Anecdotally, I had a similar experience and was hoping for something more tailored too.

In hindsight, some of the advice turned out to be beneficial, but the crux of the advice was not specifically what we wanted.

We realised much later that the outcome we wanted was much different from the advice given.

Also, the advisor soon thereafter sold the business and bought a small restaurant. We went to a boutique advisor thinking we would get a more tailored experience. Not the case.

I’d shop around for financial advisers, look for appropriate qualifications such as CFP and find someone you can relate too. I feel it’s the same for lawyers, accountants, doctors etc as it’s a long term relationship.

I do think many financial advisors are better are structuring than picking specific investments hence the guardrails that get put on them licencees'. It’s just not what you learn in a financial planning course though i’m sure there are some that do this very very well, just have to find them.

They need to know your risk tolerance both what you’re capable of taking and willing to take, your return expectations, your liquidity needs, tax situation all those things could feasibly impact on what investments you should hold plus others.

@shadow my understanding is that things have changed a lot post, the Royal Commission and more advanced learning requirements for the industry.

the upshot is that template advice will be the norm except for the exceptionally rich. that is you get customisation at much higher levels of FUM that incentivise the time required.

i don't use an IFA but if i did i would expect expert tax and social security knowledge and how i best work into those frameworks, trust planning etc, some ideas for asset allocation with a suite of mainly passive options, and i would not expect or particularly want stock tips. since it is a template based working around an existing portfolio becomes more time-consuming and i suspect less attractive to the IFA. to be clear, the new world means reducing your expectations, being the ironic conclusion of the industry changes.

G'day @shadow

My experience with my former industry colleagues is that they're generally nice people, well intentioned but the number one consideration when providing advice is first and foremost, producing a turgid, bland document (called a statement of advice) that is ASIC "bullet proof". Yes, the advice has to be pertinent to your circumstances, hence the undertaking of the risk assessment, insurance analysis, etc but I would argue that the advice is not outcome focused. It's an arse covering exercise.

And because the advice document is written to make the internal lawyers and ASIC happy, it's very, very lengthy. And that means it takes quite a bit of time to produce and you know who's going to pay for that, don't you?

There are some excellent advisors' who will customise the advice for you with clear strategies to achieve your goals, but you're likely going to have to pay well for the advice. I've got some tips below on how I would approach an advisor if ever I wanted advice.

It's also why I at least, steered clear of specific share advice when I was an advisor.. It was too difficult to get compliance signoff and I always felt that a stockbroker was better placed than me for specific stock recommendations.....and it was one less mouth in the fee clipping food chain as I used to tell my clients'.

As for the managed funds question. The evidence for active funds outperforming say, a Vanguard index fund over 10 years, is not good. And because we're talking about the future, not the past, it's a guess I'm afraid as to which active funds will beat the index over the next 10 or 20 years. And this is why the index fund argument is so compelling for most people.

My suggestion, whoever you choose to hire, is to take a slightly different approach to what most people do when they see an advisor. In my experience, most people still seek financial advice due to an event eg impending retirement, redundancy, inheritance, etc.

Their questions often can be answered by a Google search such as how much can we put into super, can I get the Age pension, how long will my money but I suspect it's a bit like the reason why people hire accountants....the advisor might know something I don't and I might miss out on [ fill in the blank]. I don't blame them for asking such routine questions as the advice industry has fostered this kind of behaviour for years and years and we (financial advisors) don't like being asked more difficult questions.

I would suggest that going to see a financial advisor is a really good thing to do, as long as you're prepared to be held accountable which if you're a member of Strawman, already demonstrates your preparedness to be held accountable!

My suggestions are:

Firstly, are you single or a couple? If you're a couple, you MUST involve your partner in the discussion. It's not an investing conversation. It's a collaboration about planning your future.

1. Make a list of your big financial goals that need money and planning to achieve. People usually have a few such as "we want $XX's for our lifestyle needs when we stop working", "we want work to be optional by age 62", "we want to drive along Route 66 on my 50th birthday". Personally, I would exclude paying off the mortgage in this list of big goals as it's a given that almost everybody wants to achieve and it should be factored into any Statement of advice in any event.
2. Assign specific dates for when you want to achieve the goals. It's more compelling if you have a date as opposed to "...in 5 years time".
3. Make an estimate of how much each of the goals will cost (in today's dollars).

Take your specific goal list, with specific dates you want to achieve them by and the amounts of money required to fund the goals to a financial advisor and give them the list, telling them you want them to hold you accountable to achieve your goals by the due dates. And you will hold them accountable for their advice.

It's a much better relationship because it's all about you and the outcomes you're looking for instead of "hey, let's switch out of fund X into fund Y because their performance has been better over the past year".

I would also suggest you negotiate a flat annual fee. Advisor service fees as a percentage, especially if you have a large sum to invest are a joke.

If you want to discuss with me further, send me a message and we can arrange a phone conversation

I'd point out there has been some change with SoAs I believe with the regulators coming round to the fact that the document is ridiculous and annoys most clients rather than being additive. I believe they are even moving to video SoAs as a possibility - where there is a summary of the document, and they then talk through the risks and advice.

I find this all interesting as may cut paraplanning costs re SEQ etc.

Thanks @Rocketrod great insight! Appreciate the suggestions - I'll go back with a more solid brief!

@Mujo good point, I've looked up a few more and will shop around!

Ah don't we all wish we got our personal army of lawyers and accountants :) Good point about the stock reccs - a misconception on my part! @Solvetheriddle

Ah thanks for sharing @umop3pisdn, great to hear other people's view on both sides of the fence.