Back onboard!

Ah, it's good to be home

I've just returned from 3 months of training overseas (Brazilian Jiu Jitsu). I'm feeling good and am ready to get back into things.
I do feel like I'm in a position to start fresh and hopefully get things right.

I currently have money in 5 managed funds:

CFS Firstchoice CFS 452 Geared Aust Share Fund
Platinum International Brands Fund
Vanguard Emerging Markets Shares Index Fund
Colonial First State Property Securities Fund
CFS 1st Choice - CFS Colliers Gear Glob Prop Sec

I have a total of $8,115.67 in my NetWealth account, which I use as a platform to manage my investments.
That 8 thousand is all I have left to show from what was probably a total of $20,000 across the last few years.

I have some money (roughly $4,000) in a BT Super for life fund aswell.


So, this is the tricky part. Decision making time.
Do I set up a regular savings plan and have more money invested regularly into these funds?
Do I pull out and look elsewhere?
Do I leave the funds and focus my money in a different investment?

I know you can't tell me what to do. But what would YOU do?

Thoughts, comments, criticism. Please

 

I'm liking commodities (gold, oil, agri) for the next 6 months, but will probably start looking at Asia and other BRIC based managed/index funds in the next 6 - 12 months. I'm expecting Asia to come out of this crisis first...

 

I did BJJ for a few months, unfortunately i blew out my knee after someone put me into a leg lock, it hasn't been the same since. But i still want to go back to BJJ someday it was fun, right up until i heard that snap/pop of my knee, that wasn't to fun.

 

Thanks guys.

Shame to hear about your knee buddha. Unfortunate part of the sport


"One of the key issues is what do you want to achieve?"
It's been a while since I've thought about that. Quite a powerful question really.

Deep down I guess I first started into investing because I didn't want to get stuck in the 'daily grind'. I've always had a desire to be 'financially free'. Not even sure what that means entirely, but I hate the thought of living a life where money is ever a serious concern.
If I'm really honest with myself I'd say that I want to be very wealthy. Not sure how I would classify that though.

The second reason would be financial security. I don't want to worry about making ends meet. I'd like to have the resources to live a comfortable life.

I can't (or haven't) put figures on any of that.
I started investing in managed funds because it seemed like a relatively safe place to start. I did alot of research initially, but still never felt as though I really grasped what I was doing. I invested because action was better than inaction. I didn't want to sit out and miss my opportunity because I was too fearful.

Not sure what else to say. The funds were never intended to make me rich, I thought of them as more of a back up. They were going to be my foundation or security blanket I guess. I still want to build up a good base of safe investments before undertaking anything 'riskier'.
Unfortunately my safety blanket hasn't really been much good to date, but I don't want to give up on investing because of it.

 

Oh, and I do think that it's probably about time I met with a financial planner.
I've always put it off because I'm not sure I would be able to tell if they were giving me solid advice or not.

Is it a good idea to visit my bank for this information, or would it be a better idea to visit an independent planner?
Could anyone make a recommendation for a planner in in Melbourne?

Cheers.

 

Hi Compleks,

Whether you go to a bank or a independent (cough) planner. There are very few truely independent planners which will probably charge more than what you would generally pay for a non-independent. Too much emphasis has been placed on product providers giving advice.

The emphasis should be on getting quality advice and you should find someone that you click with. I would recommend going to at least three planners, maybe two bank planners and a private practice planner. Personally, usually the first two meetings are complimentary as we need to ascertain the client's position and if they would like to proceed.

What you want to look for is whether they are talking about strategy advice or if they are talking about product advice. If your not sure what the difference is PM me.

Cheers,

Dan

 

Hmm.. bank planners generally can only provide you with bank only branded options/investments/strategies. Now of course bank planners will argue that under their "bank platform" they have access to a multitude of fund managers, still doesn't negate the fact that they are obliged to still use "their platform".

Also, in terms of investments, bank advisers are generally limited to 1 thing, and that's managed funds. I've written on these forums before about managed funds and how the way they invest is generally absolutely bonkers and goes against what most would consider intelligent investing.

Personal insurances are usually limited to "preferred provider partners" ie those who paid the big bucks.

Now i'm not saying that bank planners are no good, it's just that the bank environment inhibits their potential as planners.

Non-bank or financial institution aligned planners have the following

- generally can look at any type of investments, deratives, direct shares, property, bonds, hybrid securities etc.

- aren't limited to "preferred partners" for insurance or for that matter investments.

- aren't limited in terms of what strategies to implement or how to implement them. Banks are generally very tight fisted in this area, hence managed funds are basically the only form of investment available whether in or outside of super.

- they will generally cost more, but you get what you paid for.

 

Hi Compleks

Some good points bigbuddha.

Not sure about the above comment - you may ask yourself why should I see any bank planners?

At the end of the day, the key to good financial planning advice is the value you receive. If you can't see the value - go to another financial planner.

Kind Regards

 

"At the end of the day, the key to good financial planning advice is the value you receive. If you can't see the value - goes to another financial planner."

I wonder what are you using to measure a value?

 

Hi BigBuddha,

Not sure where you get this idea, perhaps a bad apple experience? This certainly was my impression before joining a bank (as a planner in private practice) and is quite common for joe publie and non-bank planners to have as they think they are only there to sell a product. Whether an option is bank branded or an industry fund, personally, I do what is best for the client.

As well as advising on managed funds, bank planners give advice on superannuation, personal insurances, shares and self managed superannuation funds.

Every licensee has preferred partners and receive some sort of commission, whether it be a bank planner, insurance co planner (eg, AMP and AXA) or other (count, snowball, etc). Insurance companies pay the same amount to the planners licensees.

I can see why you think this from previous comments...

Isn't a bank a financial institution?

And a bank planner can as well.

More than 10 insurers and 4 or 5 apples by ChantWest and hundreds of managed funds aren't enough for you?

Just like any licensee, bank planners can advise on things apart from managed funds.

Not sure why you think this, though some will cost more than others, eg, same as going to different accountants or solictors, they will charge you different rates. Sometimes you get what you pay for, ask Storm clients...

Not sure why Andrew says "why see a bank planner?" Being a Securitor
Planner he has the same range of products as a St George Financial Planner as our Approved Product List is the same.

The value which Andrew is talking about is the perceived value and benefits which the client will receive, if they can't see, understand or appreciate the value or benefits they may not proceed with the recommendations.

Cheers,

Dan

 

Hi Dan

My comment about bank planners relates to your quote: "I would recommend going to at least three planners, maybe two bank planners and a private practice planner" and my question is why the 2 to 1 ratio?

Cheers

 

Hi Andrew,

There is no ratios that has to be followed, this was an example.

Three planners will give people looking for advice a stronger idea of who they like (click with), what strategies they may be looking at and also different fee structures which they may prefer over others.

Cheers,

Dan

 

ASXBROKER,

Hmm... if what you say is true ASXBROKER, the bank has certainly changed it's rules and compliance regime from when I used to be a bank planner, albeit that was 4 years ago.

I remember there was no way the bank would allow me to advise clients on writing/selling calls options on direct shares. Even the use of self funding installment warrants was a no no. Also the purchase or sale of hybrid securities is allowed now, that's incredible. If bank planners are allowed to do these now, that's tremendous.

I would never have imagined a regular bank branch planner would be allowed to go down this path. I might investigate that further.

Also bank advisers can give recommendations on specific stocks and recommend sell or buys on them? Once again, that's a big departure from a few years ago and is a HUGE step forward.

 

Hi BigBuddha,

I don't know who you worked for a few years ago so I can't comment on their APL/advice restrictions. Obviously different licensees may restrict the level of advice their planners may give. SGB Planners can give advice on self funded instalments (eg, SMSFs with loans are a good example). Listed securities whether shares or hybrids can be advised on.

Not sure who you used to work for but it sounds very old school, eg, back in the 90s, insurance salespeople were basically "agents" for the insurance companies and could only sell that insurance company's insurance products. A few years ago, agency rules went out the window and if you are RG146 in insurance you can advise on any insurer.

Coming from a stockbroking background it blows me away that you couldn't advise on direct stocks but that's just what I'm used to.

Cheers,

Dan

 

Hmm... Interesting discussion

Thanks for all the input aswell.