Role of advice missing from savings debate

Good on Tate and the IFA for raising this issue that advice does help. While few investors have the knowledge to make the right decisions, all investors have the right to make knowledgeable decisions. Good advice achieves it.

I challenge whoever chc is and anyone in the profession, whether history can give documentary evidence that "advice does help!"
I agree that few investors would have sufficient knowledge to make the right decisions, however, no-one can be expected to make no mistakes (i.e. always the right decisions.

This matter needs to be kept in true perspective, and it must be asked "how really well versed are 'advisers' that they can claim to really add the necessary value to a clients portfolio to justify the fees?"
eg; a decade or so ago, the projected returns for a custom balanced portfolio were supposed to be in the range of 5% to 7%pa, with a time horizon of 6 to 8 years being applied to a mid to long term.
Today the same portfolio is subject to tighter regulations and projects 5% to 7%pa with the time horizon "pole" being pushed out to more like 10 to 14 years for long term!
In an informal chat with a selection of financial advisers around the country over a few years I recorded several who said they took a rather conservative approach and were targeting around 3% to 5%pa for a longer term approach.

A high percentage of those advisers did not even know (understand) that "inflation" only existed as a 'word' and subsequently built clients portfolios based on what they had been conditioned to think that assets such as property and shares actually "inflated" in value?

The result has proven to be a general disaster for the adviser/client relationship, and now the "great fix" solution is supposed to be forced on the profession in the form of regulation and extra qualifications as all are forced to go back to school on the topic.

I am fully supportive of advice to investors, however, I remain skeptical that the "education" being given to the advisers is just not correct nor adequate enough to be truly effective, and the result I suggest is that history shall repeat?

I challenge for one thing, how many advisers out there still believe that "inflation" exists as a reality, and not just a word?

To help, should "inflation" not be replaced more accurately as "money devaluation?"

That is just one example of where I see serious shortfalls in understanding facts, and all of this is seemingly set to be destined to being "clouded over" by this new thrust on regulation.
As if we did not have regulation before....e.g. every Finance Company had a prospectus (with associated trustees who were supposed to provide the required "trust" for investors) and that was the ultimate "regulation!"

So, if your adviser provided a portfolio which returned you 5%pa and took a 1% fee that left you with 4% return, but that damned "inflation" ruined the whole thing?
Michael Donovan