One of the many excuses Rothschild put forward to excuse themselves of any wrongoing (and they have a case ready of excuses, just in case!) was that, when shamefully selling the nefarious CreditSelect loan (the mortgage loan which should not be seen as one thanks to “Rothschild conservative approach”), they never provided financial advice.
The reality is different: Rothschild not only provided tons of financial advice (abundancy of literature proves this), they actually selected the funds where the monies were to be invested in and there was no compromising in this.
For the pensioners, there was no reason to distrust their set up, as they put it:
Thanks to Rothschild’s conservative approach, clients will not be exposed to unnecesary risks
Mike Atherton has a very interesting column in the Money Section of The Times and very much line with the above, wrote an article yesterday (2/2/2013) titled When advice is not advice.
One of my Times Money colleagues recently sat in on a consultation her mother had with a mortgage expert. Strictly speaking, the expert was not offering advice but “information” about mortgages. However, as the conversation ranged over different mortgage products and her mother’s available options, my colleague could not help feeling that, whatever the official label, this felt more like advice than simple information.
This blurring of the distinction between information and advice is not confined to the mortgage market. The entire financial services industry is full of grey areas where consumers may think they are receiving one thing, when in fact what they are officially being given is something rather different.
The problem is especially acute in the investment world. Over the past 20 years a range of execution-only intermediaries, including discount brokers and investment platforms, has sprung up to offer investors a vast amount of information and research, but not advice.
They are competing for business with financial advisers, who, as the name implies, do give advice, as well as offering access to research and financial data.
So you have advisers on the one hand and intermediaries on the other, both helping investors with their investment choices and both offering them the benefits of their research and analysis. Investors could be forgiven for failing to spot the difference.
But the distinction is important because investors should be crystal clear about whether they are receiving financial advice or not. If they mistakenly think they are, they could be lulled into a false sense of security about the appropriateness of the product they are buying.
Some financial advisers suspect that their execution-only only rivals have not exactly been unhappy about the blurring of distinctions. The more cynical point to the many cases where intermediaries have drawn up lists of their preferred funds, or produced glossy booklets highlighting a small number of carefully selected funds, while making no mention of the rest.
What, the cynics ask, does this represent, if not a recommendation to buy certain funds and ignore others? The intermediaries would respond that they always issue a clear disclaimer that none of the information they provide should be construed as amounting to a recommendation or advice. But the cynics say that if it looks like advice, sounds like advice and feels like advice, investors are going to consider that it is advice.
Does anyone still believe today that Rothschild did not provided financial advice?
How much longer can they persist in pursuing this grand larceny?
Of course they gave advice – it is obvious to everybody but them!! I wonder how much commission the guys were paid “not” to give advice!!
They are now certainly scrapping the bottom of their barrel of excuses – own up and pay up all you banks who have conned us.
I maybe way out of date here but situation in the UK used to be that when you dealt with execution only brokers they received no commission nor were there fees or set up charges involved. When you wanted information a fee was normally paid, when you received financial advice the people involved received commission or bonuses.
I know the company that sold me the scheme, charged me vast set up costs, I pay charges when they change my investments (without telling me), the salesman employed by the bank received a big commission or bonus. So then on that basis alone do I think I was given financial advice? – I certainly do!
The Banks are kidding themselves that everyone involved was only given information – in fact on thinking about it if we were just given information then it must have still been very misleading because if we had been given the true facts nobody in their right mind would have taken out these contracts.
As Bruford said in the previous post the Banks should own up and pay up!!
Come on Rothschild who are you kidding. Do you not realise that you have been caught with you “pants down” you are fully aware of what your people have been up to. If you don’t then “god help you” The evidence has been laid at your feet and soon no doubt at the feet of the courts in Spain. Erva and their lawyers are not going to let go, so as long as you are aware of this fact the better.
Here he is http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/17522462
By asking ‘is it our money Steve,?’ I meant of course the money Mr Dewsnip made in commissions and bonuses for selling the toxic Credit Select 4, by deceit, on behalf of N M Rothschild and sons Ltd, to ex pat pensioners, in southern Spain. Mucho dinero hombre, mucho!
Chairman of Guernsey FC, how proud his mummy must be.
For all you Rothschild victims. We reported some time ago of the infamous opinion given by Uria & Menedez to the Rothschild and partners equity release scheme. You will remember the paragraph “Quote” this could be seen as a ” simulated ” scheme, in essence to avoid IHT and could be challenged by the Spanish Tax Authorities, if of course they were informed of the real purpose. Later we saw a changed version on Uria & Menendez letter heading which omitted this important paragraph. Lawyers at Uria & Menendez have since denied changing this opinion. When asked what they were going to do about it they covered it in one word “NOTHING”. But they were asked. “Are you not concerned that Rothschild & their IFA’s were using you name in this type of scheme” We will address the situation if it ever arises OR words to that effect. It does make one wonder where the truth lies. If I was the lawyer of this firm I would be over Rothschild & their IFA partners like a “RASH”
What is it with Rothschild and dodgy Spanish land deals?
It has taken my family nearly twenty years to unravel how our Trust was plundered whilst managed by Rothschild Trust (Schweiz) AG in Switzerland. The paperwork, Land Titles, forged Share Certificates amount to losses of £4M on land in Jalon Valley, Alicante Province alone. Bent Accountants, Dodgy UK companies managed from the UK. We know another family in the UK who have spent over £250,000 in the Spanish Courts to undo false titles, forged Declarations of (Land) Ownership and much more with Rothschild’s connivance. Check carefully into any ‘investment’ opportunities where the following companies and individuals may be involved:
Reredos Corporation of Panama Inc. (Rothschild Nominee Company); Lliber investments SA, Madrid, Europartner SA, Madrid; SD&R Trading Limited, Madrid & Ipswich UK, Margaret Anne Rowe, UK citizen and wife of Lionel Rowe (deceased) struck from the Rolls in 1973 for criminal fraud, Keith George Freeman, High Wycombe, financed land and property frauds, Peter Goldsmith and Goldsmith & Company, Highgate, London (no longer authorised by the FSA) Bufete Armero Abogados, Madrid (Now part of Uria Menendes)
You have the contact details; if you need assistance (free) contact us.