Would you just admit you are wrong, instead of doubling down on this bizarre crusade?
Fine, here’s FINRA’s own goddamn rule (bolding mine):
“Also be aware that Financial Analyst, Financial Adviser (Advisor), Financial Consultant, Financial Planner, Investment Consultant or Wealth Manager are generic terms or job titles, and may be used by investment professionals who may not hold any specific credential.”
You are correct - “Financial Advisor” is not a credentialed title. I am not arguing that it is a credentialed title. I am saying that it is a title that is subject to federal oversight and regulation. I guess the confusion is that when we’re talking about dealing with investment advice and broker-dealers, a financial advisor in that context is an investment advisor representative - someone who has passed the Series 65 or higher, and is working under the umbrella of a broker-dealer. The argument you are presenting sounds like any jackass off the street can call himself a financial advisor and sell you an annuity with a side of mutual funds - that is incorrect.
Also, in this context a “financial planner” is a (FINRA regulated) financial advisor (or IAR, if you prefer the distinction) who is working on a fee-based basis to provide a financial plan. As your article suggests, this is a murky area, since “financial planner” is not a regulated title. The author of that article is a CFP - a Certified Financial Planner. As such, he is required per his credentialed CFP designation to provide a financial plan that meets certain requirements (one of which is acting as a fiduciary). Non-CFP financial planners do not have to meet those thresholds (unless required to do so by their broker-dealer) - that is what that article is trying to convey.
Again, utterly untrue. Read your cite next time. It specifically says that financial advisors are regulated much more tightly. It would certainly come as a surprise to my compliance director that I was unregulated.
In fact, we’re highly regulated. Every trade is scrutinized and the new regulations on retirement money raise that bar to the level where I can be directly sued for any malfeasance.
Try that level of regulation in your job and tell me you’re not regulated.
This is another straw man. I never said that you are not regulated. Or that financial advisors are not regulated. Here it is again, courtesy FINRA:
“Also be aware that Financial Analyst, Financial Adviser (Advisor), Financial Consultant, Financial Planner, Investment Consultant or Wealth Manager are generic terms or job titles, and may be used by investment professionals who may not hold any specific credential.”
Read the part you quoted again. I said that if you change your job TITLE you are subject to zero additional regulation. That is not “utterly untrue.” I didn’t say “yeah, if you change your title and then sit outside Vanguard’s office and start collecting people’s money to put them into investments” you are subject to zero regulation. Of course you are. My only point from my very first post was that there’s no “financial advisor” credential. I don’t know where you got the idea that I don’t think financial advisors are regulated.
From what, “Assistant to the Regional Manager”? This is a nonsensical statement - from the moment you pass your tests and meet the requirements, you change your title to “financial advisor”. It’s not a “gosh, I’ve been helping people set up their Roth IRAs for a couple years now, I guess I’m going to really get in the game and make people think I’m an advisor now”. They already WERE financial advisors. And there isn’t anyone that changes their title to “financial advisor” before they’re accredited - their broker-dealer wouldn’t allow it.
Planners, Advisors, FINRA - all interesting but not what the OP needs.
So, to the OP - as I near 70, my biggest regret is that I did not start serious investing earlier than I did (at 44).
The one investment that I had at age 30 - was a bit more than $2000 and I ignored it. In actuality, that was a wise move - it has grown to $75,000 in 37 years.
I highly recommend this free (PDF) book. Or at Amazon if you have a Kindle.
OP here, checking in before work. Thank you everyone for the advice, I will check out links suggested. Even the side bit about advisors is edifying! I’m not completely clueless, although I can seem that way. Still can’t do long division:smack:
I researched Vanguard a bit before giving them anything, low percentage taken etc. They also have free advice. I did the IRA thing cause it helped dump my minimal income level down quite a bit, which helps quite a bit with the whole health care mess.
Thanks for that. I am a super cheapskate, save way more than 50% of my salary, and have a zero rent deal… aka “surfbum” … so by not spending, I didnt have to earn anything.
That was ok in the 70’s and 80’s…but nowadays not so much. (im 63)
If I had put half the effort in investing as I did in surfing? :o eh… I guess next time around.
My dillema which prompted this post, is a minor family windfall, which I only earned by having thrifty parents, doing nothing on my own…(I work pretty hard for what I do earn, so windfalls feel…weird) and if I were to lose any of it, my guilt…well…you get the picture.
I just feel like with markets booming…and savings rates…what? almost negative? I should DO something.
Anyways, thank you again for advice. Off to feed the birds.
The worst mistake you can make is to buy high. You should decide how long you think this high market will last, and invest accordingly. Index funds are great, but they are sensitive to broad market volatility. Another option is to look for investments with less volatility and good returns, like dividend funds. I’ve moved a lot of my more aggressive investments into them, and am getting a nice return. They will go down in the coming crash, but as long as they keep paying I won’t mind. There are plenty of other options - I’m not recommending those as the only one.
Index funds are great if you are 30 and investing for the long haul. You need different options when you reach our age. (I’m 65.)
A big advantage of using an advisor is that he or she can talk you out of irrational strategies. Lots of people lost money in the crash because they sold at the bottom. I held on, and really did well. Would you hold on, or do you need someone to hold your hand in a crisis? Speaking of average returns is fine, but not doing something dumb can be much better for you than 1% more a year.
I’ve used one for years, and am retired with no money worries, and in lots of investments that I wouldn’t have thought of. You need to consider what kind of risk you are comfortable with (less than when you were 30) and how you want to diversify.
And people giving you advice without knowing how old you are shows that internet advice isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.
And people who ARE licensed can’t give specific advice in this sort of forum.
Be very careful with these thoughts. I would still invest, but, as mentioned above, it depends on what your time horizon is as to what to invest in. The markets have been booming for something like 8 years now. I think it’s rather unlikely that we’ll see the returns we’ve seen in that time period again anytime soon, but I have been surprised. Timing the market is a fool’s errand (IMHO), but be mentally prepared that a market correction is possible and that you may see yourself losing money for several years. Personally, I buy every two weeks through all markets, up or down. (It’s an idea called “dollar cost averaging.”) Do not act on emotion, weather the storm, otherwise you end up in the classic “buy high, sell low” trap. But, once again, this depends on your investment horizon. I still have about twenty five years to go until retirement, so I’m happy to weather any storms. If I had five to go, well, I wouldn’t be in something potentially volatile like an S&P index fund.
At 63, the reference & example I provided is not all that appropriate. Sorry.
You could look into a fairly low fee pair of mutual funds from Vanguard. They are managed funds (less volatile than index funds) and have a good track record of many decades. One even survived the Great Depression (the other is not that old).
A friend refers to them as the bedrock of ‘little old lady trust funds’ because they are so reliable and conservative - and used in so many trusts to provide regular income without too much risk. They are Vanguard Wellington and Wellesley funds. One is 65% stock and 35% bonds while the other reverses that allocation. By equal amounts of each and you have a conservative 50/50 mix.
You do pay a fee for the benefit of a manager keeping an eye on things, but it is very, very low compared to most funds and much less than an advisor.
Don’t get the idea that they are 100% safe, they will lose value in a down market - but not as much as the market in general because as stocks drop, bonds will rise. They will continue to pay dividends. Both lost from 2007-March 2009 but had completely recovered by the end of 2009.
The biggest mistake is not buying high or buying low (trying to time the market is a fools endeavor) - it is worrying about loss and buying nothing. Even sitting nice safe cash means you lose to inflation every year. The market goes up over time…
Btw, my 90 year old mother owns both these funds and is happy with them.
This thread is very close in spirit to my thread. Posting so I can follow it.
The debate about regulation is IMHO related to but not exactly on point as to whether ‘professional’ investment advice is worth it. Regulation can go some ways to preventing people who have no idea what they are talking about giving financial advice for money. To a lesser degree regulation can contain practices like churning and just pure overcharging.
But regulation doesn’t limit financial advice to one off (or once every some years) fee only advice. Which is the only kind likely to be worth the money if you have the wherewithal to learn some simple concepts yourself* and the discipline to stick to a plan you devise yourself. People a bit more capable don’t even need that.
It’s a substantial ‘if’, granted. But the basic problem with continuous active investment advice is not lack of regulation. It’s that it’s just not worth the money in a reasonably efficient market, again given a certain threshold level of investor capability. And IMO most people do have the potential to reach that ‘threshold 1’ (run your portfolio after help with set up by a fee only planner), and many ‘threshold 2’ (learn the basic stuff the fee only person would tell you, yourself).
*starting with stuff like: unless you’re really far up the scale you’re unlikely to ‘beat the market’ yourself; if you do have that kind of talent, why are doing what you do for a day job instead of that? And you’re also unlikely to after the cost of paying somebody else to beat it for you.
Thank you for that, I will check those two funds out. I appreciate the advice.
They do have a huge listing of funds to choose from, I guess just have to stop fooling around here and go fool around there.
And everyone else, thank you as well.
I 'm not inclined at all to try and time anything, high or low. I’m just sort of bugged/ buggered that savers are at the bottom.
Siam Sam I will be over to your thread to subscribe. (its not that one about raising and selling pigeons for profit is it?:D:D) Joke!!! Im a bird guy!!! I love that pigeon thread BTW
…I really do appreciate the advice here, Voyager, Corry El and Pulykamell… and everyone else. I would respond individually, but as this is my first OP, and I dont write all that much, I need to get the multiquote working a bit better first.
I like seeing digressions and argumentation as well.
Thats what this place is all about.
My employers are sort of old school, hands on, owning buildings and facilities etc, so they are sometimes difficult to approach to discuss money matters, otherwise I might not have started this thread. I do get hand me down Wall Street Journals everyday, so theres that…but sometimes its like reading a scammers list of what NOT to do…haha:eek:
(his) father started investing in the cray/cray schemes in his 90’s, silver coins, collectibles and stuff from Fox tv, and created an ungodly mess to untangle when he recently passed.)
My father was quite conservative, and kept funds in CD’s, but i look at those rates now, sheesh.
Anyways, thank you again, everyone.
My father had this thing about taxes, and kept all his money in municipal bond funds - though his income was not high enough to get the real benefit. But they did reasonably well, and as he approached 90 they were safe.
The benefit of a (good) adviser is that he or she can sort through the possibilities and answer questions about them. Remember you can reject the recommendation. You can see how much fun you find in reading prospecti from the funds. If your eyes are glazing over, it might be good to pay someone to do it for you. If it gives you joy, go for it.
I understand that I’m giving up short terms gains by being conservative in today’s market. Dollar cost average is the best approach, but not so good when you are retired, though you do have the option of which type of account to take money from. 401Ks are a great way of doing this automatically - I kept investing right through the crash, and it worked well. But I don’t think it fits the OPs situation.
The best investment advice is to not be unemployed during a downturn. Hard to control, though.
I only noticed hours after that post the OP posted he was 63. That’s pretty much covered by my last sentence, though. I certainly would not be heavily invested in stock heavy funds at that age, except maybe high dividend stocks or income funds.
Had a client do that just today. He’s very mercurial in what he wants and puts me through the ringer every time he gets a windfall. I’ll keep trying though.