The Rise of ETFs and Passive Investing
ETFs have revolutionized the funds management industry globally and in Australia. These instruments originated in the 1990s but saw explosive growth in the 2010s and beyond. An ETF offers the diversification of a managed fund with the trading flexibility of a stock. Investors, including advisers constructing portfolios, have flocked to ETFs primarily for their low cost, transparency, and convenience. Globally, the ETF industry reached an astounding total of around US$14.8 trillion in assets by the end of 2024. Growth has been driven by record-breaking net inflows – nearly US$1.9 trillion of new money flowed into ETFs in 2024 alone. The appeal of ETFs includes features like intra-day liquidity (investors can buy or sell throughout the trading day at market prices) and typically lower management fees compared to traditional active funds (since many ETFs track broad market indices). Fundamental factors such as transparency, liquidity, attractive fees, and even tax efficiency in certain jurisdictions have powered the expansion of ETFs.
In Australia, ETFs have similarly gained popularity. While the Australian ETF market is smaller in absolute terms (surpassing A$100 billion in recent years and continuing to grow), it mirrors global trends. Initially, ETFs were mostly used for equity index tracking (like ASX 200 index ETFs, S&P 500 ETFs), but now the lineup includes bond ETFs, commodity ETFs, currency ETFs, and more. For advisers, ETFs offer a quick way to implement asset allocation at low cost. For example, instead of picking a managed fund with a 1% fee, one could choose an ETF that charges 0.1% to get similar exposure to, say, Australian shares. The trade-off is that ETFs are usually passive (aim to match index performance, not beat it). However, as assets in passive products have swollen, it has prompted a rethinking of active management’s role and cost structure.
One burgeoning development is the advent of Active ETFs. These are funds where an active manager’s strategy is wrapped in the ETF format. Initially, there were regulatory and technical challenges to launching active ETFs (since active managers didn’t want to disclose their portfolios daily, fearing front-running or revealing their “secret sauce”). But solutions have been found (like semi-transparent ETF structures in the U.S., or simply accepting daily disclosure with baskets). By 2024, active ETFs comprised a growing share of new fund launches. In the US, active ETFs made up about 8% of ETF assets but were responsible for almost half of the net inflows in 2024 – indicating strong investor appetite. In markets like Australia and Canada, regulators have also embraced active ETFs, and indeed in 2024 the number of new active ETF listings outpaced passive ones. This suggests a convergence where the line between “mutual fund” and “ETF” is blurring: increasingly, whatever you could get in a traditional fund (active stock picking, multi-asset strategies, etc.) is becoming available in an ETF wrapper. For advisers, this means more choice and flexibility – one can stick with an ETF-centric implementation without being limited to pure index strategies.
Looking forward, ETF growth is expected to continue at double-digit rates. Projections cited by industry analysts foresee global ETF assets potentially reaching around US$25 trillion by 2030. Factors fueling this include product innovation (ETFs for new themes or asset classes), greater adoption by institutional investors and retail alike, and expansion into new markets (for example, more countries developing ETF markets). We also see niche developments like thematic ETFs (focused on themes like clean energy, robotics, or demographics), factor or smart beta ETFs (targeting factors like value, momentum, low volatility in a rules-based way), and even novel structures such as single-stock ETFs (offering leveraged or inverse exposure to a single stock, which have appeared overseas). These innovations can be double-edged swords – while they offer tools for fine-tuned strategies, they also require advisers to understand the complexities and risks (e.g., leveraged ETFs are generally for short-term trading, not long-term investing, due to daily reset features).
In Australia, one significant trend is the increasing use of ETFs within superannuation and managed account platforms. Managed Discretionary Account (MDA) services and robo-advice platforms often use ETFs to build cost-effective portfolios for clients. This democratizes access to diversified portfolios even at lower balances. ETFs are also used by active managers themselves (e.g., an Australian equities fund manager might use an S&P/ASX 200 ETF to equitize cash or get quick market exposure before gradually buying individual stocks).
From a regulatory perspective, ASIC keeps an eye on the rapid growth of ETFs to ensure retail investors understand what they’re buying. Generally, plain index ETFs are straightforward, but inverse or synthetic ETFs come with additional risk that must be disclosed. So far, issues have been minimal and ETFs functioned well even during volatile periods (with some minor exceptions around discounts/premiums in stress events). The resilience of the ETF ecosystem through periods like the March 2020 COVID crash has given regulators more confidence in these products’ stability.
Sustainable Investing and ESG Funds
Another transformative trend in investment markets is the surge of sustainable investing, often encapsulated by the acronym ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) investing. Investors are increasingly not only seeking financial returns but also looking to invest in line with their values or to drive positive change on issues like climate change, social justice, or corporate governance practices. Funds management has responded with a proliferation of ESG-focused funds, including both actively managed sustainability-themed funds and passive ESG index trackers.
By numbers, sustainable investing has grown markedly. For instance, in the United States, over $6.5 trillion was identified as invested in strategies marketed as sustainable or ESG as of early 2024, representing roughly 12% of total assets under professional management in the US. In Europe, the share is even higher due to regulatory drivers like the EU’s Sustainable Finance Disclosure Regulation (SFDR) which has encouraged fund managers to categorize and report on ESG integration. Australia has also seen a rise in ESG funds and options, though the market is smaller; many superannuation funds now offer a “Socially Responsible” or “Sustainable” investment option to members, for example. Globally, large asset managers (BlackRock, Vanguard, State Street, etc.) have launched multiple ESG versions of flagship index funds, and boutique managers have launched funds targeting everything from clean energy to gender diversity.
The performance of sustainable funds has been a subject of much analysis. In the past, a common belief was that choosing ethical investments meant sacrificing returns. Recent studies and market experience have challenged that notion. At times, ESG-focused indices have matched or even outperformed broad market indices, particularly if fossil fuel-heavy sectors underperform or if companies with strong ESG practices prove more resilient. For instance, during certain periods of market volatility, companies with better governance and stakeholder relationships may have fared better. However, it’s not a uniform rule – there have also been periods (like early 2022 when energy stocks soared) where ESG funds lagged due to underweighting traditional energy. Advisers should thus present sustainable investing as one approach that can be compatible with competitive returns, but also clarify that ESG funds will have return differences (positive or negative) relative to non-ESG benchmarks because of their portfolio tilts or exclusions.
Greenwashing has emerged as a concern. This is where a fund or company overstates its green credentials without genuine action or impact. Regulators including ASIC and the SEC have started scrutinizing ESG claims closely. The SEC proposed rules to standardize ESG fund disclosures in the US, and ASIC has warned it will take action against misleading marketing in this space. The FCA in the UK similarly is working on sustainable fund classification and labeling to avoid investor confusion. This means advisers need to carefully vet ESG funds – looking into how the fund actually implements ESG (Is it exclusionary screening? Best-in-class selection? Active ownership and engagement? Impact investing targeting specific outcomes?), and whether that aligns with the client’s intentions. For example, a client might say they want to invest ethically; the adviser should clarify whether this means avoiding all fossil fuel investments, or engaging with companies to improve, or focusing on specific themes like renewable energy – then choose an appropriate fund.
There’s also an interesting dynamic in the sustainable investing trend – a sort of backlash and polarization in some markets. The Oliver Wyman “Tale of two ESG camps” notes that in 2024 we saw both a pushback (some in the U.S. especially politicized ESG, claiming focus on “anti-oil” or “woke” agendas hurts returns) and an intensification among true believers. The outcome is that ESG investing is bifurcating: one camp is integrating ESG broadly into investment processes for risk management and better long-term decision making (without necessarily marketing products as “ESG”, just embedding it into how they run all funds), and another camp is offering targeted ESG products for clients who actively demand them, such as climate transition funds or impact funds. For advisers, knowing their client is key – some clients may not prioritize ESG at all (in which case it might still factor into the fund selection just as a risk lens, but not as a selling point), whereas others will explicitly want to allocate to sustainable funds. The CPD standard for advisers now increasingly includes understanding ESG and ethical investment issues, as it’s become part of providing comprehensive advice and meeting client preferences.
Technological Innovation and Fintech in Funds Management
Technology is reshaping how investment products are distributed and managed. Robo-advice platforms have grown, offering automated portfolio management often implemented with managed funds or ETFs. These platforms use algorithms to assess a client’s risk tolerance and goals, then propose a portfolio (usually of low-cost ETFs across asset classes). The result is a low-cost, user-friendly investment management service accessible to those with smaller balances who might not engage a human adviser. Traditional advisers can view robo-advisers as either competition or a complement – some advisory firms use robo technology to service smaller clients or to handle simpler parts of their offering. The key trend is that digital tools are lowering barriers to entry for investing and increasing transparency (clients can often log in and see their portfolio performance in real time, aggregated across funds, something that was harder in the past).
Within funds management companies, data analytics, artificial intelligence (AI), and machine learning are increasingly used to inform investment decisions and operational efficiencies. Quantitative funds have been doing this for years, but now even fundamental managers use AI to parse news or analyze satellite imagery for economic indicators. While this might not directly affect what advisers recommend, it does mean some funds may tout AI-driven strategies or factor-based models. It’s a cutting-edge area that might yield new types of funds (for example, funds powered by AI stock selection) – advisers should remain appropriately skeptical and examine track records, as some may be more hype than substance.
Blockchain and distributed ledger technology have also been talked about in relation to fund management (like the idea of tokenized funds or using blockchain for fund administration to improve efficiency). So far mainstream adoption is nascent, but one could envision a future where an investor holds tokenized units of a managed fund, transferable on a blockchain – potentially adding liquidity or fractional flexibility. A few funds internationally have experimented with this, but regulatory frameworks are still catching up.
Alternative Assets and Private Markets Access
Traditionally, retail investors had limited access to alternative assets like private equity, venture capital, real estate beyond REITs, and private credit. This is changing. Funds management trends indicate an increasing democratization of alternatives. We see the growth of listed private equity vehicles, interval funds (in the US) for loans or property that allow periodic redemptions, and unlisted trust offerings in Australia for infrastructure or private credit accessible to retail (often with minimum investment sizes that an adviser can help clients meet via platforms). The motivation is clear: alternatives can provide diversification and potentially higher returns or income uncorrelated with public markets, which is attractive, especially in low-yield environments or volatile equity markets.
Private credit, for example, has boomed as banks pulled back some lending – private funds stepped in to lend directly to businesses (private credit funds). As one trend piece noted, the “golden age of private credit” continues with even more expansion as regulations like Basel III cause banks to shun certain lending, creating opportunity for private funds. While many private credit funds target institutional investors, some are now available to high-net-worth or retail (with constraints). In advising clients, these asset classes come with caveats: they are often illiquid (funds might lock capital for 5-7 years), lack transparency, and have higher fees (and risks) – so they are usually only for more sophisticated clients and in modest portfolio allocations. However, as these become more packaged in managed fund formats, advisers might consider them for clients seeking extra diversification.
Infrastructure funds and real estate funds (beyond listed REITs) have also become common in the retail space (e.g., unlisted property funds in Australia that invest in commercial properties, or global infrastructure funds focusing on toll roads, utilities etc. paying yield). They fill a niche for income-focused investors. The emerging trend is also the blending of private and public assets in one vehicle – for instance, some new funds combine listed stocks with a sleeve of private equity or hold listed bonds plus some direct loans, to try to get the best of both worlds. It’s an innovation area but can complicate liquidity.
Convergence of Industry and Regulatory Trends
Globally, the funds industry is also seeing consolidation and efficiency drives. Margins for asset managers have been pressured by the rise of passive investing. Many active management firms have had to justify their fees by improving performance or cutting fees. We’ve seen some mergers in the fund management space and also a push into multi-asset solutions (where an asset manager doesn’t just offer single funds, but a whole portfolio or outcome-based fund – like a target-date fund for retirement or an all-weather fund). This aligns with advisers and clients who often seek simpler, packaged solutions. For example, a target-date retirement fund automatically adjusts its asset allocation as the target date (retirement year) approaches, becoming more conservative over time – it’s essentially a managed fund that does what an adviser would otherwise do manually in terms of rebalancing for a life stage. These can be useful especially in superannuation or pension systems.
Regulatory trends, as touched on earlier, include more focus on investor best interest, transparency of fees (MiFID II in Europe enforced detailed cost disclosures, which had ripple effects globally), and product governance (ensuring products are designed with end-consumers in mind, e.g., the DDO in Australia, or similar rules in Europe). There’s also a drive for simplified disclosure – lengthy PDS or prospectuses are often not read by retail investors, so regulators experiment with short-form disclosures or summary sections to improve engagement.
Another interesting development is the concept of “mega funds” or concentration in the super industry. In Australia, APRA has been pushing for underperforming or small super funds to merge, leading to the rise of very large super funds with tens of billions (even over $100 billion) in assets. These mega funds can exert influence on markets and often internalize more investment management (bringing fund management in-house to reduce costs). Advisers dealing with super clients might find that, over time, most clients end up in a handful of large funds which theoretically are efficient and well-diversified (though there is an ongoing need to ensure they are also delivering good service and performance, which APRA’s annual performance test tries to enforce).
Continued Education and Adaptation: For advisers, these emerging trends underscore the need for continuous learning – exactly why CPD (Continuing Professional Development) requirements exist. A decade ago, topics like robo-advice, ESG integration, or active ETFs might not have been mainstream in financial planning conversations. Today they are. By engaging with these trends, advisers can identify new opportunities for clients (e.g., using a low-cost ETF portfolio to reduce overall costs for a fee-sensitive client, or adding a climate-focused fund for a client passionate about environment, or utilizing a robo-advice platform to service a smaller account cost-effectively). They can also protect clients by understanding the pitfalls (e.g., recognizing when an ESG fund’s marketing might be superficial, or cautioning against chasing the latest hot thematic ETF without regard to overall portfolio balance).
In conclusion, the funds management industry is dynamic. ETFs and passive investing have fundamentally changed cost structures and accessibility, sustainable investing is changing capital allocation in markets, and technology is streamlining how we invest. Meanwhile, the core principles of investing remain – diversification, understanding the product, aligning with goals – but they are being applied through new tools and products. A forward-looking adviser will embrace useful innovations in a prudent manner, integrating them into practice where they add value, and remain vigilant to ensure that regardless of trend, the recommendations made are appropriate for the client’s individual situation. This mindset of adaptation, underpinned by a strong foundation in the fundamentals of managed funds and markets, is what will keep advisers at the top of their professional game in the years to come.
Best Practices and Ethical Considerations for Advisers
Having covered the technical foundations of managed funds and investment markets, it’s fitting to conclude with a reflection on best practices and ethical considerations for financial advisers in applying this knowledge. In Australia, as in many jurisdictions, advisers are expected to uphold high professional standards – which is reinforced through formal requirements like the Code of Ethics and CPD obligations. Below are key practices advisers should follow when dealing with managed funds and making investment recommendations:
Thorough Due Diligence: Advisers should rigorously research any managed fund or product before recommending it. This means reading the PDS or prospectus, understanding the fund’s strategy, performance history, risk factors, and fee structure. It also involves examining the fund manager’s credentials – their experience, track record in similar mandates, and the stability of their team. With the abundance of funds available, this due diligence helps filter out those that may not be up to standard. For example, if a fund consistently underperforms its benchmark and charges high fees, an adviser should think twice about its inclusion unless there’s a clear, explainable reason it’s expected to improve or it serves a very specific purpose in a portfolio. The Code of Ethics (Standard 5 in the former FASEA Code, for instance) would expect an adviser to have a reasonable basis for any advice given – in other words, recommendations must be made on the basis of accurate information and a sound research process.
Know Your Client and Customization: A fundamental principle is that advice must be tailored to the client’s personal circumstances. Not every “good” fund is good for every client. An adviser must align products with the client’s risk tolerance, timeframe, objectives, and preferences. For instance, even if an emerging markets fund has great prospects, it might be unsuitable for an elderly client needing stable income. Similarly, if a client has strong ethical views, the adviser should prefer funds that meet those criteria, even if it means excluding some mainstream options. The best interest duty effectively encodes this client-centric approach – advisers should demonstrate that any fund chosen is appropriate for the client (the rationale should be documented in the Statement of Advice or Record of Advice). Tools like risk profiling questionnaires, investment policy statements, and ongoing conversations help ensure that the portfolio’s design (including the managed funds selected) remains aligned with what the client both needs and is comfortable with.
Cost Awareness and Value for Money: Advisers have a duty to consider the costs to the client. With investment products, cheaper isn’t always better, but any extra cost must be justified by value. It is a best practice to favor low-cost funds when they can achieve the desired outcome. For example, if the goal is broad market exposure, an index fund or ETF could be the most cost-effective tool. If recommending a higher-cost active fund, an adviser should be prepared to articulate why – perhaps the fund has a unique strategy that adds diversification or has a history of outperforming net of fees, or it provides access to a niche area. The adviser should also consider platform costs, transaction costs, and tax implications in the overall cost evaluation. By minimizing unnecessary costs, advisers improve clients’ net returns, which over long periods can significantly impact wealth accumulation (as compounding works on what you keep after costs). From an ethical standpoint, this ties into acting in the client’s best interest and avoiding conflicts – for example, not choosing a fund just because it might give some form of soft benefit to the adviser or their firm (which in Australia is largely addressed by banning many forms of conflicted payments).
Transparency and Client Education: Good advisers don’t just make decisions for clients; they also educate clients about those decisions. When recommending managed funds, an adviser should explain in plain language what each fund is, what role it plays in the portfolio, and what the potential risks are. For example, if there’s a global bond fund in the mix, the adviser might explain interest rate risk and credit risk in broad terms so the client isn’t surprised if interest rates rise and the bond fund’s value temporarily dips. If using an ESG fund, the adviser should clarify how its approach might differ from a traditional fund. Transparent communication builds trust and helps clients stick with the plan during tough times because they understand the rationale behind it. It’s also part of ethical conduct – honesty and clarity prevent misunderstandings and ensure the client’s consent to the advice is informed. In practice, this means providing balanced information (not just selling the upside of a fund, but also noting the downsides or uncertainties) and verifying that the client understands. Many advisers employ visuals or simple analogies (like comparing a managed fund to a managed garden vs. picking individual plants, etc.) to convey concepts.
Ongoing Monitoring and Review: The job isn’t done once the investment is made. Best practice involves regularly reviewing each managed fund in a client’s portfolio for continued suitability. Fund managers can change; a star portfolio manager might leave (prompting a review of whether the fund is still worth holding). A fund might start underperforming its peers consistently – which could warrant investigation: has its strategy fallen out of favor, or are costs too high, or is it a temporary slump? Sometimes a fund might grow too large and lose agility, or conversely it might be closed or merged away. Advisers should keep an eye on such developments, using tools like research reports from independent research houses (Morningstar, Lonsec, etc.), fund performance data, and updates from fund managers themselves. Regular client review meetings (commonly annually, or more often if needed) are a chance to reassess every holding. If changes are recommended, they should be clearly explained and documented (with an ROA or SOA if significant).
Ethical Conduct and Avoiding Conflicts: Financial advisers in Australia adhere to a code that, among other things, emphasizes integrity and the management of conflicts of interest. While structural reforms have removed many conflicts (like commissions), advisers must still be vigilant. For example, if an adviser’s firm has its own in-house managed fund or model portfolios that include proprietary products, the adviser must ensure they are only recommended if truly in the client’s best interest, not because of any incentive to the firm. Full disclosure of any potential conflict is mandatory – even if the adviser is sure it doesn’t influence them, the client has a right to know. Trust is at the core of the adviser-client relationship, and it is reinforced by consistently acting with honesty and putting the client first. This also means acknowledging when something is outside one’s expertise. If, say, a client is interested in a very complex derivative strategy fund that the adviser doesn’t fully grasp, the ethical move is either to research it thoroughly or bring in expertise, or possibly advise the client of the uncertainties rather than simply going along with it.
Continuing Professional Development (CPD): The financial world changes, and regulations evolve (as we’ve outlined in the emerging trends). Advisers must keep learning. Australian regulations require advisers to complete minimum CPD hours each year (currently 40 hours, including allocations to technical, client care, regulatory, etc.). Beyond ticking a box, the spirit of CPD is to ensure advisers remain competent and up-to-date. Engaging in courses (like this one), reading industry journals, attending conferences or webinars, and even higher study (like obtaining a CFP or CFA designation) are all ways advisers can deepen their knowledge. In context, an adviser should, for instance, stay informed about new managed fund products, changes in superannuation law (which seemingly change every federal budget!), tax rule changes, and evolving economic conditions. This knowledge directly feeds into better advice. It can also open up new conversations with clients – for example, if there’s a new government green bonds initiative or an infrastructure investment program, a knowledgeable adviser can discuss if there’s a relevant investment opportunity or implication for clients.
Documenting and Justifying Recommendations: Lastly, best practice from a compliance perspective is to document clearly why particular investments were recommended. This protects both the client and the adviser. It provides a record that can be referred back to if circumstances change or if there’s any dispute. Typically, a Statement of Advice will include the comparisons considered (perhaps the adviser looked at three international equity funds and chose one due to its lower fee and better 5-year performance, and this can be noted). Documenting also means if a client deviates from advice (say they insist on investing in something speculative and against the adviser’s recommendation), the adviser should note that as well, having warned the client of risks. In an environment where advisers are held to high accountability, thorough documentation demonstrates professionalism and adherence to process.
In summary, the foundations of managed funds and investment markets that we’ve studied provide the knowledge base. Best practices and ethics determine how that knowledge is applied in the real world of advising clients. A financially literate, ethical, client-focused adviser will harness the tools of managed funds and market understanding to create real value in clients’ lives – helping them achieve financial security and goals, while navigating the investment world’s complexities safely and efficiently. This is ultimately the mark of professionalism that CPD standards for financial planning seek to uphold: not only having the knowledge, but using it wisely and in the service of clients’ best interests.
Conclusion
The world of managed funds and investment markets is vast and dynamic, but by breaking down the foundations, we see a clear picture emerge. Investment markets function through a network of participants and mechanisms that, at their core, match those with capital to those who need it – and managed funds serve as a crucial intermediary in that system, enabling everyday investors to benefit from broad opportunities with professional management. For Australian financial advisers, understanding these foundations is not merely academic; it directly informs the quality of advice they provide. From the structure of a managed investment scheme and the role of a responsible entity, to the particulars of superannuation funds that millions rely on for retirement, to the ins and outs of how a trade executes on the ASX – each element contributes to making an adviser competent and confident in their recommendations.
We explored how managed funds aggregate investor money to achieve diversification and access to various asset classes, and how different types of funds (equity, bond, property, ETF, etc.) can be blended to create robust client portfolios. We examined the regulatory safeguards in place, noting that while details differ, regulators like ASIC, the FCA, and the SEC all work to ensure that markets are fair and that investment vehicles operate transparently and in the interests of investors. This regulatory backdrop gives advisers and clients confidence that there is oversight and recourse in the investment realm – something advisers should never take for granted and must always keep abreast of, especially as new regulations (like those around design and distribution or ESG disclosures) come into effect.
The discussion on emerging trends highlighted that the only constant in this industry is change. The rise of ETFs and the shift to passive investing have lowered costs and democratized investing. Sustainable investing is reshaping where capital flows, reflecting a new generation of investor values and bringing both opportunity and responsibility to ensure authenticity. Technological advances are streamlining operations and making investment advice more accessible through robo-platforms and fintech solutions. All these trends mean that the toolkit available to advisers is expanding and evolving – those who stay informed and adaptable will be best positioned to harness these developments for their clients’ benefit.
In delivering investment recommendations, the ultimate goal for advisers is to be informed, compliant, and client-centric. “Informed” means decisions are backed by knowledge and research – precisely what this foundations course aims to instill. “Compliant” means adhering to laws, regulations, and ethical standards – ensuring advice not only avoids pitfalls but actively upholds the trust placed in advisers by clients and society (for instance, by choosing suitable products and disclosing all relevant information). And “client-centric” means that amid all the products, markets, and trends, the adviser never loses sight of the individual’s goals and best interests. By mastering the foundations of managed funds and investment markets, advisers equip themselves to fulfill all three aspects.
In practice, a well-founded adviser can confidently answer a client’s questions like: “Why is this fund a good fit for me?” or “How do we know this investment is safe and regulated?” or “What do we do if the market drops?” The adviser can draw on knowledge of diversification to explain risk mitigation, on regulatory context to explain investor protections, and on historical market behavior to guide clients through volatility. This knowledge base also helps in debunking myths and setting realistic expectations – for example, explaining that no investment is without risk, but smart diversification and quality funds can tilt the odds in the client’s favor over the long run.
As a final takeaway, continuing professional development (CPD) is emphasized because the financial landscape will continue to change beyond what we covered here. A commitment to lifelong learning is part of being a true professional. Whether through formal CPD hours or self-driven curiosity, advisers should remain engaged with new developments – be it changes in superannuation law, new fund innovations, or global economic shifts – and continually reflect on how those affect client strategies.
In conclusion, the foundations of managed funds and investment markets form an essential part of a financial planner’s expertise. By solidifying these foundations, advisers are better prepared than ever to design effective investment strategies, communicate clearly with clients, and uphold the highest standards of advice. This not only enhances the adviser’s practice but ultimately contributes to better financial outcomes and peace of mind for clients, which is the true measure of success in financial planning.
References: