GalaxyBoy
Thinks s/he gets paid by the post
Dumbest thing I have ever seen. Fire that "advisor".
+1
Dumbest thing I have ever seen. Fire that "advisor".
.... I wrote him an email over the weekend saying, among other things: "The proposal is such a complex and voluminous approach that it seems like it would take a very long time for you to explain each choice you made, clearly and completely enough so that we could understand and concur with it." ...
Yeah. I was thinking the OP was just yanking our chain. At least now we know there's 4 accounts and an advisor that's, well, I'll let everyone fill in their own descriptor there.But thanks for posting, this puts everything you post in a new light for me.
+1.Exactly - and isn't that reason enough to dump this FA right now? The only reason I can see for such complexity is that some customers will be impressed with how 'thorough' and 'detailed' this is, and they just 'know' they couldn't do this w/o the help of this incredibly 'intelligent' FA who can put this long list together. But it is all just a bunch of that 'Baffling Stuff'.
Not really: His services are already paid-for, and investing is just one part of what he's providing advice on. So there's really no reason to "fire" him. It'll just upset the friend who recommended him, and won't actually benefit us. Besides, perhaps calling him out on these problems will get him to do some more work that I can use, and get him a bit more nervous about losing my friend's business, that he'll look into doing a better job for her going forward.Exactly - and isn't that reason enough to dump this FA right now?
I'm sure that my weekend email to him dissuaded him of the notion that such an approach will impress us.The only reason I can see for such complexity is that some customers will be impressed with how 'thorough' and 'detailed' this is, and they just 'know' they couldn't do this w/o the help of this incredibly 'intelligent' FA who can put this long list together. But it is all just a bunch of that 'Baffling Stuff'.
I don't see how. Perhaps your explanation of that will put everything you post in a new light for everyone.But thanks for posting, this puts everything you post in a new light for me.
Given how my doing so will likely to bring more shame than fame to the funds ...Given that the OP has posted this list in several forums, one might wonder whether the idea was to populate Google searches with the fund names. One might wonder, if one were a skeptic........
My opinion is that you are making several mistakes. Paying for financial advisor, and then looking for free validation of FA recommendations is just baffling to me. If the FA is putting you into 80% stock fund portfolio when you are 5-10 from retirement, his advice is so out of line with convention, it tells me he is a shark. If that didn't convince you, then the array of 50 funds (with above average expenses) should tell you something. And a real warning bell for me is that the advisor comes to you based on a friend's recommendation.Not really: His services are already paid-for, and investing is just one part of what he's providing advice on. So there's really no reason to "fire" him. It'll just upset the friend who recommended him, and won't actually benefit us. Besides, perhaps calling him out on these problems will get him to do some more work that I can use, and get him a bit more nervous about losing my friend's business, that he'll look into doing a better job for her going forward.
In the end, he's going to have to convince me that he's correct before we actually use any of his advice.
I'm sure that my weekend email to him dissuaded him of the notion that such an approach will impress us.
I don't see how. Perhaps your explanation of that will put everything you post in a new light for everyone.
Really? So I guess you also feel that Angie's List is a waste. We'll have to agree to disagree. If an electrician comes in and determines that the remedy for the fact that we lose the light bulb in a specific receptacle every month or so is to use light bulbs rated for 130v instead of 120v, I'm going to give that a sniff-test on appropriate online forums, rather than blinding accepting the expert professional's say-so. If the comments I get online support what the expert says, confidence goes up. If the comments I get online don't support what the expert says, then maybe I need to consult another expert.Paying for financial advisor, and then looking for free validation of FA recommendations is just baffling to me.
So why would you suggest that it wouldn't be a good idea to consult online forums to validate that suspicion? Your earlier comment is simply not making any sense to me.If the FA is putting you into 80% stock fund portfolio when you are 5-10 from retirement, his advice is so out of line with convention, it tells me he is a shark.
Me too. I'm using the constructive insights folks are providing me in my reply to the adviser. Perhaps I can even use such info to brow-beat him into refunding the some portion of his fee that would be attributable to investing advice, since he seems to have disappointed me so badly in that regard.You asked, so I answered. I do hope it turns out well for you.
Really? So I guess you also feel that Angie's List is a waste.
I don't see how. Perhaps your explanation of that will put everything you post in a new light for everyone.
Really? So I guess you also feel that Angie's List is a waste. We'll have to agree to disagree. If an electrician comes in and determines that the remedy for the fact that we lose the light bulb in a specific receptacle every month or so is to use light bulbs rated for 130v instead of 120v, I'm going to give that a sniff-test on appropriate online forums, ....
Thanks for the clarification.Sorry, I didn't actually mean that in a derogatory way, but as a matter of explanation.
And here we find this financial planner who makes my approaches look downright simplistic by comparison!IIRC, some earlier posts from you struck me as very complicated. I think you just view things differently than me in terms of complexity. I'm a Keep It Simple Stanley kinda guy. Everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler.
I think you have to factor in the innate respect due anyone, and that especially due someone who a close friend values and respects greatly. Beyond that, I don't want to confront the man with just my own words; my rejection of his proposal is stronger for the constructive insights others have offered in this thread and others.It is actually just stunning to me that anyone would seriously post a list like that for review, or that they would take it seriously for more than a nano-second before just handing the list back to their 'advisor' with a 'are you joking?' look on their face. The complexity is just staggering to me.
What I think he's saying is that things have changed (and that's for sure) - that bonds simply are bad right now (and that's almost surely true, as well). I'm not sure that that really means that the right answer is more equities, however, cash assets are losing "real" value (though not "nominal" value). Is anyone ready to stand up and say that holding 35% of your entire savings in CDs is the way to go?The concern we have about the amount of fixed income current portfolio (and in 401k plan target date funds) and the reason we’d replace bonds with dividend paying equities, real estate, non-traditional fixed income and other alternatives is that for the first time in 30 years it is reasonable to expect a loss in fixed income over the long-term. Not just an after-inflation “real” loss, but more devastatingly, a pre-inflation “nominal” loss. Interest rates have gone from a peak of over 14% on a 10-yr us treasury, to less than 2% over the last 30 years. As interest rates go down, as they did from 1982 through this year, bonds become more valuable. Rules of thumb like % splits based on age were determined during this time period when it was impossible to lose money in bonds and won’t be equally valid during periods of stable or rising interest rates. You also may see other rules of thumb like “subtracting your age from 100” to get an equity percentage. That rule has been changed to subtracting from 120 based solely on longer life expectancy. Such rules were developed for an audience who were supported by pensions for income and investments were their extra money. Pensions were managed for growth behind the scene, without the pensioner’s conscious knowledge, skewing the effective total portfolio allocation. Your accounts will have to be growth, income, and extra money all at the same time.
What I think he is saying here is that, essentially, he doesn't see a big benefit in strategically placing funds (at least not with regard to the value versus growth dynamic) because he sees taxes on gains going up (and that's almost surely true), and that we're probably going to get hit with worse taxes when we take the money out than if we just pay the tax now - that the compound effect may actually be smaller than the impact of taxes increasing. I'm not sure that that's true, and I'm not sure it really gets to the heart of the tax-efficient fund placement issue.With capital gains, you’ll have to pay the tax eventually. You could wait for retirement or reduced income when you might qualify for the 15% rate, but it’s probably better to accept the fact that the government has a 20% claim to your gains whether you take them now or in the future. The bite could even be more than 20% in the future. We hope that your investments keep growing, but if they do, the dollar amount that you have to pay the IRS grows too. It is usually better to put together the best portfolio you can, include tax efficient investments where possible, and pay what you must.
I apologize if you've seen this message on other forums, but I'm seeking feedback from various sources.
I recently received a proposal from a financial adviser. Putting aside that he didn't map out how we'd get from where we are to where he proposed we go, could you please assess his recommendations based on:
Front-loading is a non-starter for me. It's just utterly backwards.Front loaded mutual funds.
He is. I've made it very clear to him, saying "Something else we outlined from the start was that we would not consider changing our brokerage to yours." His reply, "I’d be happy to review the Fidelity fund screener to see if there are reasonable alternatives available to you." (The Fidelity fund screener was my personal preference.)You say he's already paid for, but he's not.
Any chance of including in your article a direct rebuttal to this article?I have an article coming out on this exact topic and an evaluation of how loads + active management crush your portfolio.
Not really: His services are already paid-for, and investing is just one part of what he's providing advice on. So there's really no reason to "fire" him. It'll just upset the friend who recommended him, and won't actually benefit us. Besides, perhaps calling him out on these problems will get him to do some more work that I can use, and get him a bit more nervous about losing my friend's business, that he'll look into doing a better job for her going forward.
Pretty much. Someone on another forum was nice enough to enter the portfolio and backtracking it to 2000. I'm not sure it means anything, but it's a pretty graph. (Attached.)Having multiple actively managed funds all covering the same sector will result in your simply duplicating an index fund, but with a much higher ER.
Any chance of including in your article a direct rebuttal to this article?
Active Share and Mutual Fund Performance, Antti Petajisto - January 15, 2013
Active Share and Mutual Fund Performance by Antti Petajisto :: SSRN