Moonstone: Views on Risk Profiling
Last Monday’s article on the Smit determination, which involved an investment in the Dynamic Wealth MR Property Fund, certainly drew a lot of discussion. An experienced broker, and long time personal friend, sent me the following e-mail:
I chose not to comment on your article as I do not want to differ with you publicly. (These points are relevant to the discussion, and I appreciate the value it adds to the argument.)
For me, there are for 3 aspects to consider:
|
1. |
Property as an asset class and Risk. |
|
2. |
The Product Provider |
|
3. |
RISK PROFILING. |
The moral of the story for me – all us IFAs - is that we have to place more emphasis on risk profiling, even if for the sole purpose of protecting ourselves.
Is this a fair decision by the Ombud? It is hard to say. From my perspective, if I were the advisor, I definitely would not have recommended cash or income funds, given the market then, and the clients’ desire for extra return. That said, I would never have placed in a pure property fund, but would probably have used a combination of ‘low equity prudential’ and ‘fixed interest varied’ funds.
This is my honest and opinionated feedback which is probably wrong, but hopefully enough to help you a bit with this ongoing debate.
I am sure that many reading this will agree, while others will not. That is the nature of the advisory business. What is concerning is that many advisors are now going through the motions required to protect themselves against possible legal consequences, rather than do what is right for the client, which is what it all is supposed to be about, not so?
You are welcome to share your view, and see what others think, by clicking here.