Investment Advice Business Guide
Get Solutions, Not Just Problems
We documented 37 challenges in Investment Advice. Now get the actionable solutions — vendor recommendations, process fixes, and cost-saving strategies that actually work.
Skip the wait — get instant access
- All 37 documented pains
- Business solutions for each pain
- Where to find first clients
- Pricing & launch costs
All 37 Documented Cases
Produktivitätsverlust durch manuelle Erstellung von AFSL‑ und Best‑Execution‑Dokumentation
Logik‑Schätzung: 1.000–2.000 Stunden qualifizierte Mitarbeiterzeit pro Jahr für AFSL‑ und Best‑Execution‑Dokumentation und Nachweiszusammenstellung; bei durchschnittlichen Vollkosten von AUD 150 pro Stunde entstehen Personalkosten von ca. AUD 150.000–300.000 pro Jahr, die überwiegend nicht wertschöpfend sind.Zur Beantragung und Aufrechterhaltung einer AFSL müssen Unternehmen umfangreiche Core‑Proof‑Dokumente vorlegen, darunter organisatorische Kompetenznachweise, Finanzberichte (B5 Financial Statements and Financial Resources) sowie detaillierte Compliance‑ und Risiko‑Management‑Rahmenwerke.[1][3][4] ASIC beschreibt, dass AFS‑Lizenznehmer allgemeine Pflichten erfüllen müssen, darunter ausreichende Ressourcen, wirksame Compliance‑Vorkehrungen, angemessene Risikomanagementsysteme und aktuelle Aufzeichnungen.[6] Spezialanbieter wie Sophie Grace und MIntegrity haben sich darauf spezialisiert, AFSL‑Compliance‑Policies und prozedurale Dokumente zu erstellen und zu pflegen, was die Komplexität und den Umfang der erforderlichen Dokumentation verdeutlicht.[3][4] In vielen Investmenthäusern werden Best‑Execution‑Policies, Handelsleitfäden, Order‑Kontrollprotokolle und jährliche Reviews noch manuell erstellt, versioniert und per E‑Mail abgestimmt, was dazu führt, dass hochqualifizierte Fachkräfte (Responsible Managers, Compliance Officer, Desk Heads) signifikante Zeit in Dokumentationsarbeit statt in Kunden‑ oder Umsatzarbeit investieren. Aus internationalen Benchmarks im Finanzsektor lässt sich eine jährliche Belastung von mindestens 1.000–2.000 Stunden für ein mittelgroßes Haus ableiten, was bei typischen australischen Gehältern (inkl. Overheads) Personalkosten von etwa AUD 150–300 pro Stunde entspricht.
Nicht fakturierte Pauschalhonorare und laufende Servicegebühren
Quantified (logic-based): With ongoing advice median fee ~AUD 4,700 p.a. per client and 150 client relationships, a 5–10% non-billing rate results in AUD 35,000–70,000 p.a. in foregone revenue. Unbilled additional work at AUD 275–550/hour can easily add AUD 5,000–20,000 p.a. in lost billables.Flat and fixed fees for advice (including Statements of Advice, implementation and ongoing service retainers) are standard in Australia, typically between AUD 2,000–20,000 depending on scope and complexity.[3][6][4] ASIC’s MoneySmart examples show initial advice (SOA) around AUD 3,500–6,000 and ongoing advice around AUD 2,000–4,700 p.a. per client.[3][4] Where a practice manages 150 ongoing clients at a median ongoing fee of ~AUD 4,700 p.a., the theoretical recurring revenue is ~AUD 705,000. If 5–10% of clients are not billed in a given year due to missed reviews, lapsed authorities or admin oversight, this equates to AUD 35,000–70,000 in lost revenue. This is a logic-based extrapolation from public fee ranges and typical book sizes. Revenue leakage also arises when scope creep occurs (more complex work than agreed) but hourly or project fees are not adjusted or invoiced, especially given hourly rates often range between AUD 275–550 in Australia.[1][3][4][6] Missing a single annual retainer invoice of AUD 4,000–5,000 for 10 clients already means ~AUD 40,000–50,000 lost in that year.
Fehlende zeitbasierte Abrechnung bei Stundenhonoraren
Quantified (logic-based): Hourly rates typically AUD 275–550/hr.[1][3][4][6] Assuming 50–200 hours p.a. of untracked work per adviser due to poor timekeeping results in AUD 13,750–110,000 p.a. in lost billables per adviser (using AUD 275–550/hr).Australian guidance acknowledges hourly rates as a standard component of financial advice pricing, typically ranging from AUD 275–550 per hour for advisers.[1][3][4][6] The Financial Advice Association Australia’s guidance on apportionment methods stresses the need for “accurate, contemporaneous and robust” timekeeping where fees are calculated on an itemised hourly basis, especially to determine the tax-deductible portion of advice fees.[2] When such timekeeping is weak, advisers may exclude or under-record time spent on tax-related activities, research, strategy modelling or follow-up, which directly reduces the billed hours. For example, if an adviser with a nominal 1,000 billable-hour target per year loses 10–20% of time to untracked activities, that is 100–200 unbilled hours. At a realistic rate of AUD 300/hour, this equates to AUD 30,000–60,000 in lost potential revenue per adviser per year. Even at the lower end (AUD 275/hour and 50 unbilled hours), the leakage is ~AUD 13,750. These amounts are logic-based calculations grounded in published hourly rate ranges and common utilisation benchmarks.
Kundenabwanderung durch intransparente Quartalsberichte
Quantified: 5–15% advice client churn attributable in part to confusing or uncompetitive performance reporting, equating to ~AUD 50,000–150,000 annual recurring revenue loss on AUD 1 million fee base, scaling to AUD 0.5–1.5 million on AUD 10 million fee base.Industry commentary around quarterly and periodic reporting for investors stresses the need to interpret results against appropriate benchmarks and competitors, because raw percentage returns can be misleading without context.[7] In the aftermath of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry and subsequent reforms, Australian retail investors have become more sensitive to fee value and under‑performance, particularly in superannuation and managed investment products. APRA’s quarterly superannuation performance publication and the performance test regime have introduced a culture of explicit benchmarking, where under‑performing funds risk public naming and member outflows.[1] Advice clients receiving quarterly reports that lack clear benchmarks, do not align with APRA‑style or industry‑standard measures, or periodically change reference indices are more likely to distrust reported performance and to switch advisers or demand fee reductions. If an advice practice has AUD 1 million in annual recurring fees and loses 5–15% of ongoing clients over several years due in part to poor reporting transparency and perceived under‑performance, that equates to AUD 50,000–150,000 in annual revenue erosion, with additional acquisition costs to replace lost clients. Larger licensees with AUD 10 million+ in recurring fees face proportionally larger exposure.