Pressure Tactics and Poor Advice

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.

In the fall of the year 2005 and when the real estate market was going crazy and all kinds of real estate investors were giving speeches and masquerading as advisors, I attended a local seminar about real estate investing.

I already had my rural land property/investment business model developed and most of my current advisors in place. A mortgage broker was speaking about loans for real estate.

These so called mortgage financial advisors were recommending people take interest only loans to fund their real estate purchases because the rates were low and it cash flows easily. There are many problems with this dumb advice.

Here are some:

• Debt at some point has to be paid back. Anybody who has done any investing and used debt with real estate, stocks, or a business knows this. Delaying indefinitely paying off a debt is foolish.
• Even if an interest only loan for any type of investment cash flows today, it might not tomorrow, next month, or next year. The investment might quit paying. For example:
• The tenant lost his/her job. The property flip did not work as the foundation crack was not discovered during the euphoria when the property was bought. Funds (from more debt) were needed to fix the crack when an engineer who looked at the property to buy it discovered it.

I'm a tax attorney, so I see a lot of other people's finances.

The ones I see that work with a financial advisor are, without exception, paying at least 1% of AUM in fees to be in higher-costs funds that underperform the index funds in the long run. To make matters worse, the financial advisors choose tax-inefficient funds and take their fees in the most tax-inefficient way possible. I have also found that many do not understand the nuances of self employed retirement plans or the backdoor Roth.

In my view, there are a few problems with the industry. First, most financial firms hire salespeople and then teach them finance, instead of hiring people who already know finance. I know a LOT of morons working in Edward Jones shops and the like, who are charming but ultimately don't understand the back end of the products they sell. My ex worked for two of the large regional banks in my area, and she had a degree in communications.

She knew (and knows) nothing about finance, but instead was hired because her family is wealthy and gets referral business from old neighbors and classmates. She couldn't even pass the Series 7, but the banks thought she could work in trust management. I talk to clients and financial advisors all the time who don't understand the difference in tax efficiency between mutual funds and ETFs, or the mechanics and reasons of a 1031 exchange, or what the tax incentives actually look like in various types of accounts, or the merits of a solo 401k vs a SEP IRA.

When you only have a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. Second, the incentives are rarely aligned in the middle of the market or below. Helping a 24 year old set up and fund their Roth IRA is probably not worth your time on the front end unless you're getting an outsized commissions, which ultimately cost the client more money than needed for someone with a small account.