Richard, I am amazed and deeply concerned by SFM's censorship of the post regarding the FSB. What you, in your wisdom, decide is for the consumption of Forumites is of course entirely up to you and the argument that principles of free speech and expression do not apply here can be made depending on your viewpoint and values as well as, of course, the commercial interests of SFM. On the matter of FSB and measures designed to protect investors and maintain standards in the industry there is absolutely no reason which can even remotely justify your censorship. In fact I would go as far as to say that SFM has failed in its commitment to educate its customers by not actively communicating the FSB regulations and the services of people like the ombudsman. If some of your customers currently employ the services of a financial advisor or subscribe to products providing investment advice do you not think it important that they be informed of issues such as 1)who needs to be registered 2) who is in fact registered 3) just how seriously the FSB takes this matter and what the sanctions are for people that do not comply? Some may even draw the erroneous conclusion that SFM is not in agreement or in compliance of the FSB regulations or somehow condones the actions of analysts who take people's money through making false claims and operating outside of the law. I cannot for the life of me think of any rational reason SFM would remove a post which is merely stating the opinion of the FSB in matter which is of relevance and interest to your customers. Richard, I know I may in the past have pushed the limits with some of my previous posts but this is not the intention of the post in question or this post for that matter. I think you have done your customers and SFM a disservice by what could possibly just be a knee jerk reaction. Please let us all know if there was any other reason for the removal of the post. Chartist
Chartist, I do not agree with your rationale here. Really get something else to worry about and leave the forum for those who want to trade. I am tired to see you whining about this issue. Make an appointment and go and see SEQ management if this is such a big principle issue with you.
Maybe, just maybe SFM is scared of colateral damage either way. Go to Moneyweb and search "Braai" look for "Braai advice revisited". Judge Nepgen does have an opinion on these matters. We pay SFM monthly and they do act as online broker and they do take brokerage. I think they just do not want to be involved because Cliff Roffie wants to sue every Tom ***** and Harry whether justified or not. Charty I think your concerns are justified. At least you do not charge us for looking at your very informative graph analysis, I do thank you for the effort.OMO.
Chartist, I feel for you. I have just been locked of the PSG-Online Forum for a little satirical piece I wrote about Fidentia to which their was a vitriolic response - go figure. I'd repost it here but people without a sense of humour may take offence. The main complainant to my piece played the 'gender' card.
First of all , asylum , good point taken , totally agree chartist for president , vice , minister of finance , I take my hat off to him , his stood up for something he believes in , I fully agree , and stand by him , pls keep us informed on this story ,
Chartist I feel ya Bru.As a financial advisor there are very strict rules set out by the FSB regarding responsible advice and best practice so for those idiots out there that think that this is a stupid argument -- please wake up. The bank sector just got a few klappe regarding banc assurance where a product is sold without proper advise, now if that's the case anyone handing out advise containing instruction or when where and how could be seen as a advisor and therefore falls under the FSB and as such have to be accountable. IF YOU WANT TO BE A ADVISOR PLEASE OBTAIN A LICENSE FROM THE FSB STIPULATING THAT YOU ARE QUILFIED TO DO SO