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

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
 
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"
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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
 
Sorry - usually the TT thing is mentioned in an attempt to undermine EH hence my (kneejerk?) reaction...
 

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?
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
Bronte

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

Bedlam
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register