westpoint and financial Planners

Nigel Kibel said:
Personally if a finacial planner is charging you a fee and not recieving a commission I would be comfortable with that.
Nigel, I'm not sure why you think there is a substantial difference?
Either way, the fee or commission must be disclosed to the client.

If a FP rebates all the commission and takes a fee direct from the client, and it's a dud investment, the result is still the same.

Charging a fee doesn't mean the advice is "independant", and even if it did, it doesn't mean the investment is sound. In fact the opposite may occur as an independant FP, who answers to no parent company, might think emu's are great investments.

I an understand someone investing, say, 10% of their money in something like Wetspoint, if they understand the risks, but it sounds like greed took over, from the FPs and the clients.

GarryK
 
depreciator said:
Anybody see the Alan Kohler story yesterday about the heads of Westpoint? They're all back in business - different company names. Still in property.

If that is the case i would be very nervous if i were them...

They have ripped off a lot of everyday Australians but they also ripped off a few people whom i would consider are not the kind of person you would like to be offside with...

Do you have a link or any idea where i can substantiate if what you said is 100% accurate ?? (No offence intended, i believe you but would like to see further information)

I genuinely believe all the Westpoint board and directors should do time in gaol for what they have done. If justice isn't served by the courts then i genuinely hope they get hit buy a bus. If they are back working in property and have the capacity to once again rip people off there is no justice in this country...
 
who pays

Hi Gary

I think there is a huge difference. If a financial planner is charging you a fee and not taking commission then in theory they should be recommending products based on how good the product is andf not how large the commission was. I wonder if any of the planners who are charging a fee recommended Westpoint. I would be confident that they did not.
 
Fatboy, the story was in the Sydney Morning Herald. Can't remember which day. I'd say the SMH website would have an archive of recent stories.
 
Dis said:
As a professional, its impossible to realistically inform clients (patients) of every single pro / con

Why not ???? :confused:

As a professional you should also know that it is NEGLIGENT if you don't. :rolleyes:

Regards
Investor :)
 
there's another company which had been investigated by ASIC. they're still trading though. similar to westpoint i.e. raising capital for mezanninne finance

I don't want to mention the name of the company on here but a lot of people lost their money including us. Well we still have some glimmer of hope but who knows. We invested $50k and have received one dividend payment of $18k. It has been around 2 years.

the problem with these small property companies is that eventhough they have all the experts working for them and they find great property deals is that property developments take a very long time to realise profits. Not just in the developmental stage but also in the selling stages...it can take over a year just to sell 15% of the development. Meanwhile, they have huge overhead costs for labour, office rental, huge loan repayments etc
 
investor said:
Why not ???? :confused:

As a professional you should also know that it is NEGLIGENT if you don't. :rolleyes:

Regards
Investor :)

The courts would disagree with your definition. My field is medical so I'll use an example from that area. You can use the analogy for whatever field you want.

Next time you get a antibiotic prescription from your doctor, pull out the product information and read through the potential adverse reactions. It will probably take you a while, and chances are you wont understand half the words. Now have a think about how long it would take to explain them all so you understand the risks of what you are taking. Of course you aren't making an informed choice yet! No sir-ee! To do that you also need to know every single alternative and the pros and cons of each of those alternatives. 20+ antibiotics. Over the counter drugs. Acupuncture. Alternative medicines.

Perhaps you need some tests too? Your doctor should also inform you that the radiation from the Xray could minutely increase your chance or cancer. Then there's all those risks of the blood test you may need - eg that blood nurse may be 1cm off and hit your median nerve giving you permanent numbness in your hand........

Now I'm sure your good doctor would not want to feel he was being negligent. So please, next time you book in for a cough, rember to reserve a 3 hour appointment. Also remember to bring $600 with you since he charges $200/hr. Also be prepared to wait a few weeks to see your doctor - seeing 3 patients a day is causing rather long waiting lists!

Have a nice day,

~Dis ;)
 
Last edited:
Nigel Kibel said:
Hi Gary

I think there is a huge difference. If a financial planner is charging you a fee and not taking commission then in theory they should be recommending products based on how good the product is andf not how large the commission was. I wonder if any of the planners who are charging a fee recommended Westpoint. I would be confident that they did not.



In theory, yes in reality, it makes no difference.
In theory all FPs by law must make recommendations based on "how good the product is".

I am an FP. If I am prepared to recommend a client invest in a high risk product, it makes no difference to me whether I get paid via a fee or commission. Just so long as I get paid. Either way the client has to be advised in writing how much the fee is &/or how much the discussion is, and how much the adviser is getting out of those fees/commissions.

Fees and bad advice are not mutually exclusive.

Please be careful, because you are in that dangereous land known as "fools paradise.":eek:

Please don't take this personally, I just don't like to see people(you or others who read this thread) get hurt because of an ill founded generalisation.:)


GarryK
 
ditto...
and near on irrelevant to the punter anyway.
you disclose 10%, they dont know if you could have sourced at 3% or what other, lets just say...oh 10,000 products, are commission rated at anyway....

in any event, this whole thread should be about schemers, scammers and scheisters. you cant stop such.
 
research

Garry

I am a researcher and always check everything before making a decision. There is an accountant that I us who I would have far more faith in than any financial planner I have met. My whole point is that ASIC have created a myth that if you deal with a financial planner then you are recieving independant advice. This is simply not true. My second point is that if a planer is charging you a fee to to give advice and not recieving a commission then he has no vested interest in recommending a product because it has the highest fees. I am not under any elusions about financial planners, I have yet to meet one that I would entrust with my money. However I do not take anyones advice without carrying out my own research.
 
Back
Top