Skip to main content

What's Not Said

If you've been reading this blog, you will recall that I've been taking a hard look at my mutual fund portfolio and ultimately decided to change companies and financial advisors.

I'd been thinking over how things unfolded since I sat down with my advisor to ask about where the money was after about 10 years with them. Even in that first meeting, I came away feeling very disturbed by the answers I got. The metrics that were presented to me, and that I was dissuaded from looking at, just didn't make sense.

Now that I have decided to switch advisors, there came the inevitable customer retention call. It focussed on the penalty of switching advisors -- a type of penalty I was encouraged to take when I first moved my portfolio over. She didn't really have to liquidate to change them all to their company funds, but she advised me to cut losses and get into a better portfolio.
Now that I'm cutting losses to switch to a better portfolio (again), she's pulled out the spectre of immediate losses.

In our earlier face-to-face meeting she did look at total returns after the 10 years and tried to tell me what I'd gained was good, and that the bottom line was "I made you money".

What seems to have been carefully omitted in all of this is an analysis of the return over time. She's said before that I would have to dredge up old statements and look up the returns year by year to account for monies invested each year.
Why can't -- or won't (?) -- she do that? I admit it's partly my fault that I didn't do it. But she could have gotten her assistant to pull the numbers. She's tried to say it's a complicated process, but it wasn't hard to do from my 2008-2010 quarterly statements.

Without the actual numbers to work with, I went with estimates, and the rate of return is probably less than 5% over the 10 years. That is, if you compounded the money invested (taking into account money that was put in over time) at 5% per year for 10 years, I'd end up with approximately the figure I have sitting in the portfolio now. Obviously the portfolio had lots of ups and downs, but it's a convenient measure of how well (or poorly, in this case) an investment is performing.

I read the projections for cashing out again, and if they're accurate, I could make it up in about a day in a good fund. The capital gains would be another thing. $8,000 in gains might end up being over $1,000 in tax.
In any case, if I don't cut losses now, I'll be stuck in a severely underperforming portfolio and with a manager I no longer trust to be looking after my best interest -- especially as she's insisting she's given me a good return while pulling out dubious benchmarks to prove it.
Some of the funds I'm in have not performed well for a long time now. She's said before that she was buying low and waiting for highs. That sounds like good advice, but after 10 years, obviously that strategy hasn't worked out so well.
My financial advisor insists that the company's funds are competitive with the wider mutual fund market. But if so... why is my rate of return less than 5%. Why can't we have an objective look at what the returns are year after year? It's awfully strange that the company can't pull out that data or reprint old reports.

She's provided great customer service, and has been friendly and generous with her time, but in the end, sad to say, it comes down to "show me the money".

People often advise never to do business with friends. Maybe there's something to be said about not becoming friends with the people you do business with?

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Trafalgar's European Explorer 2006 memoirs part 3

A picture from my 2006 trip, a Trafalgar 's bus tour, on an itinerary called the European Explorer. I can't remember why I had this couple in the picture, but I do vaguely remember this to be in London, on the first official day of the tour group getting together. Their insistence on my helping them take a picture caused the three of us to be late getting back to the bus. The local tour guide had a "rule" about lateness, that we had to buy chocolate to share with everyone. As it turned out, later in the trip, on at least two occasions, we were stuck on the highway on either a long commute or a traffic jam, and I had chocolate and chocolate-covered marzipan to share. About the chocolate-covered marzipan -- Apparently we were in Austria just as they were celebrating Mozart's birthday with special marzipans wrapped in foil with the famous composer's picture. I'm pretty sure it was Mirabell Mozartkugeln . Anyway, there were enough to go around the en

Trafalgar's European Explorer 2006 memoirs part 10

The last of my pictures (at least the ones that survived the cheesy disposable cameras) from my 2006 trip, a Trafalgar 's bus tour, on an itinerary called the European Explorer. Below is the obligatory group photo. Not sure everyone's in it, actually. I'm pretty sure this one was taken by the tour director, Mike Scrimshire as I'm in the back row, on the right side.

Trafalgar's European Explorer 2006 memoirs part 9

More assorted couples on my 2006 trip, a Trafalgar 's bus tour, on an itinerary called the European Explorer. An American couple who joked about being from "the land of the giants" -- and with good reason, because both of them were really tall! A cute Jewish mother-daughter pair who ducked out part-way to divert to Israel. I vaguely remember the issue of the daughter being an orthodox Jew was highlighted in France when, to make things easy, she just declared herself vegetarian for the wait staff. I also remember there was some logistics error in France because our party size was way underestimated or simply relayed incorrectly, and there was a shortage of food at dinner. Dessert came as an unopened can of yogurt. It did not seem like they tried to make it up to us later, either. Plus there was smoking every which way in France, and I had a helluva time with that. We were also in a hotel that seemed tucked away in the burbs, and not walking distance from anythin