For those of you who are regular readers of the wisewomen blog, you may remember me having a little hissy fit via this blog over financial planning fees and commissions, how they were basically one and the same despite the different name. For those of you who haven’t read this diatribe click here to get you up to speed. Ok, everyone with me – read on.
With the passage of time (all 6 weeks of it!) and in the interests of walking the talk (my children often have a very eloquent lecture on learning to see things from someone else’s perspective in disagreements to develop their empathy – a key ingredient in harmonious relationships) I have decided to put on my financial planning hat to see the other side of the story. Well I think it’s an eloquent lecture – more often than not I am met by blank stares or groans that they are about to hear another of my life lesson lectures.
In my previous blog I offered no great solution for financial advice and a “one size fits all” approach to charging for such advice. I sill believe that an hourly rate, fee for service model is a good start but having delved a little deeper I think there is room to move on a fee structure which recognizes the sometimes irregular way that financial advice is undertaken and what efforts are behind that advice.
With financial advice, it is not straightforward when working out the time spent on a client’s interests. There is the face-to-face meeting to exchange information. Following that, there is a certain number of hours required for evaluating solutions, writing up the advice and of course, implementation. Often this time is in a block but it also can be rather piecemeal.
If the adviser monitors a portfolio then she can be looking at it on a regular basis, which makes it difficult to charge 10 minutes per day. Hence a regular payment (via a monthly retainer or yes, a percentage of assets under management fee model) can be a good way to overcome these inconsistencies. This ongoing fee can cover asset monitoring, annual reviews, client queries and administrative tasks rather than the need for constant billing.
The aim must be for clients to be satisfied with the cost. This happens when people feel happy they are getting value for money based on levels of service, the amount of work being done on their behalf and also effectiveness of the advice.
No doubt there are good and bad operators out there in financial planning land. The challenge has always been to find a “good” one and it is a request Nicky and I are often faced with – do you know a good financial planner? The most common way to find an adviser is through referrals….and even then your experience may not mirror the referee’s for many different reasons.
The industry continues to evolve. The government is in the last stages of bringing out final recommendations on reforms to financial advice (which may well form the basis of another blog – let’s call it the finale of my trilogy on fees). There is intense lobbying going on at both ends of the spectrum – by advisers wanting to protect their livelihoods and consumer groups interested in ensuring that advice can be affordable for ordinary Australians. Stay tuned for my third instalment!
Though a little irreverent I hope you enjoy this quote I found by comedian Jack Handey on criticism and seeing things from other’s perspective.
“Before you criticise someone you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticise them, you are a mile away from them and you have their shoes”
Have a great week.

