Most of our superannuation is in straight-forward funds, which don't need much "management". But for historical reasons, we have some money in a "fund" (or is it, a "platform"?) and a financial adviser is involved. The returns on this have been disappointing. In musing about this, I considered just withdrawing it and combining it with our other funds. However, my sense of "fair play" (query if this is the right word!) prevailed, and I thought I ought to give the financial adviser an opportunity to "do something" before acting unilaterally.
Needless to say, the original adviser has moved on (perhaps he's made enough to retire on?), and a new person was involved. And, I'm not sure how it happened, but to put it bluntly: it was quite a lengthy session and involved discussing a much broader range of issues than I intended (something about the regulatory requirements requiring a full analysis of the issues, which I must admit kinda rang a bell somewhere). But do I really need to have a spread of funds, and be aware of the volatility index rating of each? And so on.
I'm still pondering what to do next...... I'm left with the uneasy feeling that someone, somewhere is paying for all this information! And since I seem to be the person at the end of the food chain - can you see what I'm getting at? Simplicity certainly still has its appeal.
You know what I would say- good advice has a price tested by its fruit- (this is one case where the past is a good guide to the future), and it is better to have one expert adviser with an excellent track record advise on an integrated allocation plan directly tailored to your personal situation than several managers all of whom are pedestrian and duplicating each other's modest brainwork. "Fund of finds" doesn't effectively diversify risk because they all tend to put a bit into the same buckets.
ReplyDelete