Financial Planner Stories

Good or bad, I have never dealt with a financial planner. Why not share some of your best (and worst) stories involving financial planners with the rest of us?

Dingo

Almost anyone can be a financial planner with little training. What would an intelligent person want that?

Do the research - you are just a smart as the next guy/gal - and you have the right to mess up you own money decision - then you can only blame yourself. (hopefully that won't happen)

good luck

Sorry, if I mislead you. I have no intention of hiring a financial planner, but I sometimes feel that I could be bashing with blatant disregard.

I figured there were a lot of stories out there from both sides of the fence that some readers would appreciate.

Dingo

John, I just don't get you. You are a smart person. You have a grasp of how the investment world works, and surely you realize how much time you have spent educating yourself in this area. Just the time you've spent posting your 170 posts is more than most people spend learning about finances.

For you to say that anyone can be a financial planner with "a little training" is beyond rediculous. It's true that one can be a financial advisor within 6 months of joining a firm. But they're spending an average of 50 hours a week becoming one (call it 1200 hours). And they aren't just reading do-it-yourself books, they are being trained by other professionals. Even if you assumed that just reading the books is as efficient a learning method as actually being trained (an extremely generous assumption), if one were reading for an hour a night, they would spend FOUR YEARS getting to the point that a ROOKIE financial advisor has reached.

I don't understand why you are ok with people coming to this site to get advice from professionals and amateurs (like yourself), but you discourage them from asking advice from someone behind a desk.

Did you build and design your own house? Do you repair your own car? Did you do your own root canal? I'm guessing no. And guess what...THEY ALL GOT PAID TO DO IT FOR YOU!!!!!!

Why is it so rediculous that someone can go through that six months of training, and eventually (after a couple years of making almost nothing) get paid to do this service for other people? How arrogant (and disrespectful) are you to suggest that the average joe can do better on their own, than with the help of a professional?

Finadvisor-

I think you have an incorrect characterization of someone that goes through the training. Those exams are highschool level. The majority of the Financial advisors and brokers are simple minded and do not understand the inner-workings of the market. So what are they good for? doing the basics.

You are acting like they are some professional money managers and can use all aspects of world equities, currencies, options, futures ... that is not the case.

What you are dealing with most of the time is loser that has to work for a living and is tossing you in 5-10 mutual funds.

-WTR

Well, I am not John but I’ll chime in. You could be the most educated financial savvy person in the world and it still would not ensure me that you have my best interests at heart. I’ll give you one very current example. Have you been following the Fidelity Destiny II / systematics thread on this site? A 50% first year load is simply indefensible. Spin it any way you want reasonably educated people without undue influence or pressure would never opt for such a product. Yet look at the arguments Nikkie is making. She is one smart cookie. If she can come so close to making such a lousy product seem acceptable imagine what she can do with just so so products. I would imagine she can put numbers together to prove almost any point. Talk about an Enron attitude. “Were making money. If you are not smart enough to understand the whole picture than just trust us”. Yea right.

I have said it before and I will say it again. For the average American running their own financial life just isn't that tough. Live on less than you make, set up an emergency fund, set up a diversified portfolio of index funds, and if appropriate get some life insurance. You can make it as complicated as you want but just do these basics and you will be way ahead of your peers. Did I build my own house? Nope, that’s complicated. However I do paint it myself and do my own yard work and small repairs. That’s pretty simple stuff. Do I repair my own car? Nope, that’s complicated. However I do change my own oil and add my own washer fluid. That’s pretty simple stuff. Do I do my own root canal? Nope, that’s complicated. However I brush and floss my own teeth. That’s pretty simple stuff. If I owned my own business, or was in an income bracket were tax strategy was a big deal would I do my own finances? Nope, that’s complicated. The fact is though for the average American it is not complicated. It’s pretty simple stuff.
You left out would you do your own surgery. That’s always a favorite.

The fact is even poor financial advisors will almost always make their clients money over the long haul because over the long haul the market will create returns. The question is will they make them enough above the averages to cover their expenses. Statistically the odds are stacked against it. So, the advisor says to the client “look I made you X percent over the last 3 years”. If the client hasn’t educated himself he doesn’t know if that’s good or not. The market may have very well returned X+ percent. If I read you correctly we should just trust him because he is a professional.

Arrogant? Are you kidding me? You imply (or possibly it’s just my interpretation) that professional advice is better than amateur advice simply because it came from a professional. Talk about arrogant. I’ll be the first to admit there has been some posting on this board by amateurs whom do not fully understand the subject matter. The same can be said for some of the professionals. Case and point, read some of the posts on this forum about annuities. SADALE who seems to know them inside and out has corrected and educated both professional and amateur alike. Why did he have to educate the professionals as well? Look at insurance. SADALE whom I have tremendous respect for recommends 20 to 30 times income as a general rule. I think that is ridiculous and 10 times income should be the general rule. Whose advice is better?

I believe in using a professional when the situation warrants it. As people’s lives become more complicated they may find the need. Those complications can be different for different people. For some it’s kids, or and inheritance, or starting a business, or an accumulation of assets, or a new need for tax advantages. People may grow into a need for a professional but to generalize that we should all just leave it to the professionals is wrong. In particular if your paying the professional to pick specific stocks and/or funds for you your wasting your money. Nobody knows what the market is going to do tomorrow. Again let me restate that I am talking about the average investor.

If you need help form a professional than get it but understand it is not a guarantee for better results. And, if your only source of financial education is the person who is handling your finances you are setting yourself up to be taken advantage of.

WTR5, quick question:
what is your foundation for claiming that the "majority" are simple minded and lack understanding of the market? Do you have any real evidence that "most of the" time they are losers, or is this just a feeling you have?

Frankly, those exams are not high school level. Take, for example, the Series 7. Did you know that virtually 70% of people that take that test fail it? I don't know if I would characterize that as a high school level exam. Factor that in with the fact that many registered reps also have a Series 66 (or 65 & 63), and often state insurance licenses, and the case could be made that it is not easy to become an "advisor".

Further, those are simply licenses to sell products, nothing more. If you truly want to become a "planner", advanced designations and education are necessary. The CHFC and CFP designations are not exactly high school level courses. If this was all that easy, more people would be making money moonlighting as the weekend "financial planner" to their neighborhood.

Jims money - I appreciate some of what you said. However, you misquoted me. I did not say 20-30, I said 15-20, and I stand by it. It is a starting point for that discussion between advisor and client. I have seen, first hand, situations where 10 is just not enough, based on the wishes and desires of a client. Every client is different, and it is the advisor's job to throw out the "what if" scenarios in order to help articulate the specific needs. As I've said before, I don't want the guilt of watching a client die, and having the spouse or children struggle. I have colleagues that have essentially been probed with, "why wasn't more protection in place" after having a client pass away. You may find it questionable to sell too much insurance, but it is arguably negligent to reccomend too little protection.

There is more to an individual's "financial life" than just accumulation. You're right, people may grow into a need for a professional. However, asset allocation, taxes, insurance, distribution, wealth transfer and estate planning are not all concepts grasped by the average individual, but do affect every individual at some point. Simply having an E-trade account doesn't help. This is why professionals are needed, often sooner rather than later.

Remember, no one said EVERYONE should have an advisor. However, many people on these boards seem to have a general disgust for advisors without any first hand experience. That is the upsetting part of all of this.

SADALE
My sincerest apologies for misquoting you. I should have looked up the old post before quoting you. FWIW my point was not, which of us is correct. It was that you are not automatically correct because of your profession. I have not been nor do I personally know anyone who has been burned by a professional. I agree some posters do inappropriately degrade advisors. By the same token some advisors think decent advice can only come from a professional.

SADALE,
All those series exams ARE highschool level, that is a KNOWN.

CFP/CFA require a harder level of exams and that is a known as well. So how about we put it this way- if your 'advisor' is not a CFP/CFA ditch him ... unless he plans on getting those designations and .. SOON.

My experience with these simple minded people? VERY simple... advisors as a whole (percentage) cannot beat historic market returns, so why use one? DUH!... don't

My parents are worth 8 figures and are in their late 50's, never used an 'advisor' and didn't make any lucky or risky investments- had average combined income of about 170k a yr over past 20 yrs and consistently invested in quality stocks, bonds and indexes.

Stop trying to change the public perception of these market ignorant idiots.... the majority are not professionals and do not understand the inner workings of the market, therefore as a whole will present you with mediocre gains .. get over it. And if you EVER need life insurance just do your own research on the net and find a good price then let one of their reps contact you... never use these second rate "pros"

wtr

Jim, well said. I will be the first to agree that profession does not necessarily dictate competence in said profession.

WTR - OK. You evidently have issues with financial professionals. That's your right. But the venom you spew has to be a result of some type of personal experience. I'd love to know what that was. As for your parents, good. I'm happy for them. Accumulation is one thing. Hopefully they deal with estate planning properly. That's a bit more difficult. I'd imagine you hope they do too, since you'd probably like to see a little of that when they're gone. Do you not concede a financial professional may have something to offer?
I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. I though some here may benefit from another point of view. I guess you didn't.

Jim--who's more arrogant? Is it the professional who says they are better at this than the amateurs, or the amateur who says they are better at this than the pros? I believe I'm entitled to a certain degree of arrogance.

You are right about the average person having easy-to-solve problems. Well if our jobs entirely dealt with just the average person's problems, I would agree with you and say that a monkey could do this job. And if you want to keep it simple, then be happy being an average American. Keep changing that oil, big guy.

WTR--Thought I'd relate more to you being the same age and all, but I guess not. Those exams are easy, absolutely. Study for a few weeks, take the practice tests a few times, and you'll pass. Is that what you think I mean by training? Do you think there are advisors out there who can actually remember the series 7 and 66 books they read five years ago?

That stuff is for compliance. Those books tell us what we can and can't do legally with a client. They teach us basics on equties, bonds, options, margin, munis, mutual funds, uit's, etc. They don't teach us anything about financial planning.

Is that why all of you do-it-yourselfers out there think this is so easy? Well that might be your problem. Most of you out there have a job and you probably all think you're pretty good at it. Are you good at it because you made it through orientation week? It's the time on the job that made you as good as you are.

I don't think I have an "incorrect characterization of someone who goes throught that training" because...ummm....well....I actually did go through it. And the training was nothing in comparison to the actual experience.

And go find an advisor with just a few years experience out there. Try to talk over thier head about "world markets, currencies, options, futures." I dare you. You'll find out real quick how much you know.

Since I don't expect anyone to actually read all of what I just wrote:


Those of you who have had a bad experience with advisors are confusing bad ethics, or lack of trust, with incompetence. Your problem is not that advisors are idiots who just want to make money off you, but that you have had an advisor that fit that description.

If you don't trust them, don't work with them. But don't go telling the world that they are better on their own. You are not doing anyone any favors.

Finadvisor- You know nothing about what area of business I am in.

And I know for a fact I know more than the majority of 'advisors' about all those equity counter parts I mentioned. Advisors almost never exploit market conditions through complex ways.

They use the again - 'simple minded' portfolio theory ... so give it up.

Most advisors are advisors by profession but ARE NOT PROFESSIONALS IN THE FIELD. "Professionals" have the ability to exploit the market day in and day out regardless of economic conditions, and can independently do this (I.E. DO NOT HAVE TO WORK FOR ANYONE BUT THEMSELVES).

The majority of Advisors do not posess this level of intelligence. So give it up, and while your at it go get your CFP/CFA so maybe some high net worth individuals will listen to you.

-wtr

Waterboy (WTR5): You're not a high net worth individual, your parents are. They probably killed themselves to get where they are. You should be proud of them, not yourself.

You're pompous. How is this question from WTR5 for advanced & complex?:

http://forums.kiplinger.com/showthread.php?t=4782

Look's like your net worth is about (-$25,000)

Pricespector,
My residence is worth almost 500k, so why don't you recalculate.

And im proud of both my parents and myself. Did you go to UPenn undergrad? or Stanford grad? ... I did ... are you in medical school currently? ... I am.

As far as I am concerned you are a nobody and never will be. Awww poor pricespector will finally reach a 7 figure net worth when he's 50 yrs of age how cute. Don't be bitter that I will make more evry three years than you will over your lifetime.

WTR (who owns pricespector)

Whatever Doogie. I know who you are. Dime a dozen. Let me guess, WTR5 stands for Westmoreland Thadeus Rothchild the fifth?

FYI, just about everyone's house is worth $500,000. You would be a completely average client compared to others I work with. As for the salary, I'm sure mine would be comparable, except I don't have to wear a beeper to the golf course.

Most of my clientel are doctors, lawyers, and yes CPAs. I have all the appropriate letters where I need them, and I make as much as they do. All of us have worked very hard to achieve what we have. Perhaps that is why they seem much more modest than you.

Someday, when you are a little more mature you may figure out that it's not about WHAT you are, it's WHO you are. If you were comfortable about who you are, you wouldn't feel the need to substantiate yourself with the gifts that have been given to you.

Good luck amassing your amazingly lofty goal of $2M in 20 years. Alas, if it looks like you won't make it, gifting is sure to be part of your parent's estate plan. Well, you probably have that figured out already.

Ciao.

Price,

My "lofty goal" of 2m will be in cash at that point. As I will be using the proceeds of my close to 7 fig income to pay off my practice and a small business I have on the side. So take it for what it's worth ... I know I'm an ******* ... but I'll will be an 8 figure ******* by age 40-45 (with no inheritence)

Best of luck,
DM

SO! do we have some FINANCIAL PLANNING STORIES? No more bragging! .... I WANT TO HEAR SOME STORIES. I may use UBS, tell me some opinions!

OH... To add to UBS... what about Raymond James? JOhn Hancock? and LPL? Thanks

FinAdvisor

Is the reason you don’t think anyone will actually read all of your posts because you don’t read others? I never said any other amateur or I (amateur) was better at this than the pros. What I said was A pros advice is not better than an amateurs just because it comes from a pro. I would certainly give more weight to the pros advice, but you have to be in a position to verify. You may not have read my point on financial education either.

SADALE
You had concerns about the general feelings about advisors on these boards. It could just be me but I don’t think FinAdvisors sense of entitlement, self professed arrogance and condescending attitude towards the average American will bolster your cause much.

Jims money
That's a valid point - and would be applicable to any type of profession where there is a similar debate.
The funny thing is, I see more condescending attitudes and arrogance from the NON finanical professionals on these boards. This is why I asked one of them, "why?". I never really got an answer to that one, unfortunately.

SADALE
You and I are not making for very lively reading here. I agree with you again. Individuals should be judged as such. What a wonderful world it would be if that were applied to all aspects of life not just profession. I can’t speak to the specifics of other posters but I’ll give you my thoughts. There are far more non-professionals on these boards than professionals. The law of averages dictates that we will have more bad apples as well. The professionals on these boards tend to be here for a reason and flaming ain’t it. Since no one has to verify what they say here some people just love to pump themselves up. ”I’ve got a gazillion dollars and I did it all on my own because I have a sophisticated understanding of the market”.

An advisor doesn’t do anything for you that you could not do on your own. In other words if I came to you as a client and you put together a plan for me there would not be anything in that plan that I could not have done myself. Please do not misunderstand me, I am not saying that your plan does not have value, or that I would have come up with it on my own. I know there is a lot more to the plan than asset allocation but let use that as an example. You choose 10 funds for me. Because of your extensive research you believe these will be winners. Here’s my point. I could have bought these 10 funds without coming to you and paying your fee. Now, would I have chosen these funds out of the blue? No, because I didn’t do the research that you have. This is different then the often cited surgery example though. It is not possible for me to do surgery on myself under any circumstances. But I think that’s what bothers some people. There is a lot of “I could have done that myself”. What’s more is there is a lot of weatherman syndrome involved. You get paid weather you picked 10 winners or not.

Another issue is advisors tend to be viewed as wealthy individuals. Those without wealth often view those with it with distaste. Perhaps envy would be a better word. Believing that wealthy people got their money by some means of unethical behavior subconsciously helps some people feel better about themselves. After all, if it were a level playing field and you can become wealthy, shouldn’t I be able to do the same thing? Since I haven’t done the same thing you must have cheated.

Jims Money
There are relatively few professions out there, where the product created couldn't actually be created by the consumer themself, if they wanted. I could always sell my own homes. do my own taxes, or service my own car. Though less expensive, it doesn't guarantee a job well done. The differences lie in the quality of the end result. Now, I'm not saying everyone should pay for these services, but I am saying that nobody should put down the individuals that provide those services just because they didn't need them. Not only that, but financial advisors aren't the only people who get paid whether they are successful or not. Every person in this country who has a job is paid regardless of whether they are good or bad at their job. Nobody works for free. The issue is, they won't be paid for very long if they aren't.

Sure, there are consumers out there who can choose their own mutual funds successfully. I tend to chime in when it is that sort of person who as a result, with a new-found opinion of themself, denigrates the "financial advisor" profession as a whole based on their own apparent success at accumulating wealth. That is only one facet of an individual's finances. There is more to a financial plan than accumulation, and that is often where the advisor's worth is displayed. Since this is sometimes a latter step in the process, it is often ignored. I have simply tried to offer up this idea on these boards.

Earlier in my career, I worked in a bank. I was under the impression that banking was easy. I never had a problem balancing a checkbook, and overdrawing an account was something I knew the definition of, but had never seen or done. What many on these boards may just not be aware of, is there is a whole segment of our population that doesn't have a clue, not just about investing, but banking and finance as a whole. The concept that it will be costly if you spend more than what's in your checkbook, is actually foreign to many people -- and these aren't necessarily uneducated people. Many had good jobs and made very good money. It never ceased to amaze me. What all this means is, in addition to the "professionals" and "non-professionals" that post here, there is also a segment of "sub-non-professionals", if you will, out there. All of the individuals on these boards that make it their unwavering opinion that a financial advisor is worthless for everyone, since it was for them, is doing a potential disservice to those that are beneath even them in knowledge. Believe me. I see it. When that individual happens to catch Suze Orman on TV, or hears from an acquaintance, that they shouldn't buy loaded mutual funds, what do they do? Some do actually make an effort to learn and do it themself. That's fine. Others, walk into a bank and buy a CD and think they're "investing", or doing the right thing since there was no fee. We all know, that may turn out to be a problem later in that individual's life. (incidently, when Suze Orman worked for Merrill Lynch, do you think she was telling people to buy no load funds, or to avoid financial advisors?)

All in all, I agree with much of what you say. I simply think there are others here that need to have a more open mind.

Jim, a couple things.

While you and the great Sadale seem to be on cuddly terms now, it doesn't change the fact that you are still reverting to the same schpeil (no idea how to spell that) that says people can do it themselves.

Jim what you need to understand is that our job description does not fit into a paragraph. We don't just do a budget for someone, then figure out with an HP 12c what they need to save at what rate of return to retire at year X, then give them an asset allocation, a pat on the butt and a goodbye. Those who do will not be in this business for any length of time.

What you also need to understand, Jim, is that whole fee-based thing is easily avoided. You mentioned not wanting to have to pay an extra fee for funds that you could have picked on your own. Ummm....ok. You don't. If you are dealing with a commission-based rep, you are paying exactly the same for your fund that you would if you bought it online. The fund company just doesn't have to pay the rep if you do the latter.

So in effect, you are turning down free advice. "Oh but then you'll try to talk me into a loaded fund." Yup. And I'll be doing you a favor. But that's been debated to death, so I'll move on.


Waterboy.

I know you're loving the attention, so who am I to take away that joy...

What if I were to tell you that you are going through med school to become...a SALESMAN?????? Because that's what you will be. You happen to be doing a service for these people, but you will be charging an arm and a leg, and talking people into prescriptions that they could do without, procedures that they can't afford (but their insurance can) (if they only had "investment insurance"....where was I?), and they'll do it too, because you are a doctor, and who are they to question it.

I can only tell someone that their money might not be there if they don't save enough, in the right places. You get to tell people that they might DIE if they don't do as you suggest. You have the easiest sales job in the world. Be proud to carry that beeper on the golf course. Be glad that your new clubs were paid for by the most overpriced service on the planet.

Now. How insulting was I just then?

Then what if I were to tell you that general practitioners don't know squat, because they can't do open-heart surgery? It's exactly the same as telling a financial advisor that they can't manage a stock portfolio. THEY ARE TWO ENTIRELY DIFFERENT PROFESSIONS. Just like a GP, we refer people to those kinds of specialists. We may know enough about it to talk intelligently, but by no means would we try to do it ourselves. That's not what we do.


You know, I used to hold out the hope that doctors were people who just wanted to help others, and just happened to get paid a lot for it. You're doing your profession proud, Waterboy.

Two comments and two questions:

C1: Thanks JimsMoney, your reference to me made me howl. And by the way, in the context of your comment - I wholeheartedly agree with you.

C2: WTR - several times you have said (essentially) that Financial Professionals suck. Several times some very smart people have used the term "distribution". No financial advisor or planner is worth his or her salt if "distribution" is not addressed regardless whether the client is 20 or 90 (in my never humble opinion).

Q: WTR, lets assume that your parents have $2MM in an IRA and they die in 2009. You are their only child and beneficiary. They leave it all to you in their will. They have NO other assets and they have no other insurance (just to be clear). How much do you get?

Q2: WTR, lets assume that your parents have $2MM in an IRA and they die in 2010. You are their only child and beneficiary. They leave it all to you in their will. They have NO other assets and they have no other insurance (just to be clear). How much do you get?

Eagerly awaiting your answer. (p.s. no calling an advisor!!)

Nikk

Finadvisor-

You work/worked at amex as an advisor, you are a joke.
...
EOM

Best of Luck

Nice comeback, waterboy. I always appreciate a kind word.

I worked at amex three years ago.

I also had a paper route when I was 10. Surely that makes me a good advisor.

Finadv-
What is it that you don't get? I am on a level you will never see, get over it....you will never be part of the economic elite.

My side business is a medical research consulting firm, year over year growth is high double digits ... some investors in it are well known in the hedge fund industry ... will it be bought? you bet. Not to mention I will have my own practice. So again, will you stop with your petty attempts to insult me. You are trailer trash compared to me.

You cannot compare an M.D. to a financial advisor that worked at amex, and is probebly still at a second rate firm AS AN ADVISOR. You are not a professional money manger. You have to work like an immigrant and be an advisor, because you aren't smart enough to really succeed in the corporate world of finance.

Best of luck

Which one of these are you, Waterboy?

What cracks me up is that you came on to this site a couple weeks ago with a question a high school dropout could have answered. No one responded because it was a stupid question, and it was obvious that you just wanted to let everyone know how well you were doing, and were hoping to get words of praise (which you did...after you had to beg for someone to respond).

THEN you proceed to recite your resume to the forum, and insult just about everyone from whom you were asking advice not a week earlier. What's interesting about this part is that you first want to know if you'll have 2 million by the time you're 47, and based on your current rate of saving, you just might (by the way, that doesn't bring you even close to "economic elite"). But once you felt you had to prove to all that you were a god among men, you tell us all that you will be an 8 figure a--hole by the time you're 40-45. Last I checked that's over 10 million.

Someone's got an inferiority complex.

P.S.

I love the pairing of these two sentences:

"So again, will you stop with your petty attempts to insult me. You are trailer trash compared to me."

Get this. I make more, save more, and have more money than you. We're the same age. Perhaps you should pick another target.

Best of Luck

Remember: The Kiplinger.com Community is a place for civil discussion -- not for insulting one another.

WTR, still waiting for your answer to my question. Do you know it?

Finadv

You didn't read correctly did you? I will be investing a puny amount of my money into the market over the next 20 years. Note- I am still in medical school and I net 80k off of my medical rsch business, in which my income from it will basically be doubling every year until I sell it, as I said previously I will also have a practice. So again, 8 figures is coming my way, reasonably soon.

Ok lets say it slowly again for finadv... I will be investing in my business that I am a partner in, and concentrate on owning the building where my practice will be located.

Soooo yes I will be investing a small amount in the market, which will have no impact on me making a large amount of money .

Again, you are not on my level .. you are human trash.

-i own you

Waterboy,

Why would you ever pay $2M cash for a building? Do you think is wise financial planning? You're brilliant.

Honestly, I am starting to believe WTR is a 15 year old internet addict, with a vivid imagination, having fun aggrivating a handful of people trying to engage in some valuable discussion. Unless he says anythng truly meaningful, he's probably worth ignoring.

Bye the way, WTR, you can rest your young fingers - I already know your response: "I'm trash."

I am not paying cash for the building where do you get this? I was inferring earlier that i will have the SMALL amount of money i once had in the market in cash in 20 yrs. I was saying I will be diverting the majority of my income to pay for the building so I will be generating a large amount of cash from tenants and from my practice due to the property overhead cost being gone, and the building will cost more than 2mm. I will also need the excess income to invest in my other businesses.

I am not on your level.


But give it a few years little fella. You'll get there.

Waterboy,

Ok, I misunderstood. Now I know that your advanced & complex plan is to take after-tax income to eliminate a deductible mortgage expense to increase your already exceedingly taxable "elite" income.

Brilliant. Bravo. Way to leverage! Isn't there an Everquest game you're missing?

price-

Some people have the luxury of taking short(er) loan terms, what is your point? I won't need any deductions and the extra income will be very substantial (From tenants, and otherwise overhead costs) when the building is owned outright. And I will be investing more and more into the rsch business, I will have no reason to use leverage. What the heck is everquest?

This isn't exactly what I intended when I started this thread.

Good now we are back on topic. Can any of you tell me about UBS, Raymond James? John Hancock? and LPL? experiences? opinions?

yahoo, UBS is a great money manager, if your assets are in the 200k+ range. Make sure you are clear with them on how all the costs are coming out. I've seen a few cases where they charge a small annual percentage, but still have transaction costs.

John Hancock is one of the best insurance and annuity companies in existence. They have exceptionally low costs in their insurance products, and excellent fund options and riders in their annuities. They are currently under credit review, which is actually a good thing, because they are most likely getting bumped up to AAA, which essentially means their priciple guarantees and insurance benefits are as safe as it gets without being FDIC insured.

The other two I'm not very familliar with.

Thank you finadv. I have so far heard good things about all 4. I will have to make a decision soon. I may actully attempt to split the $ between 2 of the four, and then later use the one with better the better service and so forth.

Do tell, pls! My best guess:
Balance minus Taxes (taxed as ordinary income) in both cases. I am probably off by couple thousand $ :)

Has anyone tried using the Financial Planner Services from Mutual Fund companies? Was wondering if you found their plans helpful? The companies I'm thinking in particular, Vanguard and Fidelity. Also, Charles Schawb too.

Thx.

wtr5, you can throw around the "D" word but it doesn't impress me. My sister is a doctor and owns a thriving medical practice (3 docs) on Hilton Head. That's the good news. The bad news is that she's being squeezed between the measly reimbursement rates from Blue Cross/Blue Shield and her malpractice premiums. BCBS pretty much has a lock on SC- you don't accept it, you don't have patients. She takes few vacations because time away from the practice is money lost.

Anyway, back on topic. When I was first starting out in 1975, I had an account at Merrill Lynch- full-service brokers were about the only choice. I liked my broker- she was sharp, about my age, did her own research, and made good picks. The account did turn over a lot, meaning that I was paying commissions and short term gains, but I can't complain.

I did most of my investing through company 401(k)s in subsequent years, but when I left one company after 10 years I had a big enough chunk to go with Schwab and get advice for a % of the assets. Every quarter when we reviewed my portfolio he'd tell me I had too much in tech stocks and I'd have to remind him- again- that that was because of the Comcast stock I'd bought 10 years before- the basis was so low that selling it would pretty much make the whole amount taxable as a short-term gain. At one point, I was unhappy with how his previous recommendations had performed so I asked him to just tell me what his current ones were and I'd track how they did over the next quarter. His reply: "well, if you're just going to track them there's no use in my telling you what they are, is there?" OK, that guy was toast.

Then a guy from Edward Jones came knocking on my door- literally. That's how they find clients. I'd never heard of EJ (I was in NJ and they're more prevalent than in the midwest) but cautiously started investing new money with him in insured municipal bonds. I found him to be painfully honest (that's EJ's style) and my husband referred to him as "obsequious" (DH majored in English- can you tell?), but he knew what he was talking about. His previous career was as a bond trader, so he wasn't just a retreaded psych major.

Fast forward- he now has 90% of my investments and I couldn't be happier. (I still keep some in Schwab to store $$ needed for the mortgage, son's tuition, etc. and write checks when the money is needed, and to access Schwab's research). I just closed out a $100,000 401(k) since my company was acquired and he got it all. Most of the investments are in front-end load mutual funds but I'm paying only 2% because of the $$ I have invested. I track results, graph standard deviations against returns, calculate IRRs, so I know what's performing and what isn't. He's given good advice when I want to make a move and has been proactive about telling me when to get out of an underperforming fund. (I usually move within the American Funds family, so no new charges when I switch from one to the other.) Once he talked me out of dumping a fund at a time which turned out to be a low point. It shot up after that. I owe him one. Others must agree with me- in 3 years he's built up a $50 million client base.

For me, it's the perfect mix of value-added advice and my independent research.

One good source on financial advisors is http://www.epinions.com. They rate a lot of the major ones, with reviews from real people who have used them.

My main gripe with Financial planners (here in Oz) is that they tend to be mediocre - but you end up paying the same 1%+ in upfront commission and 0.25% trailing commisions whether they know their stuff or not!

I think FinAdvice mentioned that if you invest direct with a mutual fund you pay the same as via a planner - the fund just pockets the %fee they'd otherwise pay the planner. Yes, BUT, it's incorrect to say that this then means the Financial Planner's advice is effectively free - because you can get 85%-100% of the financial planner's fee rebated IF you invested in the mutual fund via a discount broker (who rebates the upfront commision). How come the "pro" financial planner failed to mention this? Conflict of interest?

To stick to the actual theme of this thread - reall experiences: How come when my mum went to a financial planner to check on some advice I gave her about saving some capital gains tax on a real estate sale (by making a deductible investment into a retirement account the same financial year) he offered her no substantial advice beyond recommending a retirement fund that, it turns out, offers one of the largest up-front commisions available to financial planners? (And, no, the recommended fund's track record on performance [while not an indicator of future returns ;) ] does not suggest that they outperform other funds enough to warrant their higher fees)

Finally, to quote FinAdvice "You are right about the average person having easy-to-solve problems. Well if our jobs entirely dealt with just the average person's problems, I would agree with you and say that a monkey could do this job." - yes, a Financial Adviser who IS an expert, AND is dealing with a complex situation is worth his fees. But, when a retiring client with $500,000 to invest comes in, with a very simple situation and for whom a "cookie cutter" asset allocation plan is sufficient, do you tell him "Well, here's the plan. It took me half an hour to type the figures into my PC and spit out this plan - it's plain vanilla and your situation doesn't require anything fancy. So that will be a flat $250 for my time - I won't be charging the usual % fee. And as the 0.25% trailing commision on your investments will pay me over $1000 a year you're entitled to get a free half-day review session with me each year for no extra charge"?

I'd LOVE to be able to go to a professional financial planner/advisor when I had a specific question, and pay a reasonable hourly rate for expert advice - but there's no way to tell the REAL professional planners from the bulk of them that are glorified commision salesmen. I think the real problem is that financial planning won't be a profession until it has a professional association that will deregister members who overcharge, or offer inappropriate advice. Simply requiring the correct exam results and work-experience to join is insufficient.

Regards
http://enoughwealth.blogspot.com

I just found this thread. This is absolutely hilarious. Have we not forgotten how to behave like adults?

Financial advisors/planners are among the most highly trained, licensed and regulated of all U.S. professional service industries.

The O.P. asked for good and bad stories -- not some free-for-all discussion that does nothing but rip on FPs. (No, I'm not a F.P.)

Quick evaluating everything based on tenths of percentages, in the scheme of relationships and knowledge gained.