Paying for Underperformance

No horror story, they just made more money out of me than I made out of them, so in a way they taught me a useful lesson. This was back in the 90s, when we were all simpler folk.

My husband’s family has used a boutique firm of financial advisors for years, and honestly, they are probably the best of the best. Independent, fee-for-service—they are very good at what they do. However, I still have some massive issues with them.

Essentially, they have overcomplicated everyone’s finances to a point where the family is now reliant on them for everything. They could probably never extract themselves from their services even if they wanted to. I think this is their ultimate business model. My in-laws have a highly complex portfolio of 30-40 investments (shares, managed funds, etc.), and yet their fund grows less than my simple VAS/VGS portfolio. They pay these guys something insane like $30K per year in fees.

The same firm took on my sister as a client, despite her having extremely simple and minimal finances, charging her $5K per year for insurance and tax advice and complicating her super and other things to the point that now she can’t manage it by herself. I think they honestly should have told her she didn’t need a financial advisor.

Prior to learning about finances and “going it alone,” they had my husband involved in several managed funds that were charging him 1.5% per year and making around 5-6% before fees. Way worse than a simple ETF. I worked out that his money grew about half the amount it would have if we had just been using ETFs from the beginning. And yet, when we mentioned our change of plan, they still recommended we didn’t go with ETFs and stayed with the managed fund. It didn’t make sense.

Again, my theory is simply that they don’t charge commissions on these things, but by having them manage our money and invest into funds for us, they can charge us fees for service and keep things sufficiently complex so we need to keep using them year after year. I think it’s all a bit of a rort, really.

Long story short, recently saw a Financial Planner as I was about to make my first home purchase. It was a stressful time and I was looking to consult a professional to make sure I could afford long-term. I'm not financially illiterate but I'm not an expert, especially with things like forecasting how finances can affect my future long-term. In retrospect, I really should have seemed multiple planners but ended up going with the one due to time restrictions in the property search (pre-approval and the like).

This planner wasn't exactly badly reviewed. The process seemed legit, starting off with an SOA (Statement of Advice) being issued and a good amount of questions and direction from me. I wasn't quite sure what this document would entail but basically, it had some basic general advice (skewed a little bit) followed by switching my super to their fund and buying some life insurance through them. I got the piece of paper with this advice and found out that they would cost 11% of my total super to engage for the entire year which is huge. There was more content of disclaimers than actual advice. Probably only 3 pages of actual numbers.

Basically, after a year of engagement, I'd be worse off financially than if I hadn't engaged them at all. I should have read between the lines but this wasn't clear during the engagement phase.

Anyway, I coughed up the amount for the SOA (a month's salary) because I had signed for it, but I feel like they shouldn't have engaged me if I was going to be financially worse off after their services. The percentages weren't made clear until the advice was issued which was basically a glorified fee proposal.Anyway, let this be a warning to you all to really hone in on what you're getting if you do seek it and decide if it's not something you can figure out yourself. It was a waste of time and money for me and can't help but feel I was tricked as I'm not an expert in this field. I've put it down to a hard lesson learnt.