Investment Management FAQs

It depends on portfolio size, complexity, and how much time you want to spend on it. If you have a modest balance in a low-cost index fund and you're comfortable with a buy-and-hold approach, you may not need ongoing advice. The case for a financial adviser strengthens as the portfolio grows, when investments span multiple asset classes or structures, when tax considerations become material, or when life is busy enough that staying on top of strategy isn't realistic. The right question is whether the value an adviser adds — through structure, tax efficiency, behavioural discipline, and time saved — exceeds what you'd pay for it.

Cost depends on what's involved. Advice on a single investment decision is straightforward to scope; ongoing portfolio management, multi-account structures, or complex tax situations take more work and reflect that. Our approach is to first understand what's actually involved in your circumstances, then provide transparent, upfront pricing before any work begins. Ongoing advice is typically structured as either a fixed retainer or a percentage of funds under advice — we'll discuss which works best for you based on the nature of the engagement.

A stockbroker executes trades and may provide research or recommendations on specific securities, but their relationship with you is generally transactional. A financial adviser builds a strategy around your overall financial goals — your investments are one part of a broader picture that includes tax, super, insurance, debt, and estate considerations. The adviser's role is ongoing and holistic; the broker's is typically execution-focused. Many sophisticated investors use both — an adviser to set the strategy and a broker to execute specific trades — but the planning and structural work sits with the adviser.

The process starts with understanding three things: your goals, your time horizon, and your tolerance for volatility. From there, we build a strategy that matches your risk profile to an appropriate asset allocation across cash, fixed income, equities, property, and alternatives where relevant. The specific investments are selected to fit that allocation — not chosen first and rationalised afterwards. Tax structure, whether assets sit inside super, an SMSF, a personal name, a company, or a trust, materially affects net returns and is built into the recommendation. The strategy is reviewed regularly as your circumstances and markets change.

Each has trade-offs. Managed funds offer professional active management and access to specialised strategies, with higher fees. ETFs provide low-cost, transparent exposure to indices or themes, with limited customisation. Direct shares give you full control and avoid fund-level fees but require more time, expertise, and emotional discipline to manage well. The right answer depends on portfolio size, your interest in active involvement, the tax structure you're investing through, and what you're trying to optimise. Most well-built portfolios use a combination — direct shares for tax-efficient core holdings, ETFs for cost-effective diversification, and managed funds where active management justifies the cost.

Most portfolios benefit from a structured review at least annually, with adjustments triggered by either material changes in your circumstances or significant moves in markets and tax legislation. More frequent reviews aren't always better — over-monitoring can encourage reactive decisions that hurt long-term returns. The closer you are to drawing on the portfolio (retirement, a major purchase, education funding), the more frequently the review pays off. Outside those windows, the discipline is to set the right strategy and let it work, while staying alert to changes that genuinely warrant a response.