# Prime Time Investigates Advice to Elderly, this Thursday 9:30pm



## MugsGame (28 May 2008)

Prime Time this Thursday (tomorrow) at 9.30 pm will be following up on the Financial Services Ombudsman's suggestions that there may be systematic misselling of investment products to elderly people. I believe Prime Time filmed some undercover "mystery shopping" and then interviewed well-known consumer advocates to review the advice received.


----------



## Brianne (29 May 2008)

Watching programme at present..........not very comforting. Very good points made.Awful to think that people , many of whom have wealth through living very economically , are being misled.


----------



## Homer (29 May 2008)

mercman said:


> The entire finance business is corrupt in Ireland


 
Let's keep a sense of perspective.

What we saw on Prime Time tonight was very disturbing and the excuses given were flimsy at best.  But to extrapolate from that and conclude that the entire finance business in Ireland is corrupt is taking things a bit far.

I hope that the programme will cause a lot of disquiet and might even lead some companies to change how they do business.  But let's have some reasoned discussion about what we saw.

Regards
Homer


----------



## DrMoriarty (30 May 2008)

It can be viewed (with Real Player) [broken link removed] — bottom right, entitled _'Mature investments'_.


----------



## ontour (30 May 2008)

I didn't see it all but from what I saw I thought that they should have either identified none of the institutions that they mystery shopped or identified all of them.

The programme should be a balanced assessment rather than hunting for a story.

The casual nature of the advice given to the elderly and the apparent lack of appreciation for the impact that these investment decisions will have on the customers was alarming. I think that financial advisors should be mandated to document all investment advice. This might make some advisors consider their statements more closely.


----------



## Jock04 (30 May 2008)

Well done to Brendan, I thought he came across very well.


(cheque to the usual address thanks Brendan! )


----------



## Dave Vanian (30 May 2008)

Mary O'Dea's reply about the Financial Regulator's investigation was really weak. Along the lines of "We wrote to the institutions and asked them if they mis-sell. They wrote back and told us they don't. But it was the Chief Executives of the institutions that wrote back, don't you know.  So that's alright then."


----------



## Sunny (30 May 2008)

Dave Vanian said:


> Mary O'Dea's reply about the Financial Regulator's investigation was really weak. Along the lines of "We wrote to the institutions and asked them if they mis-sell. They wrote back and told us they don't. But it was the Chief Executives of the institutions that wrote back, don't you know. So that's alright then."


 
Exactly. The reply came from "Chief Executive" so everything was fine. Someone should explain to her the concept of inspections. The point of the regulator is that banks don't regulate themselves but that is exactly what is happening if all a CEO has to do is write a letter saying everything is fine and the regulator happily accepts this and goes about its business doing up lovely glossy brochures and expensive ads explaining the very difficult concept of tracker mortgages.


----------



## ubiquitous (30 May 2008)

ontour said:


> I think that financial advisors should be mandated to document all investment advice.



They already are, and this (imho, and afaik according to some views expressed on the programme) is part of the problem. You can spend all day documenting advice in nice, fancy reports but if your verbal communications with the client differ from the text of the report, the report is useless. Clients rarely read such reports anyway.


----------



## Bronte (30 May 2008)

How about that the advice is recorded (tape recorder/videocam) - must be easy nowadays with all the technology we have.  It's stored with the file and would be a perfect proof of what advice was given.


----------



## werner (30 May 2008)

Dave Vanian said:


> Mary O'Dea's reply about the Financial Regulator's investigation was really weak. Along the lines of "We wrote to the institutions and asked them if they mis-sell. They wrote back and told us they don't. But it was the Chief Executives of the institutions that wrote back, don't you know. So that's alright then."


 
What passes for financial regulation in Ireland is a thundering disgrace.
Either the Financial Regulator does its job properley or it should be reformed with real teeth.

It needs to show, name and shame any institution involved in mis-selling whilst hitting them with heavy fines until they reform their ways.

I won't hold my breath


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 May 2008)

DrMoriarty said:


> It can be viewed (with Real Player) [broken link removed] — bottom right, entitled _'Mature investments'_.


Wow!! Mind-blowing, come back Endowment Mortgages all is forgiven.

_Boss_, you done well but I think your summary was a bit unfair. Those three advisors who recommended deposits are heroes, I agree with _Eddie_ on that.

I don't want to get into the specific examples but the overwhelming message is that you can forget all your Consumer Protection Codes and Regulations. What is said at the consultations is a completely different world.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 May 2008)

Yellow Belly said:


> ...Fully Independent Financial Advisor


 
It would be necessary to make it illegal for FIFAs to receive any commission or other inducements from providers. Only when fees from clients are their only remuneration can all incentive to misrepresent certain products be eradicated.


----------



## ubiquitous (30 May 2008)

Yellow Belly said:


> Perhaps the regulator could re-jig titles as follows:
> 
> 
> Insurance/Investment Sales Person
> ...



No, I don't think it would make a blind bit of difference, except perhaps to suit authorised advisors by designating them as fully independent even in the occasional cases when they are nothing of the sort.

The problem highlighted in last night's programme had nothing to do with labelling of advisors, and everything to do with the nature of the products being sold to the elderly lady. These were utterly unsuitable for her and would remain so regardless of who was selling them to her.  

What I want to know is why the companies who devise and market such products are not forced to include, in their product design systems,  basic controls against mis-selling. For example applications for long-term investment bonds made by a person over a specified age (perhaps 65/70 years?) should be routinely rejected in the same way as would happen to an application made in the name of a small child.


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 May 2008)

The issue is not whether SecureSafe or a Cale With Profit Bond are unsuitable for the mystery shopper, they are not the worst. What was shocking was the misrepresentation.

On SecureSafe it was indicated quite unambiguously that there would be a 5% income and money back. It was also suggested that 9% was the expected return.  I agree with the _Boss_ that the brochures themselves on this product are a model of fair and readable representation.  A whole new human frailty is being exposed here - the way inventivised persons will completely depart from these standards.

On the WP Bond we had the old misrepresentation of the true nature of the first year bonus.


----------



## mf1 (30 May 2008)

"A whole new human frailty is being exposed here - the way incentivised persons will completely depart from these standards."

I agree with the second bit. 

I read Vanity Fair again recently and what interested me most was how some things never change. I don't think what we saw was a new human frailty - I think it was a latent human frailty that I would have hoped responsible people would be able to see beyond. 

mf


----------



## John Rambo (30 May 2008)

There's a lot more to this. A friend of mine was sold a bells and whistles life insurance policy and told it was the bare minimum required. When his accountant reviewed his finances he realised what had happened and told him to demand his money back as he was missold an inappropriate product. Turns out the bank have a fake file with details of meetings that never happened in places my mate has never been. He is threatening to go to the papers. I remember my own experience with the same bank and their pressure selling, preying on the fears of women etc. This is the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## Sunny (30 May 2008)

Can I ask are financial 'advisors' in this country part of any professional body with their own ethical and professional standards apart from what the regulator says is right or wrong. For example, I am a CFA charterholder and I would be struck off if that was me shown in last nights film. An accountant would probably face action from their body, a solicitor from the law society and a doctor from the medical council. What penalty do the individuals pay for their part in dodgy practices? Maybe I am wrong and they do face consequences but I haven't heard of them.

As for the institutions, they will not take this matter seriously until a campaign of name and shame starts and they start facing reputational risk. They will quiet happily pay fines as long as their names don't get mentioned.


----------



## Dave Vanian (30 May 2008)

Sunny said:


> Can I ask are financial 'advisors' in this country part of any professional body with their own ethical and professional standards apart from what the regulator says is right or wrong. For example, I am a CFA charterholder and I would be struck off if that was me shown in last nights film. An accountant would probably face action from their body, a solicitor from the law society and a doctor from the medical council. What penalty do the individuals pay for their part in dodgy practices? Maybe I am wrong and they do face consequences but I haven't heard of them.
> 
> As for the institutions, they will not take this matter seriously until a campaign of name and shame starts and they start facing reputational risk. They will quiet happily pay fines as long as their names don't get mentioned.


 
There are two Representative Bodies -  and .  They are only open to brokers so the Permanent TSB staff last night would not be eligible to join.  In any event, they are more like unions than regulators - if a broker gets thrown out of PIBA s/he can still operate.  

The only body with the power to end a broker's career is the Financial Regulator.


----------



## Bedlam (30 May 2008)

The individuals concerned should hold the qualification QFA, Qualified Financial Advisor before being allowed to sell. The QFA is run by the Life Insurance Association.

One would hope that this body would take the appropriate action against those involved. 

Bedlam


----------



## Brendan Burgess (30 May 2008)

Folks, RTE has the resources to vet every comment from a legal point of view. 

Askaboutmoney doesn't. So I have deleted the potentially defamatory comments. 

It's probably better to make broader points about the issue or the programme and avoid making potentially defamatory comments about the companies or individuals involved. 

Brendan


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (30 May 2008)

The three who recommended deposits are heroes. They should be named and famed. Eddie also suggested that there were a few others who performed well. I really do not agree with the Boss that this lady should be given a lecture on the 4 options available (what are these, Boss?). A professional cuts to the chase. Bravo to those who Eddie says performed well.

Also the vulnerable age bit is a red herring. I guess the misreps would be made irrespective of age.

If RTE wanted to be truly sensational they would have attached a bubble to that broker's head reading "5 grand commission"


----------



## lawdie (31 May 2008)

It was cringe worthy TV.  I've sat in on elderly investment meetings and the general advice is go enjoy the money not invest.  To think that anyone would offer a 6 or 10 year bond from any provider is madness.

The comments had me in real shock, someone from these organisations must perform compliance checks.

This begs the question should all financial reviews be recorded and possibly videoed.  I've read in the states car dealership finance staff have this big brother approach on every meeting.


----------



## John Rambo (31 May 2008)

What I found most distasteful was the response of management and the advisors when contacted about what had transpired. I fully expected a 'this is serious matter and we're investigating it' and instead there were cop outs in each case...a 'further down the line they would have got the right advice' which I found mind-boggling.


----------



## Bedlam (3 Jun 2008)

I was thinking about this over the weekend and I remembered that the Broker from Kilkenny used to be a director in a Tony Taylor company back in the 80s, early 90s. I cant remember though if Eddie Hobbs was working there as well at the same time. Anybody remember?


Bedlam


----------



## ClubMan (3 Jun 2008)

What relevance is it if he was? The _Tony Taylor _thing has been done to death at this stage and anybody who still maintains or insinuates that _EH _was in some way culpable in this matter is surely just engaging in misguided character assassination in an attempt to discredit/undermine _EH_? I'm not a great fan of _EH _myself but this constant resurrection of the _TT _thing at every opportunity is tiresome.


----------



## Bedlam (3 Jun 2008)

Hi Clubman,

That was not my intention and I apologise. What I was really thinking and should have said so was to do with Eddie declaring to RTE & Primetime that he may have had a possible conflict of interest in that he may have worked with one of the individuals filmed

Thanks

Bedlam


----------



## ClubMan (3 Jun 2008)

Sorry - usually the _TT _thing is mentioned in an attempt to undermine _EH_ hence my (kneejerk?) reaction...


----------



## ubiquitous (3 Jun 2008)

Bedlam said:


> Hi Clubman,
> 
> That was not my intention and I apologise. What I was really thinking and should have said so was to do with Eddie declaring to RTE & Primetime that he may have had a possible conflict of interest in that he may have worked with one of the individuals filmed
> 
> ...



Why exactly would there be a conflict of interest? If I worked alongside someone 20 years ago, surely that hardly means I am in their pocket today? Anyway, you say yourself that you don't remember whether EH worked alongside that guy, so why now claim that EH should have declared a "conflict" that may not even have existed in the first instance?


----------



## Bedlam (3 Jun 2008)

Hi Ubiquitous,

Fair point, I was looking at it more from the point of view had Eddie any in put into the decision as to who to show on the programme out of the 14 interviews done.

Bedlam


----------



## MugsGame (3 Jun 2008)

Finally had a chance to look at the programme.

I wasn't surprised by what I saw. I don't think this issue is age-related.  I've experienced similar (attempted) misselling as a "young" person. It's possible that the elderly may be particularly vulnerable because they place more trust in authority figures like "the bank", but I think this overestimates the sophistication of many younger people when dealing with financial institutions.


----------



## Bronte (4 Jun 2008)

Young people's sophistication - does it extend to refusing the new insurance "mortgage protection insurance" which in most cases will not pay out.   I wonder what percentage of new home buyers in the last few years are frittering their money away on that one.  In any case you'd be better off saving your premiums for the rainy day.


----------



## Bedlam (4 Jun 2008)

Bronte

What exactly do you mean by the new insurance "mortgage protection"?

Bedlam


----------



## MugsGame (4 Jun 2008)

Bronte, my post may not have been clear. I don't think young people are any more or less sophisticated than "the elderly" when it comes to dealing with financial products. Misselling to "vulnerable" elderly people makes for good press, but misses the real issue - good investment advice is hard to come by.

The FSO may see more complaints from the elderly (or their estate!), but I'd guess that's because there are more of them with large sums to invest, and the consequences of poor investments can be greater.


----------



## Bronte (4 Jun 2008)

Sorry to clarify Belam, maybe I've gotton the name of the insurance incorrect and also I suppose it's not that new, been around about 10 years I think, the one in addition to house and life insurance and it's to pay out if you're out of work.  
Agree with you Mugsgame good investment advice is hard to come by and the brighter and glossier the brochure the more it's going to cost you - my own personal advice. 
Re mis-selling, and I didn't see the programme, it is quite obvious that until the penalties for mis-selling outweigh the gains from mis-selling that it will continue.  But the financial service industry are never going to go down that route as it is not in their interest.  It is easier and cheaper to fire employees every so often and put it down to mavericks/bad agents.


----------



## Bedlam (4 Jun 2008)

Bronte

I think you mean Payment Protection Insurance which offers cover for loan repayments if you suffer from an accident, illness, death or redundancy.

Bedlam


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (5 Jun 2008)

Isn't there something very sneaky about this mystery shopping? This is not quite like the newspaper restaurant critics making covert samplings. In their case the restaurant is paid for the meal and can have no complaint. 

In the case of mystery samplings of financial advice there is almost fraud involved as there is clearly an intention to waste the advisor's time with no prospect of remuneration.

The bad guys got their come uppance and I have no sympathy with them.

But the good guys were conned and have strong grounds for suing RTE. At least one might have expected RTE to give them credit for passing the test.


----------



## mercman (5 Jun 2008)

Why would they have strong grounds for suing RTE ?? The purpose of the programme was to demonstrate and offer evidence of how illqualified, misguided and misleading the process of investment is in the market. If the suing element is required to be brouht in to this discussion it should be guided at the companies whose products are being marketed to persons who are illinformed, but by agents that are more intent in receiving a commission regardless of the requirements of the customer.


----------



## MrMan (5 Jun 2008)

I don't think you can rely on these programmes to paint a broad picture of any industry. They presumably do research before hand and have a reasonable knowledge of which agent is the best bet to provide them with their needed headlines. I wonder do they do trial runs to see who is the most likely candidate to give bad advice before going again with their 'actor'. It would be a waste of their resources to go and contact 14 agents and say for 10/11 of them to give good advice, they wouldn't have a programme then. Does anyone think that they would go to gretaer lengths to ensure a healthy percentage of 'bad' agents were on show? or am i just paranoid.


----------



## mercman (5 Jun 2008)

MrMan ,, I think you are paranoid. It's fairly obvious that the agents used in the interview were not coaxed. They are simply Bad agents. Even better the IBA had a their answer prepared for the Press the before the programme was aired or they had a chance to view it. Basically, it is an industry flawed with problems and with persons that are hell bent on miselling to achieve a commission.


----------



## MrMan (5 Jun 2008)

> MrMan ,, I think you are paranoid. It's fairly obvious that the agents used in the interview were not coaxed. They are simply Bad agents. Even better the IBA had a their answer prepared for the Press the before the programme was aired or they had a chance to view it. Basically, it is an industry flawed with problems and with persons that are hell bent on miselling to achieve a commission.



I agree with you about the guys that were on view, but could they have researched and found bad agents before filming them. I think everyone would agree that had the filming produced an overwhelmingly positive outlook it would not have been aired and rte money would have been wasted.


----------



## ubiquitous (5 Jun 2008)

Are there legal issues with recording a conversation with a third-party without notifying them in advance?


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (5 Jun 2008)

mercman said:


> Why would they have strong grounds for suing RTE ??


 
I was talking about the good guys suing. 

Imagine doing a mystery shopping stunt on GPs with some fraudulent ailment. Maybe that might highlight some bad medical advice which deserves being exposed. But for those who were genuine they would rightly condemn RTE for fraudulently wasting their time. In the case of financial advice the waste of time is compounded by the fact that the advice is in the first instance offered free.

Put another way, does that actress have any remorse for openly telling lies, does RTE have any remorse for paying her to do so? This is quite different, as I said for example, from sampling restaurants with a view writing a critique in a newspaper column, there is nothing dishonest about this latter activity.


----------



## polaris (6 Jun 2008)

From a GP's POV it would not have been a waste of time as he/she would have been paid for the "fake" consult. It's more of a waste of time for a genuine patient in the waiting room. This would be akin to saying that if the Office of Tobacco Control send a 12 year old into a local shop to buy cigarettes, they and the 12 year old are fraudulently wasting the retailer's time.

As for a commission-based financial advisors, they are free to switch to a fee-based model if they think people are taking advantage of their free advice or wasting their  time.  

Without these types of sting operations by the media or regulatory bodies it would be extremely difficult to monitor the practices/standards of many businesses. While it may break the ninth commandment it hardly qualifies as fraudulent activity!


----------



## MrMan (6 Jun 2008)

> This would be akin to saying that if the Office of Tobacco Control send a 12 year old into a local shop to buy cigarettes, they and the 12 year old are fraudulently wasting the retailer's time.


Hardly the same asd this transaction would entail about ten seconds of conversation.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (30 Jun 2008)

Prime Time will be revisiting the subject this coming Thursday.

Brendan


----------



## Duke of Marmalade (3 Jul 2008)

Not much new there, except we learn nobody has been sanctioned.


----------



## Complainer (3 Jul 2008)

Harchibald said:


> Not much new there, except we learn nobody has been sanctioned.


Come back, Miriam. All is forgiven. 

Mary O'Dea wouldn't have got away will all the PR guff if Miriam was around.


----------



## Bedlam (4 Jul 2008)

Couldn't agree more I am tired of O'Dea stating that she cant talk about situations that are under investigation. She has been saying it for so long now, one would like to know when will she finalise a case that she talk about.

Is it time to start naming the institutions?

Bedlam


----------

