Aes International

Right, being an Ex-pat I am constantly bombarded by calls from individuals wanting to advise me on how best to invest my money. I have also been approached on several occasions to work for at least 2 of the companies that continually ring me to offer financial advice. I have also had the pleasure of attending a week long training course offered by one of these companies for ME to become a Financial Advisor for them despite having never sold Financial Services before.

They delivered on not one assurance during the week offering me a post not on the list I was assured I could choose from and although several of the people attending the week were undoubtedly suitable several were clearly 'Dodgy Geezers' 'Secondhand Car Dealer types' whilst I have no problem with them, I certainly wouldn't give them my money to invest and was gob-smacked when the 'Dodgy Geezers' got offered the roles of their choice.

I would never buy anything (Double Glazing / Financial Advise etc) from a cold caller on the phone and sadly this is how these companies tend to operate.

They pay their staff (usually) a minimal wage basing the thousands they assure you that you can earn purely on commission and appear to have a high turnover of staff (as I said I have been approached at least 10 times by 2 companies) and would not ever invest with a so called expert who only gets paid on commission especially having read the numerous negative posts - my advice ignore them like the plague, do your due diligence and research where you invest your money - all they are interested in ultimately is the commission they will get from investing your money - promising you a quick buck / easy money - sit back and repent at your leisure you have been warned.

I had the same experience as you on the devere / PIC course. Loads of sales people, many with no FS background.

I was offered a post in Dubai or Moscow rather than in Europe where I was told all along I could go. Just a number / resource to them, to be used as they see fit.

There were 22 on that course and a year later not one of them was still there. 'Mud at a wall.'

Dear Anonymous 1

For the sake of clarity, if you look at the websites of the regulators in the countries mentioned, you will see that lists are published of authorised firms. {{{Redacted}}} are not shown on these lists.

Further, if the lists are not there / not available, you can look at the regulations in these countries then you will see that a license is needed to operate within the territorial boundaries. {{{Redacted}}} do not have / hold these licenses.

As I have said, the information is within the public domain if you know where to look.

http://aesinternational.com/join-aes

Further, if you look at the {{{Redacted}}} website, you will see that UK qualifications are NOT required for advisers producing £75K per annum or less. This is despite the fact that the {{{Redacted}}} publicity machine delivers a mantra based on exporting UK best practice and only employing the best advisers.

I repeat my question - {{{Redacted}}} , how do you get away with it??

After all the {{{Redacted}}} website says one of the key differentiators in 'transparency'.......... Yours Anonymous

Still not had my question answered though...

I do not work for a competitor, I just dislike people who make a living from purposeful misrepresentation.

How do I know these things? Very simply My friend the information I refer to is in the public domain

Having been involved in offshore financial services in Hong Kong over a large number of years, I baulk at the obviouse tactics of so called professionals slandering the names of their competitors to try and gain points by posting such utter rubbish. I would much rather see financial consultants concentrating on their clients needs and investments than taking time to rubbish the industry they pretend to represent as professionals.

I am not suggesting for 1 minute that there are not some genuine complaints on this ridiculously unregulated web site.

But by allowing totally anonymous posts and holding absolutely no one responsible for their actions is simply negligent and irresponsible. All companies from Walmart to the dry cleaners in your local town will receive complaints at one time or another, and then the person with the complaint goes to the supplier to sort it out.

If the supplier does not deal with it in a professional manner post on sites like this and get the truth out there, of course give the post the credibility it deserves by using your real name. By doing this gripe sites like this will become a valuable resource and stop all this in fighting between ex employees and competing companies.

I've read a few complaints about various firms. How do you know they don't have a license?

@ odd thing to post - you are right about the qualification standards. this is one or many comments made by {{{Redacted}}} which is not entirely accurate. Another is the fact they are a "well-regulated company" and this is the point of this posting.

@ the man - the Act provide a definition of 'unit' but the is silent on its application throughout the rest of the text. AES have a platform product which may fall under the definition of 'unit' The regulator was therefore contacted and this query raised to see if the 'platform' is caught by the Act. However your posting has got me thinking so I have read the Insurance Regulations Act.

This:

a. requires all brokers who sells life insurance to be duly authorised and

b. Is silent on whether individuals who are working alone can be authorised or whether authorisation ca only be applied to legal or corporate bodies.

Further investigation leads to the quote - "life cover may include investments depending on the structure of the product"

Also a review of the Uganda Assoc of Ins Brokers - www.uaib.org - shows that a number of firms are properly authorised under the Insurance Act to sell life and pension products.

Either way AES have some serious questions to answer.....

I am not a ex-employee of the company (or an ex-IFA) but there is an increasing body within the industry who are trying to take action against blantant misrepresentation, especially fom those firms who seek to hold the moral high ground.

Awards? Not is a position to comment, that is one for the awards panel.

@the man - you will find that the message behind my postings is sincere and the comments I have made worthy of investigation. there is no mud slinging, name calling or anything similar. You have proved the point of many business leaders that those who come onto pissed consumer to rant, rave, use juvenile icons in their comments are really only suitable to have their views disregarded.

I will make no further comment on this site

@ The Man

I just had a look at the links you posted. Have you seen the comments on the Economist article?

There appears to be a little confusion as to the qualification requirements needed. On the one hand the article states that the advisers must meet UK qualification standards and yet the comments suggest that that is not the case.

What are the qualification requirements? If they are not at UK standards, then someone needs to talk to the Economist and correct this error.

And, what on earth does it matter what the UK rules are or what some UK compliance officer says? Uganda decides what is suitable for Uganda. :roll

hahaha, The Truth Spreader, mmm, it must be a new kind of "Super hero" because I’ve never seen him in any of the SmallVille episodes...

After reading your post (good thing you didn't put your name down ! lol) ,the "I am a TOOL" spot is however still open for auditions, sounds like they were waiting just for you to come along and we have to all concur...a perfect match. :grin

Actually, the poster can be your sidekick...aka, the freaky stalker or something.

Can you both still be reached at *** HQ...what was it again?? oh yes: i_am_a_tool@***.com ?

This is the sandbox for the big children, you're clearly out of your league bucko...are you like 5 ??

Have you bothered reading the act properly and interpreting the act? "Doh...what is an act?" you ask? Well, not quite the same as the comedy act your portraying here, that I can assure you, but let's try get down to your level.

Offshore adviser activities can be "limited" to or construed as advising on the sale of insurance products. I have it on good authority that ALL {{{Redacted}}} business must be processed through {{{Redacted}}}’ London office, where they have an active and alert UK compliance function, so an advisor cannot provide advice other than in relation to such products.

Turning now to the analysis and the Act: in this regard, section 33 of the Act seems irrelevant. That section prohibits acting as an investment representative (i.e.: in broad terms assisting an investment adviser) without a licence. The advisor in this case is not doing so, f& rom what I can tell your friend in Uganda seems to work alone? :eek

Section 32 of the Act prohibits a person acting as an investment adviser in Uganda without him/ her having the appropriate licence. “Investment adviser” is tightly defined under section 1(t) of the Act. Within that section, subsection (iii) concerns the “management of a portfolio of securities”. As indicated above, it can strongly be argued that this is not what he does. His actions would then be limited to advice on insurance products, not so? :x

Subsections (i) and (ii) (and indeed (iii)) of subsection 1(t) state that being an investment adviser means (inter alia) carrying on a business of advising concerning securities (and therefore not any other product). “Securities” are themselves tightly defined under section 1(hh) of the Act. They include government-issued stock (etc.), debentures, stocks, shares (etc.) issued by a corporate body, rights warrants, options and futures, and instruments commonly known as securities. he could easily claim that NONE of these descriptions appears to fit the products that the he advises on, which are (to iterate) insurance products. :p

Dude again, are you SURE you're not 5? Just way, it will explain everything.

I wonder how they came by all of these...? (copied from an online post)

Latest awards from Virgin's SIR Richard Branson: http://goo.gl/VKZ1q

? The field-marshal of finance: http://goo.gl/vF1Y9A (The Economist)

? UK Ernst & Young Entrepreneur Of The Year announced http://goo.gl/QacFb

? Bringing out the BIG GUNS: http://www.international-adviser.com/profiles-and-analysis/profiles/bringing-out-the-big-guns

? ADVISORS: The good, the bad and the downright ugly ! http://www.expatmoneychannel.com/content/ifas-good-bad-and-downright-ugly

? Some older news but good history: http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/new-model-adviser-profile-gunning-for-bad-practice/a357852

? Our International awards: http://goo.gl/JdRzh and http://goo.gl/6WuQt

C'mooooooon, you're 5 !!! :) I just KNEW it !! lol :zzz

I am grateful for being pointed in the direction of a comment from the adviser named above which shows the contemptuous attitude {{{Redacted}}} appear to have toward being properly regulated in all countries where they operate.

"Being regulated by a licensing authority is a joke........"

This is a direct quote.

And for the joker who thinks this is *** then refer to the following link - http://www.cmauganda.co.ug/legalcompliance/shore-fund-and-investment-plans.

This posting does not contain lies, innuendo, slander or anything similar. It is the truth and is posted because the lies and misrepresentation MUST STOP in the offshore financial services industry.

The regulator has been informed and more truthful, verifiable comments will follow.

*NOTICE OF COMPLAINT*

Please take notice that Complainant has initiated a Complaint against this Post due to alleged violations of Pissed Consumer’s Terms of Use (http://www.pissedconsumer.com/tos.txt) pursuant to Pissed Consumer’s Legitimacy Verification Program. To receive a copy of the Complaint send an email that includes the review number for this Post to lvp@***.com requesting a copy.

You, the Poster, have a right to respond to the Complaint to establish the truth of the Post’s statements. If you intend to respond, you have 20 days from the date this Notice was posted to answer the Complaint. The Answer Form (https://s3.amazonaws.com/pissedconsumer/legal/LVP+Answer+Form.pdf) must be submitted to lvp@***.com within 20 days of this Notice being posted. Failure to submit an Answer within 20 days waives your right to participate in the Legitimacy Verification Program as to this particular Complaint.

All Legitimacy Verification Program disputes are decided by an independent attorney who is not an employee of Pissed Consumer and whose firm has contracted with Pissed Consumer to provide attorneys who will serve as Third-Party Neutrals in conformity with the rules of the Legitimacy Verification Program.

Pissed Consumer WILL NOT reveal your identity or email address to Complainant without your express consent or pursuant to a subpoena or court order.

For more information regarding the Legitimacy Verification Program, please refer to the program’s rules found at http://www.pissedconsumer.com/static/legitimacy-verification-program-rules-and-conditions.html.

LVP ID: 16-v0010.