Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
On the contrary, I live in a regional centre (pop 55,000) which actually has a demographic bias to people on welfare, so couldn't be more opposite to your suggestion.Maybe where you live its quite different which is fair enough, you may be in a well educated suburb of a major capital city - big stereotype there by me but i'll put down a hunch that i'm right haha.
I agree, however, that you'd on the whole find more financially aware people in the sort of environ you describe.
And there you have probably the essence of the problem. It's circular. As long as Joe Average considers what he has to be not worth his interest, thus it will continue.I have found in general that the Average person will have less than $100K to retire on so the help of an F/A is pretty limited. Joe Average at this level has little or no interest in his finances--he doesnt have a lot to be interested in.
"Fanciful" amounts of hours? Such as?I find it more common that people who have put fanciful amounts of hours
Time certainly doesn't. I don't believe you can equally dismiss the results of education.into investing over the years still fail to do better than many of the passive alternatives available to them. Time and education alone do not garantee results and a lot of it comes down to temperament - which cannot be taught.
On the Storm Financial thread, one burned investor said he had done months and months of research.
I asked if could share with us the nature of this research. The response was in essence that he'd taken the Storm strategy to various financial advisers and his bankers.
He did what he thought best, obviously, but to my mind that is not research. The strategy involved borrowing heavily against the home, buying shares in a Storm badged index fund with that money and then taking out a margin loan against those shares purchased with that borrowed money.
Surely you don't need anyone to tell you that investing in a volatile entity with double gearing is hugely risky? There was no real 'education' required, just a modicum of common sense.
So your suggestion that temperament plays a part is reasonable.
That's rather a wide generalisation. Diversification is not everything. Markets are cyclical. Imo when e.g. real estate is rising more than shares, it makes more sense to be in real estate and vice versa.Financial planners create diversification not wealth.
And there comes a time, especially in retirement, when capital preservation is the most logical priority. If that means moving to cash for the appropriate time, then that makes more sense to me than being 'diversified' into areas which are losing money.
That certainly applies to full service brokers, but probably not to financial planners et al who charge a % of FUM.This is true of brokers, FP, banks, anyone. The more money you are worth to them, the more they are going to tailor a portfolio to you rather than just taking a cookie-cutter approach. I don't know about FP's but most brokers consider a HNW client someone with at least $4-5m. And obviously you have to be trading frequently enough so they can clip the ticket.
Or woefully incorrect advice as was experienced by clients of Storm Financial who paid 7% commission on FUM.HNW clients are always going to be preferred by F/A's cos they are typically more willing to fork out for quality advice.
Yes, you're right, much as I rail against it. I come across people with money in public super funds who do not even know what option they have, eg balanced, conservative, growth etc. I ask, and they just look blankly at me.I'm just saying that majority do not do this at the moment and that while the landscape is changing, its a slow process because the old adage that accounting/finance/numbers are dry and boring means people take a hands off approach and leave it to the 'professionals'. Note professionals is in quotes as finding an honest and quality financial planner who is actually a professional isn't as easy as many would hope, mind you many are trying to rectify it.
I know I'm in danger of trying everyone's patience here with my irritation at this, but hell, it's not as if they're uninterested in politics, or learning a new language etc. The low levels of Super that most people have should worry them enough to do something about it. My frustration comes not from the people who are intellectually or socially disadvantaged, but those who are well educated, have successful careers in their chosen field, yet continue to say "oh god, I can't believe how little Super I have" yet do absolutely nothing about changing this.
The demographics of an aging population suggest the old age pension will have to become inadequate in a couple of decades, so the pressure is absolutely there to not depend on it.