Recently I come across a few cases which my clients complained to me that after investing with XYZ (where XYZ isn't me of course), they don't get to hear from the adviser unless the adviser has something to sell. For some of them they complained why the adviser never tell them when the fund manager left or when the fund house is in the news for a bad reason. They would had appreciated such advice. For example, almost the entire fixed income team at DBS Shenton Income Fund has left the group very very long time ago to join a competitor. Yeah, it seems so many people with this fund aren't not even aware of it. I met a client who was shocked to hear this news from me. This is a very old story already. However, when I thought about it, I feel that they are not being realistic. For one thing is that the adviser needs to renumerated. They are renumerated through commission after doing a transaction. But is there any on-going renumeration? Most of the time not. Some companies give trailer fees but this tend to be so small that it isn't enough to buy a cup of coffee. So clients must be realistic in their expectation. If they want an adviser to provide them with on-going advice, they have to be prepared to pay for it on an on-going basis. But care must be made that the on-going "fee' isn't derived from churning - a popular but an illegal method in which the adviser asks the client to sell and buy for no good reason other then to earn a commission.