Thank you gentlemen for a kind, polite, and fun debate. Have a nice evening!
I didn’t assume that. I was just trying to say what you’re saying. You can make any example you want. I certainly don’t believe an advisor that charged 3% would yield an improved return of exactly 3% points. Just saying that’s a different scenario with a totally different result than Jeffrey’s example. My quibble with Jeffrey is he said that whole 1-2M amount was fees and it isn’t.
Thank you gentlemen for a kind, polite, and fun debate. Have a nice evening!
It is terrifying how much bad advice is out there. Some conclude from that reality that good advice doesn't exist or isn't worth paying for. I think it makes good advice more valuable.
I think the primary problem is that the industry barriers to entry are so low. Even the licensing exams that exist require little meaningful financial planning knowledge. Specialty designations matter, but even in that regard there are too many spurious ones. That's why I mentioned the CFP as a minimum requirement for financial planning. The planner I use has earned two masters degrees (in financial services and tax) as well as the CFP, CLU, and ChFC designations. Credentials are hardly a guaranty, but they are a good starting point.
I strongly agree with both statements!
I think the primary problem is financial knowledge, skills, and abilities are not the key to being a successful financial advisor. IMO, sales skills are the key. IMO, many successful car salesman could be successful financial advisors. Of course, I am measuring the financial advisors success solely by their income. How much they help or harm their clients is a completely different matter and seldom their firms primary concern.
IMO, RPS was spot on when he wrote...
IMO, "opening an account at Vanguard and learning as much as you can for free" is prudent. Warren Buffett wrote, "Nevertheless, both individuals and institutions will constantly be urged to be active by those who profit from giving advice or effecting transactions. The resulting frictional costs can be huge and, for investors in aggregate, devoid of benefit. So ignore the chatter, keep your costs minimal, and invest in stocks as you would in a farm."Originally Posted by RPS
I’m still hunting for bond funds.
Considering FAGIX and PONAX among others.
Anyone have a decent return bond fund they like?
I think the answer really depends on why you are thinking of adding a tax exempt fund. Is this to complete a diversified portfolio? Does this help you achieve your stated goals for your financial plan? Why do you need a tax exempt fund? Most ETFs and mutual funds are pretty tax efficient without being tax exempt funds. What are your current allocations for Equities and Fixed income?
However, I do think any Vanguard fund is typically good to invest in because of the low cost structure, but I think there is more to think about than cost of a fund. It needs to fit your overall strategy for your financial plan.
Helpful article related to the discussion on home country bias and diversification.
When Home Bias Helps
I think this chart is relevant to your strategy and could save you some large swings in your portfolio.
Diversification.jpg
I don't think the chart will expand like I thought it would. It is depicting a hypothetical investment of $100k before the 2008 collapse. If you were 100% equity it took you 5 years to recover all of your losses. It also took 9 years to catch back up to a 60/40 diversified portfolio.
Buy Bitcoin on the dip! (No, not really...most of the gains were fanciful and I find it humorous when the financial press mention a huge drop on the market cap of the crypto currencies). If I were able to execute a transaction for GE at $35 would the whole enterprise suddenly go from $150 billion to $300 billion in market cap? On paper yes, but the exchange where it was executed would have some explaining to do...
Been in that kind of mix since the 2000 crash.
I have a CFP advisor (not a paid fee / percentage) assigned to me through the company I have most of my holdings. He’s been trying to convince me of a few things:
1) I should pay the 1% and have someone manage my money
2) their most risky managed model is 70/30 stocks and bonds
3) my risk in a 100% stock/mutual fund (I listed what I have in the second post of this thread) is an exposure I should mitigate.
2017 was a good year in terms of financial growth. If nothing else, trying to be informed of options should I make a change (for the right reasons).
Not sure if this helps, thanks for the thought provoking questions.
I likely think Bitcoin could be a whole thread unto itself (and blockchain another).
I’m not super financially savvy and its not clear to me that cryptocurrency today isn’t just massive speculation.
Blockchain conceptually is cool, and feels like a solution in need of a business problem to solve.