Barclay Spencer International

[dugdig]

Paul,

Do you think that opening a bar in Thailand would be a good investment?

dugdig

[Paul MBMG]

Paul,

Do you think that opening a bar in Thailand would be a good investment?

dugdig

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Paul MBMG]

Dugdug,

it depends on whose perspective you're looking from! It could be very good for some within the local economy if not actually the bar owner themselves! That said, some proprietors have actually made Ok money running various pubs, bars and restaurants. A lot haven't!

Paul

[PvtDick]

Paul,

I'm wondering about how you market your services; specifically, if you make cold calls.

[pedro01]

It amazes me how much mis-information and purile rubbish can be put on a website like this! 

Given the provision of website and an email address, why didn't anyone ask the people concerned? 

Just so you know, Barclay Spencer has never had an office on Soi 33 so someone is confusing it with another organisation.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Ha ha ha.....

dude - that was "The Office" on Soi 33 - I think most of us realise that Barclay Spencer aren't renting anything other than bar space there ...

[mowlem]

I think the real problem is, if they missell you something, who do you complain to?

There have been several scandals n the UK over commission hungry salesmen selling really unsuitable products to people.

One thing, remember to ask for IN WRITING how much commission/bonus they will get for selling that product to you. It is amazing how the memory fails if you don't.

[kreon]

office addess of barclay spencer in malta!!!!

ADA Car & Van Rental

177A Tower Road,

Sliema SLM 10

tel: 21310004

fax: 21324637

[Paul MBMG]

Dear PvtDick, Mowlem et al,

We market ourselves in a number of ways - we promote our services through professional forums like Chambers of Commerce and various societies. Anyone who attended Phloenchit Fair a couple of weeks ago would have been inundated by all the MBMG advertising in the brochure (we've been closley involved with Phloenchit Far and Care4Kids for quite a few years now - in our view the best advertising is that which ends up in the coffers of charities).

We also, as I mentioned previously, get most of our new clients through either personal or corporate referral. That's not to say that we don't use marketing, from time to time, we might use target mail campaigns. These strictly follow the rules laid down in the Code of Conduct so that there is no improper conduct, no mis-representation and no unannounced phone calls.

We also receive a number of incoming enquiries from people who have read our articles on websites and in publications.

To us the whole point is that providing people with verifiable information is acceptable (so long as they want it - you have to respect rights to privacy). However catching people unawares with an unwanted phone call where nothing is in black and white and therefore there is scope for mis-representation or mis-understanding is not acceptable.

I'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this, as it's in our interest to ensure that our marketing department makes sure that the public gets what the public wants.

Suitability for any financial arrangement should be ensured by obtaining a Terms of Business, Regulatory Confirmation, Written Recommendation, Fact Find, Illustration and Technical Guide. The Terms of Business should disclose the basis of commission.

I take the point that offshore there is no regulatory authority like the FSA to complain to about mis-selling but if all the above documents are completed properly then there should be a pretty clear description of what advice has been given and why. If the advice is 'bad' then as with any other transaction, you can sue the supplier and if they have Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII), this should be a straightforward process and getting compensation should be straightforward. Again PII is a requirement of the Code......

A theme seems to be emerging here

Paul

[Cabana]

Dear PvtDick, Mowlem et al,

We market ourselves in a number of ways - we promote our services through professional forums like Chambers of Commerce and various societies. Anyone who attended Phloenchit Fair a couple of weeks ago would have been inundated by all the MBMG advertising in the brochure (we've been closley involved with Phloenchit Far and Care4Kids for quite a few years now - in our view the best advertising is that which ends up in the coffers of charities).

We also, as I mentioned previously, get most of our new clients through either personal or corporate referral. That's not to say that we don't use marketing, from time to time, we might use target mail campaigns. These strictly follow the rules laid down in the Code of Conduct so that there is no improper conduct, no mis-representation and no unannounced phone calls.

We also receive a number of incoming enquiries from people who have read our articles on websites and in publications.

To us the whole point is that providing people with verifiable information is acceptable (so long as they want it - you have to respect rights to privacy). However catching people unawares with an unwanted phone call where nothing is in black and white and therefore there is scope for mis-representation or mis-understanding is not acceptable.

I'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this, as it's in our interest to ensure that our marketing department makes sure that the public gets what the public wants.

Suitability for any financial arrangement should be ensured by obtaining a Terms of Business, Regulatory Confirmation, Written Recommendation, Fact Find, Illustration and Technical Guide. The Terms of Business should disclose the basis of commission.

I take the point that offshore there is no regulatory authority like the FSA to complain to about mis-selling but if all the above documents are completed properly then there should be a pretty clear description of what advice has been given and why. If the advice is 'bad' then as with any other transaction, you can sue the supplier and if they have Professional Indemnity Insurance (PII), this should be a straightforward process and getting compensation should be straightforward. Again PII is a requirement of the Code......

A theme seems to be emerging here

Paul

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with Paul - unsolicited calls dont work for finance businesses as they annoy too many people. It is however (I assume) difficult to build quickly when marketing in less immediate ways such as PR/fairs.

My advisor (offshore) only makes a fee IF he makes a profit on my investment for me (over a quarter) which is a big incentive to grow my account.

[Paul MBMG]

Cabana,

Fair play to both yourself and your advisor. We're strong advocates of performance-based fees, although when we first set-up I have to confess that these were less common, but we try to link all our fees to performance these days and we've spent a great deal of time converting our existing clients to the concept of performance fees also. I like the concept that if we do a good job we get rewarded, if we don't, then we're not. While the criteria are something that need to be suited to individual circumstances, this is very much how we would like the future to loo.

Paul

[Paul MBMG]

er that should of course say 'look'. I'm steeling myself for comments about Freudian slips and money down the toilet etc

[Arkady]

Don't know if there is still any interest in this thread but I have just spotted it. The question you need to ask financial advisors is not "Let me see your work permit". If they have enough Thai staff, they may have a work permit but it will not be for providing investment advice. You should ask to see their investment advisor licence from the Thai SEC. It is an imprisonable offence to provide advice relating to investment in securities without a licence. It is also a criminal offence to act as a broker of investment products without a licence. Both the company and the individual must be licenced. No exception is made for foreigners broking foreign investments to foreigners, if the activity is taking place within the Kingdom of Thailand. I can assure you that as of this point in time there are no foreigners who have been licenced by the SEC to do this business. The licences have quite stringent educational and professional requirements as well the need to take an exam in Thai (information available on the SEC's website). It is unlikely that any of the cold caller type of expat investment advisors could ever pass muster with the SEC. In addition it is most unlikely that they are paying Thai corporate and personal income tax on all the commissions genarated from their business in Thailand, despite the fact that this is income that clearly arises from business activities in Thailand.

I have not met any of the Barclay Spencer (Carigan) International people in Bangkok but I have heard a lot of complaints about their cold calls e.g. "I have a message on my desk to call you back". The message was of course just put there by his lead generator who called the secretary to ask the name of any expats working in the office. This breed is well known. They are not boiler room boys. They are part of the network of Brits selling insurance related investment products to British expats. In my opinion this an outmoded way of providing investment advice which is driven by the benefits to the seller more than to the investor. This type of advisory work has fallen into disrepute in the US and things will eventually change in the UK too. In the US the trend is now for qualified Chartered Financial Planners to offer purely fee based services i.e. the investor pays a transparent fee to the advisor who recommends investments on a totally objective basis which the client buys himself for his own account. The advisor cannot get any other fee from the providers of the investment products. Unfortunately the private wealth management scene in the UK is inextricably tied up with the insurance industry and it will take many years for this to be disentangled. If salesmen from Barclay Spencer et al have any qualifications at all, they will be insurance industry qualifications which are largely irrelevant to what you as an investor really need which is a thorough knowledge of financial markets and portfolio management theory. Just talking about stock market related investments there are thousands and thousands of funds out there and even individual stocks which might be appropriate for your portfolio. Why would you want to limit yourself to insurance related funds which have very high front end loads and expensive management fee structures lacking in transparency? In addition, if you are resident overseas, you are not protected by the UK's Financial Services Act (FSA). Generally the products expats are offered are domiciled in tax havens and are not regulated under the FSA. Many of these products could not be offered to UK residents because they contain features that are no longer allowed by the FSA quite apart from the offshore element.

If anyone wants to investigate Barclay Carrigan further, this is their URL http://www.carrigan-int.com/careerpt/TheProducts.htm . There global headquarters is in Sliema, Malta. There seems to be no listing on the website of the Thai operation.

[Neeranam]

Come on mods - time to move this to the "Bread Head Business Forum"?

[Paul MBMG]

Welcome to the forum, Arkady

I also welcome and agree with much of what you say - and therefore, I'll just pick up on those points where I would have to take issue with you.

A properly constituted advisor will show on his corporate documents that one of his business activities is providing investment advice (this should also be reflected on the job description for his work permit). This is despite the fact that they will not have an investment advisor licence from the Thai SEC for anything other than local investment products. While it is an offence (punishable by EITHER a fine or imprisonment) to provide advice relating to investments in securities without a licence and while this is not expanded in detail in the civil and commercial code the SEC and MOC have made it clear that they would like to regulate advisors promoting offshore products to expatriates with a new category of license in the near future, for now there is no suitable category and therefore they regard this activity as outside the scope of the current regulations. In many ways this is unfortunate as it allows no differnetiation between advisors who would comply with licensing and those who wouldn't. SO what can investors do? Ask to see a copy of licenses for Thai products? I would say that this shows good intentions but it isn't directly relevant. Check out a company's information at the MOC? Again good general background but not enough to really hang your hat on. AT the end if the day, licensing shows an ability nto conform to rules and minimum criteria but specific company background is probably of greater importance. On what is teh advisor basing his information? Who will actually have responsibilityf or managing the money. There are some high quality portfolio managers offshore (check out MitonOptimal) but many advisors still try to do this highly specialised, resource intensive job themselves from a small office in Bangkok. A local advisor as an interface to global expertise is clearly a value added service. A guy sitting in a serviced office in Silom trying to outwit the markets probably isn't.

So you're right in saying that there are no foreigners who have been licenced by the SEC to do this business at this time, but that is only because the SEC is not yet in a position to issue this categpry of license. They have had discussions with the larger, more established advisors and hopefully this will change soon, but there are advisors such as ourselves who hold the categories of license that do exist.

Any company or individual not paying Thai corporate and personal income tax on income generated within Thailand would be breaking the law, whatever the nature of their business.

I agree that cold calling is a poor way of dispersing information, but sadly you would have to assume that it must still be cost-effective for organisations that do this or else it wouldn't still happen. Again marketing activities are regulated in Thailand and any infringements may leave individuals or companies liable to a fine or imprisonment, but I haven't heard of any cases being brought.

I woulod hesitate to use the US as an example of a model to follow - the US has in too many cases followed the lowest common denominator approach that the UK now seems determined to pursue under Sandler. There are many examples of the shortcomings of the US approach but I think that the Yale endowment story is the best one. Flexible advisors should alwasy offer the choice between fee-based anmd commission based as different clients will each derive different benefits from the different structures. Transparency is the biggest issue to my mind. While the Uk insurance industry has many shortcomings I fear that the investment banking fraternity in the USA has been more culpable of putting self-interest ahead of client interest. In both cases, I think that it's importnat to try to find companies, whether advisors, fund managers or platform providers, where you believe that their interests are aligned with yours as a client. A move towards performance fees may be an important step here. the majority of investments via offshore insurance platforms are not in fact made into insurance related funds - you can buy Magellan, Berkshire Hathway or Tudor-Jones if you want to! Almost all do not have any front end loads and in many cases the management fee structures offshore are much cheaper than in the USA, although getting blinded by CERs is one sure way to pick the worst investments (you'd probably end up holding a portfolio consisting entirely of ETFs and Vanguard).

The FSA does have some impact overseas depending upon who the product provider but the regulations of other jurisdcitions come into play too. Golden rule should be don't put your money somehwere unless you know that the regulatiosn there are robust - in many cases the reputable offshore centres (Guernsey being a prime example) conform to as high, if not higher, standards than establsihed jurisdictions such as the UK, but for many investors the differences between Guernsey regulatiosn and those in Panama might not be apparent.

Offshore products are not designed for the onshore market and therefore should not be expected to be suitable for it - it is often to the benefit, not the detriment, of a well-designed offshore product that it doesn't fit in with outmoded, restrictive and incoherent regulatiosn such as those in the UK or the US. Too much of the US code in this respect is 75 years old and was put in place by a stock sharpster himself who earned enough money to become poacher turned gamekeeper!

[DarwinK]

Hi, I’m new here as well and have to say Paul that I find your business model quite intriguing. Not to give you a hard time, but I want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

Do you receive a performance fee if you outperform the market, or if you just earn a positive return? (Keeping in mind that over the long run any index fund will earn a positive return in general.)

Do you pay back a penalty fee to the client if you underperform the market? (If you don't share my pain, our interests are not really aligned)

Do you have long term (say 5-10 year) audited performances of your investment recommendations--I don't mean the performance of the individual fund managers whose funds you recommend, but the overall performance of your own recommendations, less all applicable commissions, trading costs, and management fees? How does your performance compare to the general market?

Finally, you say you have whatever category of license is currently available, can you tell me what that license is?

[Firefan]

"you can buy Magellan, Berkshire Hathway or Tudor-Jones if you want to! Almost all do not have any front end loads and in many cases the management fee structures offshore are much cheaper than in the USA, although getting blinded by CERs is one sure way to pick the worst investments (you'd probably end up holding a portfolio consisting entirely of ETFs and Vanguard)."

Huh? Berkshire is not a fund but a stock.... The company DOES hold a lot of ownership in other companies though and have ZERO expense ratio.

I have yet to see ANY offshore products with lower expense ratios than ETFs and Vanguard...But please show me! And a portfolio of ETFs and Vanguard does certainly not sound too shabby to this investor .

Cheers!

[Butterfly]

The truth is that those funds are full of of "hidden" fees, deception techniques to compute performance etc... Most are more expensive, perform less than the "normal" funds out there.

The "professionals" pushing those funds are the equivalent of boiler room brokers. Very persuasive and pushing.

Incindently I had a phone call from one of them the other day (not sure how he got my number). After a few minutes, he got the message he couldn't play me. Still very cordial conversation and we had an interesting conversation. I even invited him for a drink but I asked him to bring his Working Permit and License or no deals

[Noel]

To splitlid,

you mock our notice with the following

SERIOUS FINANCIAL LOSS!!!!!

sounds serious.....

Just to explain... Leslie Wright who was the man behind Westminster Portfolio Services tragically died of lung cancer recently. He approached us when he discovered his impending fate because he believed we have integrity and we agreed to look after his clients. Unfortunately his records had fallen out of date in some areas and we still have not been able to contact a number of his clients.

Many of them have variable portfolios whose contents need to be periodically changed from one asset class to another to avoid the substantial losses that can occur when a particular sector of the market takes a hammering. For some people this can mean the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

We are simply trying to do our best to contact anyone affected and help them look at their options.

My name is Michael Berris, my numbers are:

Office 038 716 223 or Mobile, 018647632

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Leslie Wright died three months before the date of the above-quoted post; he was seriously ill and hospitalized two months prior. He was diagnosed with terminal lung cancer over two years before he died...

[DarwinK]

I think the real problem is, if they missell you something, who do you complain to?

There have been several scandals n the UK over commission hungry salesmen selling really unsuitable products to people.

One thing, remember to ask for IN WRITING how much commission/bonus they will get for selling that product to you. It is amazing how the memory fails if you don't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You can complain to the Thai SEC. The Thai SEC does have jurisdiction over these guys, and there are penalties for working in Thailand without a license. If your advisor hasn't been very helpful in addressing your complaint, he should take you more seriously if you mention you're sending your complaint to the SEC.

[julieandrie]

These guys are ok. Look out for ((remove name)). He help with with setting up a ebanking with debit card. I am happy ever since.

No hassles.

((remove skype contact))

[AFKAFSinLOS]

Mmm... resurrecting a thread that's been inactive for 3 years+ by a "newbie" on their first post....wonder what the motive is there

Since it's been done tho', my own experience with them... I was cold called by these people several years ago. I did go to their offices on an appointment arranged by someone junior who seemed to be somewhere in between an admin clerk and an investment advisor. He arranaged a meeting with the key guy.

All in all:

- Didn't like the name - looks like trying to leverage off another good name(s)/ brand. Makes you wonder why...

- Wasn't very impressed with the any of the people I met with or interracted with over the phone

- Wasn't very impressed in the way they presented things and their attitudes. Reminded me of everything you expect in a used car salesman, and their sales "techniques" were rather tacky over the phone and in person

- Didn't think their products were very good, and seemed to be expensive/ laced with charges

- Took them a while to realise when I say I'm not interested afterwards I mean it

Perhaps they might be useful to people who have no idea what they are doing. Doing something in investments/ savings is often better than doing nothing... and for people who really have no idea, advisors can have a place. Paying say 7% in charges on the likes of Skandia and Scottish Provident might not be too bad if you're looking at 10 years plus, and don't know what you're doing, but seems unnecessary for anyone who can be bothered...Generally seemed to be selling the same mass market products that everyone else does and trying the same way as everyone else to make them look special...Seems common that any tax benefits of investing offshore effectively go to these type of people via high charges...

Edited July 9, 2008 by AFKAFSinLOS

[Paul MBMG]

Hi, I’m new here as well and have to say Paul that I find your business model quite intriguing. Not to give you a hard time, but I want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

Do you receive a performance fee if you outperform the market, or if you just earn a positive return? (Keeping in mind that over the long run any index fund will earn a positive return in general.)

Do you pay back a penalty fee to the client if you underperform the market? (If you don't share my pain, our interests are not really aligned)

Do you have long term (say 5-10 year) audited performances of your investment recommendations--I don't mean the performance of the individual fund managers whose funds you recommend, but the overall performance of your own recommendations, less all applicable commissions, trading costs, and management fees? How does your performance compare to the general market?

Finally, you say you have whatever category of license is currently available, can you tell me what that license is?

Darwin,

for some reason I never noticed a notification of your post at the time or that of Firefan. I'm slightly loathe to stick my head into this post when so much of it is taken up with the negative side of offshore financial and investment advice, but then I genuinely think that MBMG is different and I also think tthat it's rude to keep you waiting 3 years for an answer - it would be ruder still not to answer at all.

Firstly let me say that I'm not going to comment on Barclay Spencer - that debate is more appropriate for others to take on so I will just answer your 3 year old question. Our core portfolios are operated as Guernsey regulated funds with management fees below as 1% per year. Our penalty is that we need to perform consistently well or else we end up making than even a passive tracker like Vanguard. You do well - we do well, you don't, we don't. Admittedly we don't pay back if we lose you money but there hasn't yet been a calendar year where that has happened anyway - in the turmoil that has been this year our Dollar and Sterling managed currency portoflios are up 6-8% so far.

Yes we do have performance track record that goes back to the year 2000 (depending on currency). We have a number of licenses for teh differnet nature of the business in different jurisidctions - our advisors have been UK and Thai licensed to give financial advice, our pensions people hold UK specialist pension certification, our insurance brokerage holds a Thai brokerage license, our legal division has Thai and UK licensing, our accountancy division holds Thai/ Australian qualifications and licensing and our investment division is Guernsey regulated and the GFSC licensing is a strict process. We have also recently received investment fund cell licensing in Mauritius as well.

Please accept the above comments as general statements intended only to give a flavour and not as specific warranties - I would have to go into a great deal more detail to compile all licensing and qualification details in all jurisdictions and that it would take a little while to do (I guess that I've had 3 years!!) and would result in several pages of pretty dry listings. If you're really interested PM me and I'll get that out together for you and then it wouldbe up to yourself to summarise those for this posting perhaps as hopefully being sufficiently comprehensive and impressive.

Furthermore we have never had any regulatory issues with the SEC, GFSC or FSA or bene fined or iny way reprimanded by any financial authority anywhere.

[Paul MBMG]

"you can buy Magellan, Berkshire Hathway or Tudor-Jones if you want to! Almost all do not have any front end loads and in many cases the management fee structures offshore are much cheaper than in the USA, although getting blinded by CERs is one sure way to pick the worst investments (you'd probably end up holding a portfolio consisting entirely of ETFs and Vanguard)."

Huh? Berkshire is not a fund but a stock.... The company DOES hold a lot of ownership in other companies though and have ZERO expense ratio.

I have yet to see ANY offshore products with lower expense ratios than ETFs and Vanguard...But please show me! And a portfolio of ETFs and Vanguard does certainly not sound too shabby to this investor .

Cheers!

Firefan,

Please accept the same apology as just guven to Darwin

I wasn't claining BH to be a fund - I was pointing out that while some advisors might want you to use insurance company funds we, and many oters don't. AT that time BH was part of our portfolios and still is today -our main equity holdings consist of BH, Orbis (no load, low management fee, the most successful globalk offshore equity investment fund over many significant periods and the largeyts offshore investment fund). We also use ETFs as proxies for tactical market holdings all the time but while they serve that role well they rarely justify a buy and hold. To our mind the Vanguard approach, while it served a purpose for a time, is now outmoded and ETFs or CFDs generally do this job better. Any investment manager who can't consistently outperform Vanguard probably shouldn't be an investment manager. Sadly in many markets, such as the USA, that description embraces most investment managers! Our portfolio managers have consistently outperformed the kind of indices that the Vanguard passive approach can't quite manage to replicate. Anyone shoudl agree that good active managers provide the best returns, passive managers all provide mediocre returns and bad active managers provide the worst returns. Why so may people faced with that fact then deliberately opt for mediocrity is beyond me

For consistency look at the Harvard/Yale superendowment approach - that is very similar to our methodology. Fees are important but Harvard and Yale both nearly killed the goose that keeps laying golden eggs year after year when they got too sidtracked by looking just at fees and not at hat they were getting for their money. In any outlay, always try to get value for money rather than getting cheap!

[DarwinK]

To our mind the Vanguard approach, while it served a purpose for a time, is now outmoded and ETFs or CFDs generally do this job better.

What do you mean by the "Vanguard approach"? As a platform, Vanguard of course offers numerous ETFs.

....the Vanguard passive approach can't quite manage to replicate. Anyone shoudl agree that good active managers provide the best returns, passive managers all provide mediocre returns and bad active managers provide the worst returns. Why so may people faced with that fact then deliberately opt for mediocrity is beyond me

Well of course the Vanguard platform also offers actively managed funds with excellent long term track records...

Anyone shoudl agree that good active managers provide the best returns, passive managers all provide mediocre returns and bad active managers provide the worst returns. Why so may people faced with that fact then deliberately opt for mediocrity is beyond me

Think you're hugely exaggerating the importance of the active vs. passive decision. Why? Even your own website had a presentation on it that said "90 percent of a portfolios returns are due to the asset allocation decision" or some such. From the same study your website is quoting, less than 5% of a portfolio's returns comes from choosing individual securities (including active vs. passive). Nevertheless, studies show that in any given year less than 1/2 of the active managers beat their given benchmark. Fewer still are able to beat it in 2 years straight. Far fewer over 10 years. Over the long run, a high percentage of those very few active managers that do manage to beat their benchmarks do it purely by luck. So what chance do you have of picking the next set of outperforming active manager? Pretty small, right? My guess is that by trying to do so, Paul, you are dooming your clients to high fees, and mediocrity. But then you knew that, and all this active vs. passive stuff is just a sales pitch for your current manager of choice.....right?

Cheers, Darwin

[Paul MBMG]

To our mind the Vanguard approach, while it served a purpose for a time, is now outmoded and ETFs or CFDs generally do this job better.

What do you mean by the "Vanguard approach"? As a platform, Vanguard of course offers numerous ETFs.

....the Vanguard passive approach can't quite manage to replicate. Anyone shoudl agree that good active managers provide the best returns, passive managers all provide mediocre returns and bad active managers provide the worst returns. Why so may people faced with that fact then deliberately opt for mediocrity is beyond me

Well of course the Vanguard platform also offers actively managed funds with excellent long term track records...

Anyone should agree that good active managers provide the best returns, passive managers all provide mediocre returns and bad active managers provide the worst returns. Why so many people faced with that fact then deliberately opt for mediocrity is beyond me

Think you're hugely exaggerating the importance of the active vs. passive decision. Why? Even your own website had a presentation on it that said "90 percent of a portfolios returns are due to the asset allocation decision" or some such. From the same study your website is quoting, less than 5% of a portfolio's returns comes from choosing individual securities (including active vs. passive). Nevertheless, studies show that in any given year less than 1/2 of the active managers beat their given benchmark. Fewer still are able to beat it in 2 years straight. Far fewer over 10 years. Over the long run, a high percentage of those very few active managers that do manage to beat their benchmarks do it purely by luck. So what chance do you have of picking the next set of outperforming active manager? Pretty small, right? My guess is that by trying to do so, Paul, you are dooming your clients to high fees, and mediocrity. But then you knew that, and all this active vs. passive stuff is just a sales pitch for your current manager of choice.....right?

Cheers, Darwin

No Darwin,

I don't think that you're getting the distinction in portfolio theory between asset allocation (what Yale & Harvard do) and asset selection (what individual managers do). Maybe I'm partly toblame by falling into the trap of talking about active versus passive. What we really should be looking at is asset allocation versus asset selection.

The "Vanguard approach", as it's generally understood, was a reaction by Bogle to the over-reliance on stock-selection following the rise to prominence of the nifty-fifty - "the kidder-Peabody" approach in the late 1960s. At that time, moving away from this reliance was a good thing. However over time turning that into a mantra that passive index replication was the only true way became as much of a blind alley as the Kidder Peabody approach had been in the first place. Within a portfolio there is a place for active and for passive - using ETFs as a proxy is something that we frequently do BUT we don't try to make a religion out of it - you have to use the right tools to exploit a given situation; a blind disciple of passive asset selection is as likely to be wrong as a blind disciple of active asset selection and meanwhile the really dangerous thing is that they're creating this furore about something that's relatively irrelevant (constitutes less than 5% of portfolio returns) and distracting people like yourself from the real issue that drives 90% of returns, asset allocation - which is an active process per se.Since you ask, our clients pay low fees and have had access to, thanks to the allocation approach (we have used the same portfolio manager for almost 10 years now), what is, according to S&P, the best 5 years returns for every 5 year calendar period starting since 1998 except for one. This is pretty exceptional and yet the media focus remains on the debate about asset selection because it's easier to turn that into soundbites and also because the SEC still regulate using a framework drawn up by Joseph P Kennedy!

Higher net returns at lower risks come from the active process of asset allocation and not this humbug debate about which kind of asset selection that the media (especially US TV financial media) loves to perpetuate.

cheers,

Paul

[qboy]

Hi all,

I just picked up on this on going tread and had a quick question.

I am based in London and been offered a position at Barclay Spencer International in Bangkok. I have some mixed feelings about the offer and the organisation. I position s 100% commission based and they are projecting that I should earn atleast £100k tax free in my first year. They are putting up nothing as I will need to buy my B visa (£100) and arrange my flights. They are arranging 3 nights in 5 star hotel. I get training and then am expected to start selling their products and earning my commission.

Does anyone know if the projected salary is reasonable? Am I being taken for a ride?

Thanks!

[Soutpeel]

Hi all,

I just picked up on this on going tread and had a quick question.

I am based in London and been offered a position at Barclay Spencer International in Bangkok. I have some mixed feelings about the offer and the organisation. I position s 100% commission based and they are projecting that I should earn atleast £100k tax free in my first year. They are putting up nothing as I will need to buy my B visa (£100) and arrange my flights. They are arranging 3 nights in 5 star hotel. I get training and then am expected to start selling their products and earning my commission.

Does anyone know if the projected salary is reasonable? Am I being taken for a ride?

Thanks!

Sounds very shady to me.....they are putting up nothing and you need to pay for your Non-imm B, and assume your W/P as well...3 nights in a 5 star hotel in BKK...WOW....this is an excellent expat package...

How can you be earning tax free in Thailand, if you are on a work permit you need to pay tax in Thailand

More to this than meets the eye, sounds like you are being taken for a ride

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Work permit ... work permit ...

[Misty]

I think you should:

1) Call the Thai SEC and ask them about Barclays and your job offer: phone number: +66-2 263-6000 (Help Center) or +66-2695-9999 ext. 6010, 9506

If you still can't work out if this is a good idea, then,

2) Call the FSA and ask them about Barclays and your job offer: +44 845 606 1234

Be sure to explain to both regulators about the commission only compensation of £100k in the first year and the tax free nature of your job offer.

Feel free to tell us what those two fine institutions have to say regarding if you are being taken for a ride.

'Nuff said.

Hi all,

I just picked up on this on going tread and had a quick question.

I am based in London and been offered a position at Barclay Spencer International in Bangkok. I have some mixed feelings about the offer and the organisation. I position s 100% commission based and they are projecting that I should earn atleast £100k tax free in my first year. They are putting up nothing as I will need to buy my B visa (£100) and arrange my flights. They are arranging 3 nights in 5 star hotel. I get training and then am expected to start selling their products and earning my commission.

Does anyone know if the projected salary is reasonable? Am I being taken for a ride?

Thanks!

[petejones]

Hi,

I have been watching this topic with a lot of interest. I work for a big IFA in Bangkok but we deal with clients all over the country and all over the world. All these different IFAs keep trying to champion themselves as the biggest and the best. You can't blame them for doing it. Many of the products offered are the same or similar so distinguishing ones selves from everyone else is important.

I can only speak for my own company. I do know from speaking to my clients that they are being contacted by cowboys multiple times a week. This doesn't make my job easy at all.

My organisation is the largest independent financial advisory. We are U.K. FSA approved. We work exclusively with Deutsche Bank, ING and Morgan Stanley.

While many of you worry about companies wanting to get your money with a quick commission and then leaving you to lose money thereafter we are not like that.

My company uses products with guaranteed protection of the money you invest. There are no clauses like older schemes and of course the potential returns are unlimited. These are very popular products during the current economic climate. However you may worry what if the banks themselves fail like Lehman brothers. While I would say this is highly unlikely, this is not a problem again. The bonds we use are 90%

capital protected to an uncapped amount. That's better than any bank and thus safer. You will not get better risk\reward options.

We offer guaranteed profits, what else can I say. I am happy to speak further with anyone who wishes to contact me by PM etc.