Merrill Lynch

Hi guys -

I'm very curious to hear your opinions on financial advisors at Merrill Lynch, or of the company in general. I'll provide the reasoning behind this in a follow-up post.

hi cassie -

i'm very excited to share with you my opinions on the financial advisors and merrill lynch. i'll log on later with my comments.

I'm anxiously awaiting to hear your thoughts IMO.

I concur.

Opai, you tease.

You guys are cracking me up. Cassie, If you want 1MO, or others to put forth some effort put forth some yourself.

Well then, I suppose I'll feel honoured to serve as a source of amusement for you gentlemen.

The reason I asked is because I've just discovered my father's cousin is a financial advisor for Merrill Lynch who has kindly offered to meet with me. I was interested in hearing opinions on Merrill Lynch in general from those who work in the financial sector on these boards. I apologize profusely, however, for wasting anyone's precious time with such a presumptuous inquiry.

Have a lovely evening.

Ah Cassie...touche'.

My two cents is that I don't have two pennies to rub together. I haven't heard anything good nor bad about ML. And I have no personal experience with them either.

hi cassie -

i'm very excited to share with you my opinions on the financial advisors and merrill lynch. i'll log on later with my comments.

Oh goodie, opai! I'm on the edge of my seat!!!!!! (Opai's a scammer. He has a serious case of CONFLICT OF INTEREST in the financial world, i.e. one-sided opinions. He will tell you what is best for him, not you. The best advice is to run away!)

Forgive me, Pricespector, for the saucy response. It was a bit disheartening to read a a particular post which, for a moment, really frosted my cookies. But thank you for offering a courteous reply.

Anyway * deep breath, done licking wounds* .. I will now know better.

And Ichiroy, I don't believe Opai is a scammer - where on earth is that coming from?

Geez. Are these forums always this caustic?

cassie, as jim's pointed out ... we would just like to know more about what and why you are asking in order for us to be able to focus a better answer.

<<note, ichiroy ... this post is not in response to you ... you are on ignore for me>>

all i know from ML is based on two general insights. i offer them freely but in all fairness, i wouldnt feel too comfortable with you making a decision based on them. my hope would be that you may use what i post as you interview them.

cassie, i started my career in financial services with a company different than where i am now. i started as a registered rep and over time became an investment advisor. later i transitioned to a new company where i specialized in financial planning with an emphasis on wealth management, distribution, estate issues. the TOUGHEST sector to work is middle income Americans ... but it is the place you can make the most impact for a planner like myself.

ok, the point of that history lesson is in transitioning from my first company to my present company, i "interviewed" at about 30 different companies. ML was one of them.

in my personal opinion, they focus WAY too heavily on stocks. there are quite a few companies in the financial services sector that do this. stock brokers get paid when you sell a stock and when you buy a new one (generally). as a result, they benefit inordinately from recommendations for you to buy then after a while to sell and to buy something else. for this, they get paid 3 times.

generally with mutual funds, the advisor is likely to be paid once and only once. if he recommends a move to something else it is likely to be done withOUT additional cost to you.

additionally, tracking and analysis of individual stocks in a herculean effort. i dont care what anyone tells you, if you want to do this right ... you cant do it alone. you need a team. and if mutual fund companies are any indication, you need a BIG team to do it well. another problem with ML is that their research staff is simply unable to have much research done on very many stocks. and, they continually transition that effort by their teams to different stocks throughout the year.

here is an analogy: your team researches fossil fuel energy for 3 months and looks at every aspect of gasoline from drilling to engine design. you recommend shell super duper mid-grade. for the next three months you place all your effort, from drilling to engine design on diesel. you recommend BP's not too smoky desiel. the next three months you look at solar-hybrid from storage cell design to recharge sites ... and so on and so on and so on.

in all this, you have totally lost the bubble on gasoline. and since now all you know is kryptonite 100 bizarro blend, that is what you recommend.

of course, this is a simplistic view ... but i hope it illustrates my viewpoint.

finally, mutual fund companies MUST maintain good research staffs. not only this, but they appear to be very cut-throat. defending a stock pick for inclusion in a Franklin Templeton fund is worse than any defense of any thesis at any ivy-league university!

ok, all that to get to this point: (a point i would not have made based on your first post but one that is critical based on your last post (where you sounded a little hurt)).

cassie, at the best firm in the country ... they have a terrible advisor (probably even a crooked one to boot!). at the worst firm in the country, they have a superstar. in my never humble opinion, firm matters less (generally) than does the advisor.*** another thing to consider is what is the preponderance of the business that the advisor does. does this match to what your needs are now or what you reasonably expect them to be in the future?

for example, the other day a relatively new agent asked me about contribution limits to a Roth (they change every few years). i had to go look up the numbers because i rarely work with clients who can contribute to a Roth so i don't stay up on that business too much.

so, if you have someone you know in the business ... especially if they are family or you already respect them for who they are ... that matters much more to me than the company to which they are affiliated. go see your uncle and see what he has to say. explain what you want and have him explain how he handles clients like you. your uncle would likely be impressed to find you have also interviewed another firm so you can compare and contrast.

one final cautionary note. i do business with family. i make it very clear to them that they are accepting whatever risk they are asking to take. that relationship comes first and that we both retain the right to fire the other with no questions asked and no hard feelings. family is more important than money.

*** if you dont know someone trustworthy already, then firm matters most! i work at a firm with a stellar reputation and is not only above reproach but is also an acknowledged leader in customer care and ethics. as a result, we attract the cream of the crop in independent advisors. which only makes us stronger. but when you are looking for an advisor and you dont know anyone, then the firm trumps most other considerations. though obvious, this is my opinion and for what its worth.

^^ this is just a bunch of double talk. You can do your own research; there is absolutely NO reason to pay someone to do it for you. Stick with good growth stock mutual funds with long track records or index funds (like the Vanguard Index 500). Dollar-cost average, buy and hold for the long term, and you will do fine. Keep it simple.

ichiroy,

Cassie has been here for awhile now and the pros AND cons of using an advisor were covered in detail for her here: http://forums.kiplinger.com/showthread.php?t=10717. It seems she has made an informed decision that she feels is right for her.

There isn't any one rule so why give someone the advise to do it on their own when they feel it's in their best interest to seek an advisor?
I can tell you there are many people that can't do it own their own for many different reasons, the rich and the young investors alike.

Also, why is Vanguard the end-all be-all for the independent investor??
I would have to more than 70% of ind. investors on this forum say go to Vanguard. Below is some interesting stats on Vanguard vs. American Funds:
Fund Total return1 Total return after taxes, commis.
Vanguard 500 Index 174% 136%
Fidelity Magellan Fund 133% 96%
American Funds ICA A 200% 128%
AF Washington Mutual A 219% 141%
AF Growth Fund of America A 242% 164%

As you see Vanguard came in behind all three of AF class A shares. This is just to illustrate that for the independent investor you don't always have to go the Vanguard or no-load route to see results. I've researched, asked forums, asked advisors about this whole thing and it really comes down to just running the numbers yourself and picking the fund but don't just assume Vanguard or other no-load funds are superior than many loaded funds.

here is an analogy: your team researches fossil fuel energy for 3 months and looks at every aspect of gasoline from drilling to engine design. you recommend shell super duper mid-grade. for the next three months you place all your effort, from drilling to engine design on diesel. you recommend BP's not too smoky desiel. the next three months you look at solar-hybrid from storage cell design to recharge sites ... and so on and so on and so on.

in all this, you have totally lost the bubble on gasoline. and since now all you know is kryptonite 100 bizarro blend, that is what you recommend.

of course, this is a simplistic view ... but i hope it illustrates my viewpoint.


Talk about conflict of interest! 1MO is now pumping kryptonite 100 bizarro blend while probably shorting ethanol stocks while telling others to go long oil drillers!

Oh, sorry, I felt compelled to jump in on the one-man bandwagon because some posts' "non-one-sidedness*." ;)

*not a word