X
  • About
  • Advertise
  • Contact
Get the latest news! Subscribe to the ifa bulletin
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Risk
  • Events
  • Video
  • Promoted Content
  • Webcasts
No Results
View All Results
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Risk
  • Events
  • Video
  • Promoted Content
  • Webcasts
No Results
View All Results
No Results
View All Results
Home Opinion

10 lessons from Henderson Maxwell’s royal stuff-up

The royal commission evidence by Sam Henderson and his former client has implications for all financial advisers, especially those using managed accounts.

by Damien Klassen Nucleus Wealth
April 26, 2018
in Opinion
Reading Time: 6 mins read
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

This week’s royal commission proceedings had all the elements for some great headlines: a celebrity taken down,  a $500,000 stuff up, impersonating clients and fake degrees.

But what I want to talk about is managed accounts.

X

First, some context from Fairfax publications:

High-flying celebrity financial planner Sam Henderson’s world came crashing down on Tuesday as the banking royal commission heard he instructed his employees to impersonate a client and misrepresented his tertiary qualifications.

Mr Henderson, a regular host on Sky News Business, also failed to disclose a conflict of interest and gave advice to one client that was described as “risible,” the commission heard.

Client Donna McKenna, who is a Fair Work Commissioner, outlined just what it was like to be a client of Mr Henderson, a principal of a financial planning firm awarded “Practice of the Year”

 …

Ms McKenna said she was immediately put off by Mr Henderson’s hard sell of a self managed super fund loaded with fees that were far in excess of what she was currently paying. Ms McKenna said she had no interest of managing her own super and that Mr Henderson said: “We’ll look after it”.

Mr Henderson was also skewered for putting a large proportion of his client book into managed discretionary accounts that included direct shares and charged high fees.

It would seem to me that Henderson Maxwell is not unlike a range of other financial planning outfits in trying to bundle every client into a particular type of a managed account where:

  • The fees are usually large (2 per cent-ish)
  • The fees are often structured as personal advice fees rather than a product fee (which have some regulatory implications)
  • The financial adviser runs the portfolio for you, often using direct shares 

Some of these managed accounts are excellent – investment managers who have the experience and the capacity to research the stocks run the portfolios for the planning group. Direct share ownership can be tax advantageous. Having transparency is great. In the better cases, the total fees are closer to 1% than 2% and trading costs are cheap. 

Other times these managed accounts are run by an adviser with a full book of clients to call and write plans for, accompanied by a newspaper and gut feel for research, picking stocks on a Friday afternoon at the pub.  The trading fees are high, maybe the adviser gets “rebates” from the broker as a reward for having clients who pay a lot in brokerage.

In a typical case:

  • platform costs are usually around 0.2%-0.5%,
  • investment management fees are around 0.5-1.25%
  • the adviser gets the rest.

If the adviser is also picking the stocks, then the adviser takes the investment management fees as well, probably doubling the revenue to the adviser. But the client has gone from having a full-time investment team running their portfolio to a part-timer planner who may not have the same experience in portfolio construction, risk mitigation or stock valuation as they do in financial planning.

The Upshot

There can be big differences on the investment side of managed accounts: 

At one end you get low fees, transparency and professional management.

At the other end, you get high fees from an adviser with little investment process but a slick sales process.

For the high fee options, you usually need to be “sold” – a seduction process that will appeal to the heart rather than the head. 

If you have a managed account, are thinking of getting one, here are my tips:

1. Check the brokerage. It should be cheaper than you would pay with an online broker – probably much cheaper. If it is more then you may want to ask some questions about how payments are made and whether your planner gets kickbacks from the broker. Check how much the typical brokerage is for your size of account – for some accounts, this can be the largest cost. Brokerage is often hidden – the better managers will be upfront with the costs, the worse ones will pretend brokerage costs don’t exist. 

2. Check the platform costs. You shouldn’t be paying more than 0.5%. 

3. Check who is actually managing your money.  If you are paying for professional investment management, make sure that it is not being done by a salesperson in their spare time rather than by experienced, dedicated managers.

4. Check the investment process. There are a number of different investment strategies that work over time. The overwhelming majority of these have a process that is followed. When you see something like “XYZ planning is a style neutral investment manager looking to invest in investments that match its thematic view” what they are really saying is that they will buy whatever they want whenever they want and there is no real investment process.  It may work out well. It often doesn’t. 

5. Check the investment constraints. There should be some. You want to know that they can’t bundle too much of your money into one investment, and so there should be constraints like “no more than x% in any one stock”. You want to know that there are also limits to asset classes. For example, you don’t want to see Cash: 0-100% Australian Equities: 0-100% as the limits – meaning that the investment manager can do whatever they want. 

6. Check your internal manager costs. If your adviser is putting you into other manager’s products, make sure you understand whether there are also underlying costs. Say you are paying 1.25% for a managed account with adviser ABC which invests in a model portfolio run by a fund manager XYZ. In some cases the 1.25% will include XYZ’s management fees, in other cases, XYZ’s fee will be an addition to the 1.25%.

7. Check performance fees and conditions. If you are paying performance fees then you should have lower base fees. You should also have a highwater mark and a benchmark that actually reflects the return the portfolio should make.    

8. Check investment performance.  This should be of the model portfolio, assessed by a third party – probably the platform provider. Be very wary of advisers who offer (as evidence of performance) individual accounts not assessed by a third party – these can be “cherry picked” and may include assets that typical portfolios didn’t own. Past performance should not be the only thing you look at, but it can be helpful.

9. Check risk metrics.  Your investment manager should have some. Now, I know there are issues with risk metrics and they don’t tell the full story. However, if your manager isn’t even watching ratios like volatility, relative return, tracking error,  sharpe ratios then it is a sign that you have a part-timer running your money. High returns are good, but if your investment manager is using your money like he/she is at the casino then you want to know. 

10. Check related parties. Who else gets paid. The worst ones are where low fees in one part of an operation are used as a bait for other divisions to make money.  Accountancy fees, brokerage fees, platform fees, life insurance commissions, mortgage broking fees can all generate tens of thousands for financial organisations. Say you have $400,000 in an industry fund paying 0.8% ($3,200 per year). You might move to a managed account provider at 1.1% ($4,400 per year), with the tax benefits / transparency / customisation more than paying for the 0.3% difference in fees. However, if you are also paying $5,000 per year in accountancy costs on a new SMSF and another $5,000 in life insurance commissions then the equation might not look so balanced.

Damien Klassen is Head of Investments at Nucleus Wealth

Related Posts

Image: Bombora Advice

The age of underinsurance and the consumer gap we cannot ignore

by Niall McConville
November 17, 2025
1

From an industry perspective, it’s a consumer gap that threatens our long-term sustainability if left unchecked. Rising premiums are compounding...

Why we must be optimistic about the barriers to advice

by Neil Rogan
November 10, 2025
0

Financial advice in Australia is often perceived as something people hesitate to engage with, however there is cause for greater...

The rise of model portfolios: Global trends and developments

by Kathleen Gallagher and Sinead Schaffer
November 3, 2025
0

Model portfolios have shifted from niche to mainstream, both in the US and Australia, marking a major change in the...

Comments 25

  1. Anonymous says:
    8 years ago

    Advisers using managed accounts to take more revenue out of the value chain – the professional investment manager. Ticking time bomb….

    Reply
  2. Anonymous says:
    8 years ago

    Snore, do we have disclosure from IFA as to how much this goonie paid for the advertising puff piece? Or is IFA that hard up for content that they’ll take anything they can get??

    Reply
  3. AMP adviser says:
    8 years ago

    Count financial had a policy put everyone in smsf via a badged BT wrap. 1% platform, 1% managed fund fees plus up to 1.5% adviser service fee. That’s 3.5% plus they need to pay the Planner/accountant annual accounting fees…client can pay $5k plus more p.a than going into a Wholesale super or industry super fund, all for the privilege of ‘control’.

    Reply
    • Anonymous says:
      8 years ago

      Hmmm, Count Wealth Accountants….the one’s who would make you have every single client sign a release form if you wanted to check out & move to a new AFSL. I wonder how much all those little trails that were uneconomic for advisers to chase ended up in Count’s bank account? Millions? Tens of millions? Who was Barry looking after with that policy? The client? nope. The adviser? definitely not. Turn your back on Barry and u will pay. Barry? You betcha. No wonder he sold out for millions…

      Reply
  4. Anonymous says:
    8 years ago

    This guy was the golden boy of the FPA and others. Here again is concrete proof that EDUCATION is not the issue and that the FPA is a waste of time, money and consideration.
    What a joke. What a farce.
    This guy should be banned and this industry needs to rid itself of the FPA and the AFA along with its course flogging and high fees.

    Reply
    • Reality says:
      8 years ago

      Why…? The guy lied about having a Masters degree… If anything this proves the opposite lol

      Reply
    • Anonymous says:
      8 years ago

      There is no chance that the education requirements will be eased after the revelations from the RC. No matter what you think, the pollies, regulators, media & general public have an opposing view.

      Just wait until Labor get in at the next election (based on current polling) to see what those dipshits will have in store. These revelations will give them all the ammo they need to shift even more clients into Union Super Funds. Things will only get worse for advisers under Labor

      Reply
  5. For the people says:
    8 years ago

    Some great points for clients to take head of. Your note on professional management is paramount for any investment management fee charged, rather than financial advisers moonlighting as investment advisers when they get time. What professional management is engaged for 0.64% in Nucleus’ case? Where are the credentials for an investor to review credentials in a transparent manner on your website? Who gets the 0.64%? More questions, but ones worth including in any such article.

    Reply
  6. Anonymous says:
    8 years ago

    Plenary of them. And if you have scale sizeable client can be under 0.25%

    Reply
  7. Anonymous says:
    8 years ago

    Fix the issues once and for all offer a 3 month moratorium on amount of fines and disciplinary action for any other business to come forward that has been receiving ongoing commission for no reiviews etc- if you have been a planner over the last 20 odd years you can name many. Unfortunately ASIC in its present format does not have the investigative compacity to drill down into the industry. There are many mid tier banks , insurance companies and credit unions that need to put there hands up

    Reply
    • Anonymous says:
      8 years ago

      Oh mate there would be more conducting ‘fee for no service’ than not. Always driven me nuts, glad its coming to light finally.

      Reply
  8. Anonymous says:
    8 years ago

    You can have any colour as long as its black!

    Reply
  9. BB says:
    8 years ago

    Ah, the old “look at me, I’m independent”. The only difference to the banks and many so called independents is that the latter is better at vertical integration!

    Reply
    • SD says:
      8 years ago

      He isn’t independent though, just ‘non-aligned’. Big difference.

      Reply
      • Anonymous says:
        8 years ago

        He isn’t non aligned either. His company has its own products. As do most accounting firms providing SMSFs. It’s vertical integration on a smaller scale than AMP or CBA.

        Reply
  10. Anonymous says:
    8 years ago

    Sounds like a certain mob who run their own IMAs who have offices in Ballina, Brisbane, Bundaberg, Canberra, Gold Coast, Hervey Bay and Tamworth. Everyone gets a SMSF.

    Reply
    • Anonymous says:
      8 years ago

      Funny. I know who you’re talking about. That would be a certain stockbroking mob, renamned & rebranded & masquerading as planners taking 30% of any performance made above the RBA cash rate + advice fees + portfolio admin fees + brokerage costs for active mgt. Then paying kickbacks to Accountants, whilst telling their clients to ignore the CGT implications of there trades as it’s the total return that matters. mmmm professional I think we’re some years off. Don’t you?

      Reply
      • Graham says:
        8 years ago

        Middletons? Or are they only in SA?

        Reply
  11. Anonymous says:
    8 years ago

    Linear, Praemium, Mason Stevens, Netwealth, Hub24, lots of others. Most have tiered structures so that you get down below 0.3% once you are over $1m.

    Reply
    • Anonymous says:
      8 years ago

      If I had over a million why even use a platform just go direct or even better Commsec platform product is a flat fee. although I do not like Commsec

      Reply
      • Anonymous says:
        8 years ago

        Thats to hold the assets, but who’s going to manage the investment decisions, the asset allocations & the portfolio rebalancing? Plus how do you make it scaleable to run your business efficiently?

        As the article has pointed out, is it just the financial planner giving the advice that is doing all these things? While at the same time managing all the other aspects of the business & seeing clients.

        Reply
    • Anonymous says:
      8 years ago

      once you are over $1mill… plenty of advisers trying to assist clients in need most (those under $1mill)

      Reply
  12. Anonymous says:
    8 years ago

    platform fee of .5% ? with the ability to access those full list investment strategies. please tell me who so I can start using them

    Reply
    • Anonymous says:
      8 years ago

      HUB24 mate – give them a shout

      Reply
      • Anonymous says:
        8 years ago

        Cheers

        Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

VIEW ALL
Promoted Content

Private Credit in Transition: Governance, Growth, and the Road Ahead

Private credit is reshaping commercial real estate finance. Success now depends on collaboration, discipline, and strong governance across the market.

by Zagga
October 29, 2025
Promoted Content

Boring can be brilliant: why steady investing builds lasting wealth

Excitement sells stories, not stability. For long-term wealth, consistency and compounding matter most — proving that sometimes boring is the...

by Zagga
September 30, 2025
Promoted Content

Helping clients build wealth? Boring often works best.

Excitement drives headlines, but steady returns build wealth. Real estate private credit delivers predictable performance, even through volatility.

by Zagga
September 26, 2025
Promoted Content

Navigating Cardano Staking Rewards and Investment Risks for Australian Investors

Australian investors increasingly view Cardano (ADA) as a compelling cryptocurrency investment opportunity, particularly through staking mechanisms that generate passive income....

by Underfive
September 4, 2025

Join our newsletter

View our privacy policy, collection notice and terms and conditions to understand how we use your personal information.

Poll

This poll has closed

Do you have clients that would be impacted by the proposed Division 296 $3 million super tax?
Vote
www.ifa.com.au is a digital platform that offers daily online news, analysis, reports, and business strategy content that is specifically designed to address the issues and industry developments that are most relevant to the evolving financial planning industry in Australia. The platform is dedicated to serving advisers and is created with their needs and interests as the primary focus.

Subscribe to our newsletter

View our privacy policy, collection notice and terms and conditions to understand how we use your personal information.

About IFA

  • About
  • Advertise
  • Contact
  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Collection Notice
  • Privacy Policy

Popular Topics

  • News
  • Risk
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Promoted Content
  • Video
  • Profiles
  • Events

© 2025 All Rights Reserved. All content published on this site is the property of Prime Creative Media. Unauthorised reproduction is prohibited

No Results
View All Results
NEWSLETTER
  • News
  • Opinion
  • Podcast
  • Risk
  • Events
  • Video
  • Promoted Content
  • Webcasts
  • About
  • Advertise
  • Contact Us

© 2025 All Rights Reserved. All content published on this site is the property of Prime Creative Media. Unauthorised reproduction is prohibited