UK will continue to see a huge gap in savings, pensions and protection. THIS is what the RDR should be addressing surely.

Many Thanks for allowing me the opportunity to present this evidence"

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

England well beaten by South Africa. Scotland just about beat Samoa. Wales vs New Zealand is usually a decent game so that should brighten up the day.

New Zealand cruised it, even with Carter not being at his best. I heard the biggest ever World Cup bet was put on New Zealand to win it today. They look favourites atm, especially it being in NZ, although they normally find a way to **** it up

My bets the French but you never rule out the English ( in this sport at least ).

[claret75]

England well beaten by South Africa. Scotland just about beat Samoa. Wales vs New Zealand is usually a decent game so that should brighten up the day.

New Zealand cruised it, even with Carter not being at his best. I heard the biggest ever World Cup bet was put on New Zealand to win it today. They look favourites atm, especially it being in NZ, although they normally find a way to **** it up

My bets the French but you never rule out the English ( in this sport at least ).

England always manage to up their game for the WC and this time round, they've got their best s team since they won it, definitely stand a chance. I put France on a par with England, just looked at the odds, they're both 12-1, worth a punt. I'd like to say Wales will take the whole thing by storm, but they just won't.