My financial planner said...
- Thread starter want2bewealthy
- Start date
Why are there so many posts in this thread which are degenerating into a slanging match?
Timmy, your point may, or may not, have some validity. That's a subject for discussion. But the use of the word "pathetic" in this context brings down the tone of the post to another insult.
But yours was not the first.
Mark and Timmy, please be careful with what you say. Stick to the issues, keep the issues discussed fairly, and avoid the derogatory language.
Charges from a FP
After a visit by a finanical planner I was told the cost I would have to pay to them is when we purchase an investment property, and that would be 1.5% of the loan. Is this what FP's are charging.
After a visit by a finanical planner I was told the cost I would have to pay to them is when we purchase an investment property, and that would be 1.5% of the loan. Is this what FP's are charging.
That's fair enough. Did he not provide you with options and advice? If not, then how were your investments placed? Did you not get a Statement of Advice?
My clients get great service (incidentally, they're not 'my' clients - I'm the paraplanner, not the adviser). I've had a number of clients tell me that they enjoy talking to me as I actually listen to them and they feel that I actually care about what it is they are trying to achieve.
Let me ask you this: How many planners did you interview before you went to the planner you became a client of? Note that I said 'interview'. When I went looking for a planner (as a client), I interviewed about 10 planners, none of whom were suitable for me. Before I went and saw them, I had a good idea of what I wanted to achieve as an investor and I wanted to see if they understood and would support my goals. It wasn't until I joined this forum that I found a planner I could work with and subsequently became a client, then an employee of.
It may interest you to know that at the time, I was working as a cook making 29K a year.
Ultimately, the end result of any transaction with a planner is your responsibility - it is your money afterall and you are the one that has to live with the consequences of choices that are made. Using the excuse 'I'm not investment savvy' doesn't cut it. If you feel you don't understand the recommendations that are being made or why they are being made, it is up to you to ask questions. Did you ask your planner lots of questions until you reached a point where you felt confident that you understood everything or did you just take everything said to you at face value and sign on the dotted line, walk away and hope for the best? Did you read the Product Disclosure Statements that would have been given to you as part of your plan?
I spend a great deal of time either talking on the phone or answering emails from clients who want a better understanding of their investments - I fully encourage all of them to call or email me at any time if they have questions - I want them to feel comfortable with the investments that have been made on their behalf. If your planner does not or isn't willing to do this for you, then why didn't you take your business elsewhere?
If you accept mediocrity, why are you surprised when the results are mediocre?
It's quite the opposite actually. I spend a lot of time looking at a number of different options for each client when setting up a structure. I take their goals and risk profile into consideration and make choices accordingly. As part of a client's advice team, I take full responsibility for my role (as I do with every role in my life) and do the best job I can for each and every one of them. When a decision is made as to where to put the client's money, I am on a certain level responsible for that decision so it is one that I do not take lightly.
I'm quite confident that if you talked to the people I deal with, you'd be pretty hard pressed to find anyone that has realistic expectations that is unhappy with the service I provide to them.
Did you take an active or a passive role with your planner? That is, did you endeavour to understand the recommendations made, did you ask questions, did you ensure that you were satisfied that the recommendations were in line with your goals (active) or did you just say to yourself 'Well, he's the planner, he knows more than I do, so I'll just believe whatever he says' (passive). No one expects you to be an expert, but if you want to get the most out of your relatioship with your planner, then you need to have at least a general understanding - and it is up to you to get the education.
I can understand your frustration with what seems to have been poor advice, but at the end of the day, you're the one that is ultimately responsible for what happens to your money, because it's your money. Putting all the blame on the planner is unproductive and simply shifting the responsibility.
Look at it like this. You run a business (your investments) and you have employees (accountant, conveyancer, planner, real estate agent, mortgage broker, etc). Now those employees are acting for and making choices on your behalf, but as the business owner, the buck stops at you. Any and all decisions made affect you directly so why would you not be involved and take control of your business interests instead of leaving them in the hands of someone else?
Even though I work in the industry, when it comes time to make investment decisions, I still discuss my options with a handful of people I trust and whose opinions I value. They provide a different point of view and bring a lot of great info to the table. I would never consider making an investment decision without consulting my team first. But I also fully understand that I am responsible for any choices made. Now before you say 'oh, but you work in the industry, that's different' - I felt exactly the same way when I was a client.
When I talk to my accountant or mortgage broker or whatever, I have a number of questions ready and I explain in full detail what it is that I want, what I'm trying to achieve and ask them which is the best way to get there. I take the information given to me, dissect it and go back with more questions, because I want to understand what it is that I'm getting into. I trust my team absolutely and have absolute confidence in all of my 'employees' because I personally hand picked every one of them and have absolute faith that when I need them, they are always willing to provide the best service they can.
Mark
Thanks for not taking offence with what in hindsight was out of order on my part. Sorry about that - communicating on forums is far from one of my strengths. So thanks again for your patience.
Yeah, in hindsight I took a passive role and just took his advice. I didn't interview any FP's. As I said before I was far from being financially savvy. I'm somewhat better now but i'm definately still far from confident. Maybe i've become to cautious? Not sure.....
Sorry about the security gaurd analogy - it was a throw back to my past
The way I see it (my past experience) is it was a learning experience. Yes it cost me but I'd rather have learnt the lesson back then rather when I've only got say 5 years to retirement
I have to say that the ACR experience has me concerned as the investors that lost out weren't persuing unrealistic returns. I know it's a topic for another thread but what I'm trying to say is that I get skeptical whenever anyone talks about 10% + returns when interest rates / CPI / wage inflation is so low.
Yeah, in hindsight I took a passive role and just took his advice. I didn't interview any FP's. As I said before I was far from being financially savvy. I'm somewhat better now but i'm definately still far from confident. Maybe i've become to cautious? Not sure.....
Sorry about the security gaurd analogy - it was a throw back to my past
The way I see it (my past experience) is it was a learning experience. Yes it cost me but I'd rather have learnt the lesson back then rather when I've only got say 5 years to retirement
I have to say that the ACR experience has me concerned as the investors that lost out weren't persuing unrealistic returns. I know it's a topic for another thread but what I'm trying to say is that I get skeptical whenever anyone talks about 10% + returns when interest rates / CPI / wage inflation is so low.
Hi Gsc15, don't apologise for expressing yourself. If people get offended by something you say, it's not because you said something offensive, it's because they choose to get offended mate.
Probably 80%+ of people who go to planners are like this. But the great thing is that you've seperated yourself from the pack - you're taking action and conciously moving forward to achieve what it is that you want to achieve. So congrats on doing that!
The way I see it (my past experience) is it was a learning experience. Yes it cost me but I'd rather have learnt the lesson back then rather when I've only got say 5 years to retirement
Hahaha, absolutely! It must have happened for a reason, because by the looks of what you've posted one thing lead to another and you're now taking a more active role in your investments, which is great!
See, that's the thing - those ACR type returns were, in my view, unrealistic. There's no such thing as a guaranteed return and investors were duped into believing that the structure was conservative, which it wasn't.
Mark
Yet 10% + income from the N***a income fund is achieved 'conservatively' for 'mum and dad' investors??!!
Yes I know it's another thread, but I just couldn't help it
.GSJ
Gcs15, your story is very familiar to me as pretty much the same thing happened to my super after 9/11. I didn't seek advice on returns or anything from an FP though, so it was 100% my doing that I had it all in high return international shares. However, it wasn't much money anyway and I'm years away from retirement so in the long run it is just a minor blip.
Think of your experience as an expensive lesson - now you know better than to trust other people with your money even if they are so called "professionals". Always do your own due diligence and ask questions about risk and return etc etc. I myself would never trust my hard earned to a fund manager and prefer to buy direct shares, that way it's totally my fault if I lose it because I have chosen the shares and I have 100% control over where it goes, not some over paid uni graduate who gets his $$$ whether I make money or lose it. As for superannuation - don't rely on it as a vehicle to a comfy retirement. As you have seen, you really don't have a lot of control as to what happens to it unless you have your own self managed super fund.
Like you said, better it happened when you were young than a few years off retirement.
Think of your experience as an expensive lesson - now you know better than to trust other people with your money even if they are so called "professionals". Always do your own due diligence and ask questions about risk and return etc etc. I myself would never trust my hard earned to a fund manager and prefer to buy direct shares, that way it's totally my fault if I lose it because I have chosen the shares and I have 100% control over where it goes, not some over paid uni graduate who gets his $$$ whether I make money or lose it. As for superannuation - don't rely on it as a vehicle to a comfy retirement. As you have seen, you really don't have a lot of control as to what happens to it unless you have your own self managed super fund.
Like you said, better it happened when you were young than a few years off retirement.
Hi all,
I'm with GSJ on this.
Mark, can you please explain how the whole Navra concept that you promote is consistent with these 2 quotes of yours??
So you admit that 10%+ type of returns are unrealistic.
Err, are, umm?? If 10%+ returns are unrealistic, yet whenever I have questioned the strategy you have promoted, I get howled down for suggesting that the Navra fund may not always achieve the 10% returns promoted and that this could cause trouble.
Are you now suggesting something different??
bye
I'm with GSJ on this.
Mark, can you please explain how the whole Navra concept that you promote is consistent with these 2 quotes of yours??
So you admit that 10%+ type of returns are unrealistic.
Err, are, umm?? If 10%+ returns are unrealistic, yet whenever I have questioned the strategy you have promoted, I get howled down for suggesting that the Navra fund may not always achieve the 10% returns promoted and that this could cause trouble.
Are you now suggesting something different??
bye
Some great points Daz but Bondy doesn't have 2 pennies? C'mon...
$1.2 billion fraud,
- Creditors received $3.25 million towards personal debts of $500 million.
After his release from HM's Holiday camp, it emerged he still had access to property and assets, some estimates put the figure as high as $100 million.
He looks bereft of scratching material, only on paper
Here Bill, I bolded some bits for you to make it easier for you to grasp the concept of what I wrote. This is the second time in a matter of months you've taken something I've posted out of context and attempted to use it against me.
Please point out where I said anywhere, ever that '10%+ returns are unrealistic'.
Mark
That's great that will keep the competition down. A property consultant? What is his actual function? I would be running for the hills if I was you.
Property consultant might sound a bit wanky, I think. It's actually a good friend of mine whose opinion on property I respect very highly (been in the game for about 15 years and achieved financial independence long ago) whom is willing to come with me to look at properties to give an opinion - for free.
I've done very very well taking his advice on a purchase, so I'm pretty happy with that. Once again, I'm gonna have to take your advice and DO THE OPPOSITE of what you suggest.
Mark
Some great points Daz but....
After his release from HM's Holiday camp, it emerged he still had access to property and assets, some estimates put the figure as high as $100 million.
He looks bereft of scratching material, only on paper
Exactly right Beef Hooked.
I never said he didn't have access and the right to utilise all of the things squirrelled away in Trust funds. He does. What he doesn't have is two cents to rub together, just as I said before.
I suppose he is a prime example of someone who has churned through this entire litigation and asset protection sausage factory that is so espoused by solicitors / fin. planners and accountants.
Doesn't own a cracker in his own personal name, but has access via Trusts to live the life that he does.
A shining example of "control" being the operative word, rather than "own".
Don't get me wrong, I don't like or support the man, and what he did to those Bell Resources shareholders was downright disgraceful, but when you act within the law and have massive negative consequences for many thousands of people....what can you do ??
The law is so subjective in most cases, especially when two top flight practitioners take opposing views and spend the next 5 years and cuppla mill arguing their heads off....that's just the way our society has been constructed.
So.....next time you hear one of your 'professional advisers' mention asset protection and the like.....Bondy is at the end of the line as to what you can expect. Doesn't own the shirt on his back, but his wife / son / accountant / or whatever as Trustee of the Trust ownign the asset, simply "allows" him to drive the Merc, stay in the mansion and generally do what most aspire to.
Ethics and morality aside of course. We are speaking strictly about what is lawful.
....and in regards to "only on paper".....is there any other ??
The whole "buying a car to look good" is a zero loss game. One FP buys a BMW to impress clients, so all the others buy BMW's. BANG! Now your beemer doesn't stand out anymore does it?
John Borshoff (Managing Director & Founder of Paladin resources) is one of the richest people in Australia, with a company worth BILLIONS. He drives an old Ford Fairlane (1970's).
Warren Buffett drives a Lincoln Town car (standard edition), he recently sold it, he owned it for five years.
John Borshoff (Managing Director & Founder of Paladin resources) is one of the richest people in Australia, with a company worth BILLIONS. He drives an old Ford Fairlane (1970's).
Warren Buffett drives a Lincoln Town car (standard edition), he recently sold it, he owned it for five years.
Dear Alex, I knew the honeymoon (where i agreed with you so much) couldn't last. You have a serious materialism problem, common in the young. But Buffett is not young.
Recently went to a friend's 70'th. You know the synonyms, Rat with a gold tooth! Dog with two tails! etc. This guy had it in spades, in spite of modest (but adequate) means. He even admitted that as a young man he wished never to reach such an age but surrounded with people he cared about, and who cared about him, he would never have swapped it for the wealth you expect to generate.
Set your own goals, by all means, but don't crap on those with others.
But Buffett is not young.Recently went to a friend's 70'th. You know the synonyms, Rat with a gold tooth! Dog with two tails! etc. This guy had it in spades, in spite of modest (but adequate) means. He even admitted that as a young man he wished never to reach such an age but surrounded with people he cared about, and who cared about him, he would never have swapped it for the wealth you expect to generate.
Set your own goals, by all means, but don't crap on those with others.
We agree on the technical aspects of finance. We do not agree on life. That's why debating is fun.
You have a serious materialism problem, common in the young.
I agree with you: I am materialistic. I have every respect for Buffett, as an investor, as a philanphropist, and as a human being. For someone so famous, I can't find anything bad that has been written about him. That doesn't mean I want to be like him. There are plenty of people I respect who do great works for mankind, invent cures for diseases, bring peace, etc. That does not mean that I would follow in their footsteps, even if I had the ability. Maybe this materialism will decrease as I get older. Maybe it's something I will grow out of. Maybe it won't: there are certainly plenty of rich people who thoroughly enjoy their wealth, young or old.
I would respect such a man, and consider him a success. However, that is not the path I want. I don't want wealth for its own sake, but what it can buy, including security and time. I don't think getting rich and being surrounded by people I care about is mutually exclusive, either. If someone gave me a billion dollars to give up all my friends and family, I would give that person the finger. I plan on having wealth AND loved ones. I know it's possible because I know people like that. They might have gone through rough patches when they were younger, but you can achieve both wealth and happiness.
Hardly. If someone wants to forsake money and pursue their own goals, donate their money and time to charities, go ahead. I'll respect them from afar. I've only said what I would do. I certainly don't expect everyone to think like me (or the world is going to come to an end).
Alex
Great advice!
Great way to be completely condescending and completely ignore your own advice!
That is nice, good on him. The thing is though, the two are not mutually exclusive! Hermits get rich, eccentrics get rich, big spenders get rich, misers get rich, friendly people get rich, crabs get rich, moral people get rich, immoral people get rich, happy people get rich, miserable people get rich. Some people use their wealth to support a lifestyle they enjoy, some people's lifestyle is getting wealthy.
