Actor's Financial Support

Hi Howard,
Happy new year! I think the charity is a good idea in terms of giving advice. I'm not sure about the money side though as we are all short and would all need subsidy! Its a great idea for helping and advising though. Good for you, 2013 is the year for productivity and making things happen ourselves!!
Best Wishes Hazelx

• 11 years ago
• 1

Hi,

I think it sounds like a good idea. More on the advice side, as the payment of mortgages etc would require large amounts of money. I am in a lot of debt following my training and would definitely use such a service.

Kathy

• 11 years ago
• 2

absolutely and definitely. this is a great idea!

• 11 years ago
• 3

Hi all,
Yes I thought somewhere to go to support getting specialised support that in the world of today is normally the people that have money (there's the irony). As advisers earn by way of commission.

I have worked in financial services when I'm not acting and the extra skills I've learnt should help such a project.

What about names? I was thinking of Performers Benevolant Society

Any ideas?

• 11 years ago
• 4

I think something along those lines but just check that name doesn't already exist because I'm pretty sure it does for musicians

• 11 years ago
• 5

Are you proposing a charity that gives advice about financial matters or one that gives financial assistance (i.e. cash)?

• 11 years ago
• 6

I'm afraid I don't get it.
The start up cost will be prohibitivly high.
Retaining fees and payment of the advisors equally so.
Premises, IT, phone lines and admin all add up.
And you will need to offer something majorly different to any bank which will provide such services for free.
I wish you the very best of luck.

• 11 years ago
• 7

I believe you don,t have to be in Equity to be employed as an actor these days. In my day it was compulsory. Equity helps people out in more ways than one,All actors need Equity.So what you are suggesting is all ready in place.Join Equity at your first opportunity.........

• 11 years ago
• 8

I believe you don,t have to be in Equity to be employed as an actor these days. In my day it was compulsory. Equity helps people out in more ways than one,All actors need Equity.So what you are suggesting is all ready in place.Join Equity at your first opportunity.........

• 11 years ago
• 9

I think this is an excellent idea! I have been going through the same thing after recently getting engaged and my family have offered us some money for a deposit providing we raise some of our own. The deposit isnt really a problem as we will save for as long as it takes, its being taking seriously by building societies as i am self employed and this is proving to be a losing battle.
Your idea is a good one and you should definently go with it

• 11 years ago
• 10

As Stacy said Equity already have the Actors' Benevolent Fund & the Evelyn Norris Home. Join the Union!

• 11 years ago
• 11

A charity for struggling actors! Dear dear! I recently saw one writer set up a crowd funding page to try and get people to fund his life while he writes his book! Nice work if you can get it!

The Equity sanctioned Actors Benevolent Fund is there to look after performers who have, for no fault of their own, fallen on hard times but to set up a Charity to look after struggling actors just to keep them "in the business" just seems a little bit off to me! We all chose this path for ourselves...no one forced us into it...and to think anyone would donate to us over the starving children in Africa, to find a cure for cancer or homeless and maltreated animals is pretty selfish in my opinion!

Can't afford to be an actor...maybe you need to get a job and look after your own and not waste time on charities and handouts! If your not making a living from your chosen profession maybe it's not the right profession for you! Just saying!

• 11 years ago
• 12

As previous posters have said, nothing you're proposing isn't already covered by your Union. If you're not already a member, one wonders why not!

• 11 years ago
• 13

My perspective is slightly different to Forbes', because it's not an ethical one, but raising a question of technicalities. As I'm really not competent to gauge how financially capable you may be, I won't presume anything about your ability to put into practice what you're preaching, but I would ask:

1. If you are talking about generating benevolent funds, where does the money for your funding come from in the first instance? It is clear where Equity's comes from: member subscription and the philanthropic donations of those who have reason to support the union. *All* charities, as far as I'm aware, serve to raise funds through a combination of soliciting donation, winning patronage, 'earning' through sale of merchandise, member subscription, and canvassing for government subsidy, but to get most of this revenue they have to be appealing to charitable interest in the first place. In all seriousness (which is, in some sense, Forbes' point) who is going to reach into their pocket to support struggling actors? Save, perhaps, other actors who hold solidarity with their fellow performers? But the majority who care (the philanthropists) already give to the union. Is this not an issue?

2. If you are aiming to set up consultancy, mortgage/loan advice etc., this may be a different matter. But I tend to hold with most of the critiques that have already been raised. Firstly, the two entities are separate - conflating a benevolent fund with consultancy just confuses. Secondly, as Tony suggested, there are surely start-up costs to be considered. Thirdly, although I'm not sure Tony is right to say the banks have an advantage over a dedicated actor consultancy service if that service is *also* free, I don't see where your advisors are making their commission back...unless it is to do with passing on recommendations to other experts to offer further advice. In which case, all well and good but, at this stage, surely the charges start mounting for the actor as they engage with legal experts, mortgage brokers etc. In this respect, the consultancy is only intended to serve as a free advice bureau that can give actors better information on their options, and perhaps recommend them to experts who will offer lower rates for the sake of recommendation, I suppose. Which sounds laudable enough, but seems to have nothing to do with offering benevolent payouts - unless you are also advocating that a percentage cut is intended to be set aside for the fund.

I must confess to still being uncertain what model you're proposing here.

• 11 years ago
• 14

hi all,

I am an Equity member and they dont give assistance like this. Not thinking of a charity directly giving financial advice directly as this has a regulated act with the FSA, but yes the mortgage example is what I am thinking of. The charity would help performers who most need it, if you have an adviser they would liaise with the banks to get a mortgage in place but the reward is low for a high risk so its hard to get help. there are other needs like income protection. Imagine if you paid an insurance company for this, you would know your getting money if your earnings plumit.

Thinking of advice (that is paid for and involves an financial adviser) and guidiance that helps give specailst infomation to help improve your situation.

Many young actors go into the working world tripping over from jobbing it and managing a turbulant cash flow, so this charity to to help bring social change in this area.

• 11 years ago
• 15

That makes more sense to me, and sounds like it could be workable provided there is enough specificity to the services, I think. You are probably right to assume that many actors would feel happier liasing with an actor oriented service than with one that was more detached from their concerns. I'm not sure that was entirely clear earlier in the thread though: it did seem to be getting the thumbs up on the basis that it would be offering free handouts to actors!

• 11 years ago
• 16

Isn't income protection pretty much exactly the same as, the now outlawed, payment protection? And let's be frank here! No company in their right mind will underwrite any scheme that guarantees a certain level of income for any actor unless they're already well known and by that point they probably wouldn't need a mortgage!

I'm still failing to see exactly what this charity would provide. Would it act as a financial adviser? No you've said as it would need FSA approval! Would it act as a broker? No for the same reason above! You've said it'll negotiate mortgage deals on actors behalf with the banks/mortgage providers but isn't that what a broker/agent does anyway?

I'm lost!

• 11 years ago
• 17

And pretty much everyone goes from education and a "turbulent financial situation" into the world of work!

Excuse my cynicism but it just appears to me that someones trying to combine their background in financial services with their current activities in the world of acting! A nice little earner inbetween acting work possibly!

It's not for me whatever it is!

• 11 years ago
• 18

I still don't get it.

• 11 years ago
• 19

Hi Howard

I also don't fully get the proposal you put forward either. Having someone liase with a bank will still mean the bank sees that it is an actor with variable income re a mortgage. They won't change their rules just for a third party.

Also, as for payment protection, I have always found it better to stash money when one has it for rainy days, than pay an insurance company that may *or may not* cough up (small print/and only for a limited time) when you require it. Also my first thoughts were also Actors Benevolent Fund, as others mention.

If you really are trying to find a helpful solution, then good, but it doesn't seem to stack up yet.

• 11 years ago
• 20