Churned and burned

Some time in the past, a “financial advisor” convinced me that I could make a lot of money trading commodities. Wrong! I figured out he was just “churning” me (putting me into and out of too many positions, just to earn the commission), and I closed the account, buy not until he lost 80% of my money in less than a year!

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.

A financial services guy told a lunch group that it made no difference whether people donated appreciated stock directly to a charity or sold it and donated the proceeds to charity. He claimed that, either way, “you still got the charitable deduction. ”While this is true, he completely ignored the capital gains tax that would be triggered when the person (rather than the charity) sold the appreciated stock. He could not comprehend that a direct donation of the appreciated stock to charity could save the donor from having to pay tax on that capital gain.

He was totally obsessed with the relatively minor charitable deduction on their tax return. I thought this was horrible advice and a disservice to anyone who followed his financial advice.