Stamp markets Integrity loss-maker lookalike fund

It is not a fund and is high risk. Many companies offer managed FX accounts but they are generally aimed at direct investors often as a diversification to their stock portfolios and other investments. This is fine as such investors tend to be suitably eligible investors.

The operators of managed accounts make their money from the trading spreads. In this example clients are subjected to an initial charge as well!

Compare this to a fund called The Special FX Fund that has no initial charge, is a fund (unit trust), and has much tighter risk controls. The trading spreads are indeed higher but half of these are rebated into the fund to enhance the growth, so in other words if the trading activity only breaks even there will still be growth in the fund, or even if the trading activity is negative this may be mitigated.

Check it out and make your own mind up where you would put your clients money if they have an appetite for some FX exposure.

Try telling that to the people at risk of losing their homes after following the advice of one eyed IFAs blown away by the commission offered by Integrity.

No one should consider putting any clients money near anything like this amd why is there a space in the market for unregulated firms offering anything like this. It's time those in the FSA started to realise that they have a duty to act sooner and offer some credible consumer protection not let it continue like the TEPs scandal.

"Iain is described as the driving force behind the Group and is known as a visionary leader with true entrepreneurial investment flair"

Its true he was described this way.

By himself.

He is described in more vibrant terms by those of us who have the misfortune to have crossed his path in a business format.

Tick tock.

I challenge any IFA to justify the basis for having recommended Integrity Maximiser to his/her clients.

And if any IFA admits to recommending Integrity Maximisers on here, (other than anonymously), what will be your next step Paul?

Granted, some IFAs may have been remiss in their due diligence - fortunately I wasn't - but where exactly does Paul Nedas fit into this story?

I challenge Paul Nedas to list his FS qualifications - better still a potted bio - just to add credibility to his comments. Can't do any harm can it Paul?

24 hours later and no response?

Early Bank Holiday?

As Bjork said: "It's oh so quiet........."

Seems like this may have been a tricky one?

Is this list of qualifications really so long that it takes all this time to list them?

Well done that man, you must have worked very hard!

I do hope the ambulance driver didn't throw it into reverse!

Paul Nedas can't even justify his own existence in these conversations it begs the question why is he here

Anonymous 1 & Interested Onlooker -- come out of the closet and declare your identities & interests.

THE ISSUE IS TOXIC PRODUCTS & BAD FINANCIAL ADVISORS let the advisors be judged by their peers.

Just like the Integrity sales & marketing material you are attempting to divert attention from the fundamental issue which is should a reasonably professional advisor have recommended Integrity Plans

I repeat my very straightforward challenge: "I challenge any IFA to justify the basis for having recommended Integrity Maximiser to his/her clients." So far not a single response ...........................................

Good advisors are forced to pay out for bad advisors via their FSCS levy.

My position is very clear, we established FinancialAdviceLiability to assist clients who may be victims of bad financial advice.

I am absolutely passionate in my belief that advice should be be fee-based because it is the only way to eliminate the perception of commission-driven selling.

Remember Seymour -v- Ockwell and advisors' non-delegable duties to their clients.

Advisors are at risk unless they can DEMONSTRATE that the client fully comprehended all aspects of the recommended investment or policy.

The FOS has repeatedly stated that it is not sufficient for advisors to simply pass provider-generated material to clients.

The FSA in its Final Notices in relation to both Derrek Hales & Knowlden Titlow stated "In breach of Principle 9: the Firm failed to undertake adequate or independent product research and as a consequence failed to ensure that its advisers fully understood GTEPs and their inherent risks prior to recommending them;"

And so, Messrs Anonymous 1 & Interested Onlooker cut the crap and respond to the issue; which is should a reasonably professional advisor have recommended Integrity Plans?

Interesting to note the involvement of Roger Lawrence of WL Consulting in the promotion of Integrity TEPs. Is this the same Roger Lawrence who was Actuarial Director of Shepherds Select Funds ...... responsible for the collapse of it's TEP class???

Good evening to Interested Onlooker & Anonymous 1 hiding behind their anonymity .... Instead of questioning my credibilty ..... Why don't you focus on Clients Being Treated Fairly and then I am certain that your peers would be interested to read your reactions to FSA Public Censure of Integrity and FSA Final Notices re Derrek Hales & Knowlden Titlow.

Now let's see if you have the guts to reveal your identities.

My bet is that you are either Old Model Redundant Advisors or connected to Integrity.

In the interests of credibility, and to set everyone's mind at rest, perhaps Paul would like to let us know exactly what financial services qualifications he currently holds?

I'm sure that this, together with a potted bio detailing FS industry experience will help to discourage those who have stated that he is nothing more than an ambulance-chaser.

Why are you arguing amongst yourselves? You are taking the focus of the real issue here.....Mr Stamp!

I was one ot the unfortunate ones that was sold this plan as a very low risk investment by my IFA and low and behold I have lost all and to cap it off he is now dead so I have no come back. I feel that Mr Stamp along with the banks who went along with this plan should be.................