I'm not blaming or seeking sympathy. Just stating a fact.
Peter put me onto property investment. That has earned me far more than my shares in his company lost.
Peter Spann Last Night on ABC 7.30 Report
- Thread starter HotRod
- Start date
Peter put me onto property investment. That has earned me far more than my shares in his company lost.
I don't see any problems with fund managers taking a cut. They are also making a living. They often disclose that they are taking a cut. It is no different from mortgage brokers / real estate agents taking a cut even if the property value tanks, the doctor taking a cut even though you may die from the operation, the football coach getting paid despite their team losing or the barrister taking a cut even though they may lose the case and the client ends up in jail.
I think that the end outcome, positive or negative should have minimal influence on the remuneration of the transacting agent. The fund manager like any of the other above mentioned professionals is entitled to his contracted remuneration regardless of outcome.
I do my personal injuries litigation as a lawyer on a "no win no fee" basis. If I can't get money for the client I won't take them on- I lose if the client loses. I think given the dynamic nature of money investing perhaps financial advisors are in a better position to turn it around if things start going bad. Perhaps pay should be contingent on performance. Just sayin'.
Oh but you are in the minority....
Yes, but how many people are taking a cut...
Financial Advisor (takes a cut)
hands money to
Bank Funds Management Arm (takes a cut)
who then invest with
Funds X, Y, Z (who all take a cut)
who then invest (quite often) in
other funds (who also take a cut)
etc and so on
It is only when you can get down to the underlying assets (shares, etc) that you stop having mouths to feed.
And it can be several layers of mouths....
And the client gets paid last.
It's wrong imo.
It's an industry that largely exists for it's own benefit.
Most professionals - barristers, surgeons, accountants - do not operate on a no win no fee basis. Generally a no win no fee approach is to try and entice new business.
Most of my clients can't afford it unless I "spec" it. My barrister takes it on that basis too. In Qld a lot of the big firms do it that way but the pressure is on the client to settle quickly and my barrister (the same one the big boys use) tells me I charge about half as much as them and get the same payouts from the insurers.
Most punters will go with the TV ads or big roadside billboards.
they aren't selling something that's sole purpose is to make money. if you pay an accountant to do your tax and they don't do it, you'd deserve your fees back
That's the problem no one ever does,the only attractions with equities is fast 7-10 day turnarounds ,but if it turns the other way quickly you just say nothing..
That very true Willai. I have taken six figure losses with my direct share trading. There is no outcry because no one else is involved. I paid my brokerage and lost my money.
However, when you lose money despite paying someone else a fee, there is major outcry and outrage because the punter believes that the fee entitles them to a win.
However, when you lose money despite paying someone else a fee, there is major outcry and outrage because the punter believes that the fee entitles them to a win.
Yeah well that the 80% straight out the back door with maybe some tax credits,if everyone has that illusion that's it's that easy to make money on share trading the you better keep your wits about you before you are led astray..there is a thin line between madness and illusion on short term fast bucks..
Wow, lots of mouths to feed.
Begs the question, why don't investors just buy direct (shares), balance their own portfolio. control their own assets. More research required but seems a logical way to go????
It requires work, research, knowledge, time.
All humans love to go the shortest possible route and least resistance to the end.
But, also believe fund managers to be experts.
Hence; the majority will hand over to someone else to do it.
Pretty much covers every "for profit" set up.
They dress it up with "we care" to get the punters.
Banks and Insurance companies are particularly good at the claim.
Last edited:
Then the majority will end up with over the top fees for average/poor performance, does not make any sense whatsoever.
