Midpack
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
When people post here asking for recommendations on financial advisors, many member immediately respond with
That said, many/most people might be better off with a good*** financial advisor. Though long term investing methodology isn't rocket science at all (and what most replies here address), having the discipline to stick with a plan is probably where most amateur investors fall short (and is often overlooked in replies here). How many times have we seen claims of 'I haven't recovered from the 07-08 meltdown' - that's overwhelmingly a discipline issue, where methodology has gone out the window. From what I've read, even many advisors will say their biggest challenge is to convince clients not to panic and do something (clearly) stupid when the market and/or economy periodically and inevitably starts making big moves up or down.
Yes it's pretty easy to recognize the willfully/obviously investing novices who would be better off with an FA. I am not asking about those cases.
But in the interests of a better response, how do you recognize when/if an investor is better off with an advisor - that big gray area between the obvious yes or no? Those folks who are their own worst enemy, where "a (too) little knowledge" is dangerous?
A good answer might even be a good sticky/FAQ.
*** choosing a good advisor is another big issue in itself, let's set that aside for purposes of the this thread/question.
'you don't need an FA..."I" don't use advisors...long term investing is not rocket science...the fees don't justify/offset the drag on net returns.'
I haven't used a paid advisor in over 25 years and then it was a stock broker (no way to avoid them back then) - and I am at least as guilty about providing the pat answer above as anyone here.That said, many/most people might be better off with a good*** financial advisor. Though long term investing methodology isn't rocket science at all (and what most replies here address), having the discipline to stick with a plan is probably where most amateur investors fall short (and is often overlooked in replies here). How many times have we seen claims of 'I haven't recovered from the 07-08 meltdown' - that's overwhelmingly a discipline issue, where methodology has gone out the window. From what I've read, even many advisors will say their biggest challenge is to convince clients not to panic and do something (clearly) stupid when the market and/or economy periodically and inevitably starts making big moves up or down.
Yes it's pretty easy to recognize the willfully/obviously investing novices who would be better off with an FA. I am not asking about those cases.
But in the interests of a better response, how do you recognize when/if an investor is better off with an advisor - that big gray area between the obvious yes or no? Those folks who are their own worst enemy, where "a (too) little knowledge" is dangerous?
A good answer might even be a good sticky/FAQ.
*** choosing a good advisor is another big issue in itself, let's set that aside for purposes of the this thread/question.
Last edited: