Financial Planners

BSD said:

The $1100 you pay to the spivvy planner may save $100,000s in tax over a few years by him offering a solid tax strategy

The dirt of the old planner is only matched by the arrogance of the cocky 'DIY' trader w@nkers

Click to expand...

Rubbish.

Rubbish.

And Rubbish.

Please explain one example of a tax strategy a DIY investor could use to lower their tax they do not use now?

Mate you wouldnt know how to structure a family with $5 million in assets - because (apart from a lot of other things) Buffett and Graham have not taught you the important points of Australian Tax Law

Many folk have no real idea of how good planners work. Big ones dont even talk investment strategy - only tax

BSD said:

Mate you wouldnt know how to structure a family with $50 million in assets - because (apart from a lot of other things) Buffett and Graham have not taught you the important points of Australian Tax Law

Many folk have no real idea of how good planners work. Big ones dont even talk investment strategy - only tax

But keep your head up your @ss Realust - it is obviously comfortable for you

Click to expand...

Keep the insults to yourself, and just answer my simple question please?

BSD said:

The dirt of the old planner is only matched by the arrogance/taxbills/capital losses of the cocky 'DIY/I know everything' trader w@nkers

Click to expand...

Why the hostility towards DIY traders?

That seems such an unreasonable response.

Realist said:

And the more you trade the more you lose.

No one ever listens though...

Click to expand...

:sleeping:

For the 56,935,363,162,095,067,451,495,595,111,540,678th time, 'cause it ain't necessarily so.

wayneL said:

Why the hostility towards DIY traders?

That seems such an unreasonable response.

Click to expand...

It probably didnt come out right. Apologies.

My point is that for $1100 a good planner can save an investor many $100,000s of tax by structuring appropriately.

They may even be able to convince someone of diversifying some risk away from their own management skills. (maybe not)

You would be amazed by the inefficient way people structure themselves and the costs involved in righting past wrongs that could have been avoided by planning a little.

Contemplate the difference on after tax returns and lifestyle between paying 0% tax for thirty years in retirement as opposed to 45%. It may be worth paying 100bps for someone to look after it for you when you look at it that way?

The attitude to strategic planning from many on these forums is very tired. Throw away lines and ignorance abound.

1. You dont need to hand over management of your money
2. You can invest directly (no funds)
3. You can bear the risk yourself
4. Most accountants have few skills in superannuation and most have planners personally

How may threads are on this site saying: "i saved/borrowed $20K, traded CFDS/OPTIONS/FUTURES/PENNIES and blew up"???

Some even paid $3000 to learn how to blow up

I dont wish to pretend the world is not full of spivvy sales focussed planners, but there are also a lot that have a skill set worth tapping into, regardless of whether you trade 5% or 100% of your own book.

See your point BSD.

Some even paid $3000 to learn how to blow up

Click to expand...

OR MORE.

BSD said:

Mate you wouldnt know how to structure a family with $5 million in assets - because (apart from a lot of other things) Buffett and Graham have not taught you the important points of Australian Tax Law

Many folk have no real idea of how good planners work. Big ones dont even talk investment strategy - only tax

Click to expand...

And not all Financial Planners are necessarily taxation specialists.

The last financial planner I used talked me into a swiss francs loan which ended up costing me $600,000 ( in 1983 money ) . I had to tell him how to get me out of that or he would have cost me a lot more. Never again.

I posted the article because I thought it was a fascinating insight into the already cynical thoughts of a not yet fully trained financial planner.

That's not to say I believe all financial planners are useless. I have personally benefited immensely from the advice of a financial planner who explained to me strategies that would and have already saved me substantial sums. From my own resources, I simply would not have had the knowledge to implement these strategies.

I think one of the things to avoid is allowing them to talk you into managed funds from which they obviously get substantial commissions plus the trail for ever after and in which you have little or no control over where your dollars are actually placed. If you have enough for a SMSF then imo - as BSD has pointed out - the tax savings are very considerable. But they would need to be when you take into account that leverage can't be used, thus restricting possible profit levels. I guess nothing's perfect and, if one is getting towards retirement age particularly, a SMSF makes a lot of sense.

And for younger people structuring various forms of Trusts can also save a lot of tax dollars. When it's done well, good financial planning is one of the best investments anyone can make if they have more than a couple of dollars to invest.

Julia

Julia and others,

Managed funds are not inherently evil and the person that wrote the editorial should have waited until they had some broad experience in the industry before casting a brush over it.

Please read my ebook at www.cfoc.com.au/financialplanning for an outline on how you can still achieve decent returns using managed funds WITHOUT paying upfront or trailing commissions. Basically you just have to find an planner that will do so. The first half of it details the impacts that managed fund fees, trading costs and cgt has on a portfolio.

My approach is not the be-all and end-all because it is diversification. diversification is a risk-mitigation approach and as such suits a particular type of investor. a specialist that is an expert in their niche should always beat a diversifier but how many of the general community have the skills let alone the time, personality and means to truly be specialists. I can answer that for you all - not many.

I think a large part of the problem is that people have unrealistic expectations of a financial planner and wealth creation. They just want and expect wealth but cannot articulate clearly what wealth actually is to them. A planners job is not to create untold riches for a client, it is to assist them articulate what makes them happy, how much that is going to cost and how to get them there bearing in mind that client's attitude towards risk.

Once those key factors are identified there are numerous tools at the planners disposal to get the client there. I am comfortable with managed funds so tend towards those with listed property as a component. Others may choose direct equities, others direct property, others again - mortgage trusts, hedge funds, cfds, small business and so on.

My point is, if a client determines (with the assistance of a planner) that 7% per annum compounded over 20 years will more than likely see them achieve their goals and objectives why go for more? That is, why be a specialist and get greedy just for the sake of making more? The client states a goal and planners try to help them achieve it as smoothly as possible. Job done. I have not met a client that says "I want to make 8 million dollars". clients want to travel to Macchu Pichu, go running with the bulls, travel around Australia, leave 50k for each grandkid and so on.

It is often the case that all goals cannot be realised and that is where certain trade-offs are necessary - work longer, save more with a second job, lower expectations and maybe even go for more aggressive investments. this is the time where a little specialisation may be necessary although i prefer to ramp up the growth component of a portfolio above the client's usual tolerance towards risk (if unwilling to make other compromises). i really believe in the value of diversification and having clients understand where it is they really want to be and just how much that will cost. They may even be pleasantly surprised to learn that they don't need as much as they thought.

Finally, as others have said, getting something as seemingly insignificant as the structure, the owner and so on could mean the difference between needing 8% per annum or 7%. There are so many value-added services planners can provide. don't poo-poo on all of us.

just some thoughts,
Adam

I am guilty of not reading every post in this thread, and my grudge against planners is that they take your money, give expert advice and do not take responsibility for their failures.

Hope, builders and some other professions do not use this ‘little trick’.

And the biggest joke is requirement of your signature that you take responsibility for your actions under their advice, and yet you might be complete novice to financial matters without neither knowledge nor experience.

I suspect that in 50 responses this would be touched already, but just in case it wasn’t.

very interesting read on financial planners however many of you really do fail to realise the importance of one. Now, there is no doubt there are bad planners, and old school ex insurance agent type planners who give the industry a bad name, however the "newer" generation of planners offer expert solutions in such a wide area covering Investment, tax, superannuation, centrelink issues, insurance, estate planning to name a few. A CFP (certified Financial Planner) has met strict guidlines and experience cirteria and is regared as the industry;'s most professional international qualification.
To bag financial planners is really a thing of the past. They are crucial to our society in educating, implementing sound strategies to meet individuals and families needs. The more savy investor may not need there advice, thats fine, but i bet there is one area of a financial planners expertise they could still utilise - superannuation, insurance, estate planning?

Accountants are interesting, there fundamental job has always been tax - this is what they are great at. They are not and have never been investment
advisers!!! They are often tax driven in making investment decisons which is not always the best way to go. Would you invest in tax effective trees, plantations or almonds? Great tax benefits but they are poor investments (often).

A financial planner may not be everyone's cup of tea, but to constantly bag them is very wrong and shows a lack of understanding of what they can truely do for you.

Cheers

They would have to clean up their act first.

Name and shame and deregister shonky players and chase their wealth to compensate clients who lost money due to their unscrupulous tactics.

Should there be compulsory upgrade of their skills, if tax driven advice is outdated and incorrect?

Maybe something else to boost confidence of general public.

JJKools said:

very interesting read on financial planners however many of you really do fail to realise the importance of one. Now, there is no doubt there are bad planners, and old school ex insurance agent type planners who give the industry a bad name, however the "newer" generation of planners offer expert solutions in such a wide area covering Investment, tax, superannuation, centrelink issues, insurance, estate planning to name a few. A CFP (certified Financial Planner) has met strict guidlines and experience cirteria and is regared as the industry;'s most professional international qualification.
To bag financial planners is really a thing of the past. They are crucial to our society in educating, implementing sound strategies to meet individuals and families needs. The more savy investor may not need there advice, thats fine, but i bet there is one area of a financial planners expertise they could still utilise - superannuation, insurance, estate planning?

Accountants are interesting, there fundamental job has always been tax - this is what they are great at. They are not and have never been investment
advisers!!! They are often tax driven in making investment decisons which is not always the best way to go. Would you invest in tax effective trees, plantations or almonds? Great tax benefits but they are poor investments (often).

A financial planner may not be everyone's cup of tea, but to constantly bag them is very wrong and shows a lack of understanding of what they can truely do for you.

Cheers

Click to expand...

I certainly hope there is a new breed.

We have been to at least half a dozen "financial planners" over the last few years and, without exception, they all want your money and super funds under their management - with hefty fees, of course

The latest was a classic - not only sugested managed funds, but also suggested taking a mortgage over the property to double the funds under management. Reckoned there was a good possibility of doubling the money in managed funds over the next seven years - oh, how to bait with the greed factor

With 2% (I think it was 2 - may have even been 4%) annual fees + paying over 9% interested for the borrowed amount - it would have to be a pretty steady bull market to even think about doubling in seven years.

Great cash flow for the "financial planner" (aka salesperson) with annual income from the managed funds plus mortgage set-up costs + annual trailers on the loan.

And, if the plan failed and the funds lost money - we (not the FP) would be liable to pay the on-going fees + mortgage - and eventually have to pay back any shortfall. Very poor risk to reward for the customer.

And, each time visiting a FP, it has been to make sure we are structured as best as we can for future retirement. At no time did we go looking for somewhere different to invest!

Needless to say, these little fish swam away as fast as they could go...

Sorry JJkools - do you really wonder why they get bagged?

End of rant!

BSD said:

Mate you wouldnt know how to structure a family with $5 million in assets - because (apart from a lot of other things) Buffett and Graham have not taught you the important points of Australian Tax Law

Many folk have no real idea of how good planners work. Big ones dont even talk investment strategy - only tax

Click to expand...

I would expect that if I wanted to get advise on my $5million family trust I would consult my CPA.

What are the differences educational differences between a CPA and Financial Planner ??

I personal feel financial planners are like realestate agents. There are many who are great guys and give honest professional advise however when it comes to the end of the day they get paid / make there money buy selling something a property or a product, thus they have a conflict of interest. Generally your CPA will charge you a fee for the advise and (generally hefty too) but there is no conflict.

Agree Adobee, I too would like to know the actual structure of the various FP courses. Are they taught wealth creation for clients in the syllabus at all?

I have read right through this thread and felt Tech/a & Happy were too kind with their comments.

Liked Julias excellent article by an FP trainee, especially the bit - "Diversification reduces risk, but the more you diversify the more you pay"

Great comments by Visual & Rub92me as well.

'Money Tree' I think you should quit while you are behind. You have nothing to offer that would get your respect and credibility back. You speak of $250 expenses I met clients that lost millions not parting with a few lousy hundred.

The tough bit for retirees is, it's most likely the first time they have had a fist full of dollars in their 40 years of working life. Certainly was in my case and that of my retiree friends and aquaintances.

I held the "Golden Handshake" cheque for only seconds, and that was because I asked to zerox it first, before handing over to my selected FP, who was standing next to the Plant manager as I walked in to receive it.

Compared a dozen planners over a 2 year period and almost all preferred a 'buy & hold' strategy of shares & a managed fund. Makes their job easy I guess. Banks diversifies all right, as long as all the money is held within their own bank.

Was surprised & a bit sus that many FP's answered that their previous work history was "Insurance Salesman" not that I have anything against insurance salesman, but it sure was a very very common trait.

During 2001 & 2 my FP lost $750k of my retirement savings (tech crash) and left me with $180k Jan 2003. Trading saved my life, I have never had a losing year and except for the struggle in that first year by having to go on the dole to live, I have lived well and doubled the Equity.

The first years struggle had nothing to do with my trading, as I made a creditable $50k in that first year, followed by a great and memorable 2006.

Up 51% on Super and 105% on a private a/c. Cannot say the same for 2007.
Seems like it's 2 steps forward and one step back.

Left the planner with a handshake and no obvious signs of hard feelings, and spoke to a Queens Counsel recommended to me with expertise in that area, who was extremely helpful with advice. Also said he tried many court cases where an FP sets up shop with a $5mill return to himself, loses the clients money then sets up shop again. Identical to my own experience.

They cover themselves with signatures from the clients on whether they are cautious or aggressive and you can guess what I was.

I found out about his hidden commissions by doing some research with Finance companies and accountants after we parted. The 'Buy & Hold ' strategy is the bit that hurts as I firmly believe 'buy & hold' is dead.

Never could trust anybody with my finances again, and wrongly or rightly taught my self to trade without lessons and minimal advice on forums, although I now subscribe to Nick's Chartist group and the Brighton bayside Blue Chip Society.

Actually I am thankful the way it turned out, all thru my working life I was obsessed with the idea of working for myself and now I am, and happy to be among others with similar interests.

Austek well done for going it alone and finding the way to do it yourself.

Hi Austek,

Good Onya

Have recently been making the decisions myself.

I dispensed with my planner because I was outperforming him with my decisions over the last 2 years, and he did not tell me about some things that would have improved my returns ( I drew his attention to them, not the other way around!)..also could not comment on tax or share picks

Have interviewed quite a few planners

I eliminated nearly all of them straight away( over the phone) because they charge a % commission on my entire balance, which is quite substantial, and could not give complete advice.

I wanted a fee-for-service model, and would be prepared to pay high hourly rates.

Also I wanted an advisor that could comment on Tax, Superannuation and Share market advice, as well as general advice.

I could only find 2 that were remotely suitable, both fully independant.
One was excellent, a CPA, SMSF specialist and hot shot share picker ( according to him)...he charged a commission tho, which he offered to halve.

I was very impressed with him..he said he really wanted me onboard, and only offered to reduce his commission because he was impressed with my astuteness...we had a good discussion, he is in business to generate profit, and reducing his commission is not an ideal way to do that. He prefers full fee payers, of course

The other guy was an SMSF specialist, his rate is $320 per hour.

They are all legally bound to give an initial written advice considering ones overall financial position...this costs $1000-$2000 to have prepared.

In the end I decided to go with a low cost SMSF, no financial advisor, for the reason that I have a fairly exact plan of action, already mostly in place.

If I match the index, I will save at least $15,000 per year, on my previous plan. (yearly savings will increase with time)

Of course, I still utilise an accountant, who can advise me on tax and SMSF issues, he charges an hourly rate.

Whilst I was researching my options for setting up my SMSF, I spoke to an independant SMSF group located in Sydney...they told me they had interviewed "hundreds" of financial planners, in order to find someone independant to recommend to their clients...THEY COULD NOT FIND ANYONE SUITABLE.

I find this amazing...I would have thought there is a niche market for hourly rate charging financial advisors, you would have to believe that if someone charged $200 per hour (like accountants), they would be very busy.

Having said that, I can see why they prefer commission, and high net worth clients..they ARE in business to make money.

It is with some trepidation and reluctance that I eventually decided to go on my own...it takes a lot of time and research and learning, but ultimately one has to take responsibility for financial decisons, an advisor can only advise.

If, after benchmarking my returns, I am behind, or it all gets to hard, I can always go back to " financial advice".

I find the legal restrictions now placed on advisors to be over the top for me personally, because I can understand most concepts fairly well, although I can totally understand why they are in place to protect many persons with less knowledge than me.

I like this forum, and learn a lot, it is great to share knowledge, even though I see that ASIC provisions are affecting sites like this, and one must be astute enough to weed out info what is incorrect or misleading.

I think it is great that people are prepared to put forward their OPINIONS,
with the reminder that it is NOT ADVICE.

I also think it is very good , and courageous, that others are prepared to publicly disagree, even though it may seem a little discourteous at times.

In this manner, forums like this, are very educational.

Thankyou to all contributors

regards tony

ps, If anyone does ever find an advisor, in the Newcastle, NSW area who works like I described, I would be happy for them to send me a PM