The Problem with the Industry: Unqualified Advisors and Poor Investment Choices

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.

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.

Both of my parents saved their money with one of the giants in this field (as tempting as it is, I will not name them). When you visit their offices, there is lots of polished wood, hushed tones, and big conference rooms as they very seriously do their job of turning the assets entrusted to them into more money.

I was executor for both of my parents' estates (they were divorced), so I got an up-close-and-personal look at what the investing company was doing, but only after the fact. My father thought of himself as a savvy investor, so he managed his money himself. He was, in reality, the epitome of the “Poor Dad” and couldn’t find a good investment with a flashlight, a compass, and someone pointing him right at it.

My mother was the polar opposite; she totally trusted this investment company. Over more than 50 years, they both managed their retirement assets this way. While my mother “won” this race because she had more money when she passed, the fact is that if you look at how much money she handed over to them and how little they actually did with it, it’s just sad.

When it was time to unwind her accounts, she was diversified to the point of “diworsification." There was no rhyme or reason for what she was invested in. It was as if the plan was to see if there was a possibility to buy a little bit of everything. She was in every high-load mutual institutional fund you could possibly find, and a smattering of international institutional funds as well. What a mess.

They wanted to hand this over to the heirs as-is and not sell any of it. I insisted they cash all of this mess out and only transfer the money to the heirs. They did this for everything except her IRA, which they transferred as-is. I received $13,000 (give or take) worth of 20 different mutual funds. That’s just nuts.

So, don’t be swayed by the big conference rooms and the fancy offices with their name on the top of the building. These folks are totally in it for themselves, and if they make you some money, it was by accident.