Churned and burned

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.

In 2005, I was advised by a group of real estate investors. One who says he owns 50 different properties with many partners. He advised if I do not have money for investing, I should use my identity for prospect investors to use to purchase property and I get a small share. At the time, people made lot of money and different kind of real estate financial schemes.

Definitely it is a bad advice because if the investors default the loans, you are ultimately responsible for the loans and the properties are under the water.

Some idiot financial advisor came to my workplace circa 2006 advising everyone to take zero-downpayment, interest-only mortgages, which were widely available at the time and were what fueled the housing bubble.

Then use the proceeds to buy life insurance as an investment.

I recall asking him, what happens when the interest-only period expires and you're required to start paying principal? "Oh, don't worry, you can always refinance into another interest-only loan. "Obviously I did not follow his advice, and we all know how the real estate market ended up after the 2008 crash. (I ended up buying my house in 2012.)