fee based being the ultra important key words.
My pleasure, I’m very pleased to hear you own them! I think both currently have more fuel in their tanks. However, at these levels, I really like C at ~ 70% tangible book value.Originally Posted by elvis14
Absolutely, meeting with a fee based financial advisor is a very good idea for most people.Originally Posted by elvis14
fee based being the ultra important key words.
Bring 'em on!
I just went thru another round of this as friends of ours just sold a business they built from scratch, and they're sitting on a nice pile of cash...their previous 401(k) investments have one things in common: they provided great commissions to the "advisor" (sales guy) who sold them...
Finally got them to see a fee only advisor (of course it was good to explain what that meant and why it was good) and now they're bully on board...mission accomplished!
Citi’s problems have problems, but I’m not buying WFC should be closer to tangible book value (~ 81% vs. ~ 70%).
One things for sure, a great CEO is worth a lot more than they’re paid! For example, Dimon currently has JPM at ~ 187% of tangible book.
To be clear, tangible book is just one of many bank ratios one should analyze. I like using it, and other ratios, for relative comparisons.
Yea, but there is some controversy in the financial planning industry about what exactly constitutes "fee based" (and I'm a (mostly) "fee based" certified financial planner and investment advisor). There are many RIA's and CFP's out there who describe themselves as "exclusively" "fee based" (i.e., they claim that they don't sell any products (life insurance, mutual funds, annuities, etc.) on a "commission" basis. However, the vast majority (99% or greater) of these "fee based" advisors make their money by gathering "AUM" (assets under management) and then charging you an annual fee (usually in the range of 1.00 % - but it may be higher or lower, depending on the amount of investable (sic) assets that you have and other factors. There is an investment advisor in my community who charges ALL of his client 2% per year to manage their money for them, no matter the size of their portfolio. For example, if you have $2 million of financial assets to be managed, the fee-based investment advisor or financial planner may charge you $20,000 EVERY year (based on a 1% fee) to manage those investments for you (and the fee amount will go up if the assets under management increase). IMHO, this is the biggest financial rip-off in the history of mankind (because the dirty little secret is that the investment advisor rarely, if ever, is doing $20,000 worth of work for you each year and I have seen numerous examples where the investment advisor has cost the client huge amounts of money by making, frankly, stupid investment decisions (wrong portfolio allocations, being too conservative or too aggressive, owning the wrong stocks or bonds, etc).
There are also some (a very small number) of financial planners (myself included) who charge their clients on an hourly basis (like a lawyer or accountant or even your plumber) for the work that they do on your behalf. These planners do not sell products on commission AND they do not charge for AUM. Admittedly, it is MUCH harder as a financial planner to make large amounts of money running your practice this way BUT I think the client usually ends up better off and saves a LOT of money by not overpaying an investment advisor ("fee based", allegedly) every year to make stupid investment decisions for them.
I agree completely! Yes, one has to read the fine print carefully to determine who really IS fee based and who isn't...your last paragraph sums it up nicely...several of the "fee based" advisors my friends found really did want a management fee each year, they had to look around a fair bit to find a good advisor who genuinely was fee based only, no AUM percentage charge...
Just wanted to note that I have a financial planner who charges us a fee based on assets under management and we adore her. Her advice is very solid and the service is incredible. It does not matter what seemingly minor thing I might have to deal with, she and her team step up immediately and take care of it. I recently found an old stock certificate in my father's papers. It was worth 1 share of MSFT, not exactly a windfall, and yet one of our financial planner's assistants spent hours working the system to redeem the certificate and get the share transferred into the proper account. I kept on telling them, "don't worry about it, it is not worth very much," and they just plowed ahead doing the work because taking care of my assets is their priority. These folks are the best!
While we pay her firm a large fee every year, we are not at all hesitant about doing so as we have developed a great deal of trust in her advice.
Why are you wasting time here when you could be wasting it by listening to the latest episode of the DBR Podcast?
Yea, Jason, I should have noted one caveat to my posting above about fee-based planners who charge clients on an "AUM" basis. There is no doubt, that for SOME people, this is NOT necessarily a bad model to use, IF you need a lot of "hand holding" from your advisor (like in your case) AND you trust your advisor and the advice that they give you is good. Certainly, in that case, it MAY be worthwhile to pay your advisor an annual fee (based on the size of the assets managed); furthermore, there may be some advisors who can out perform the broad markets on a consistent basis (although very, very, very few, in my experience) and there again it may worth it to pay them the 1% or so fee every year.
When the market first tanked in March, there was a lot of discussion about which stocks seemed oversold and would recover. Kudos to all of you who were brave enough to take the plunge then, as the market's V recovery has really made such buys seem prescient! (Alas, I'm still sitting on a large pile of cash, as I kept waiting for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc, shoe to drop...)
My question now is, given the positive signs we've gotten from Pfizer et al, which stocks/industries do folks think might rebound should we actually start to get the virus under control this spring? (I know there's still a lot of ifs there...but that's part of the risk / reward pas de deux.)
Off the top of my head, it would seem the passenger airlines should get a boost from folks feeling safer to travel again. (I believe it was Jeffrey who suggested a cargo air company a while back?) I know airline stocks can often be fool's gold, but I'm thinking solely of a recovery bump here, not necessarily anything too long term.
Other travel related companies might be Uber or Lyft (but both of them already got a huge recent lift (ha ha) due to some rulings about their employees, so is there more room to run there?). I don't think Airbnb is publicly traded yet, is it?
Any other ideas?...or should I be disabused of my naivete?...
From the Way Back Machine, I just heard an ad on NPR for Merrill Lynch Pierce Fenner and Smith...have not heard them refer to themselves that way for a very very long time...