Mortgage financial advisors pushing risky loans

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.

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.

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.