I also live in VA and use Thrivent Financial in Midlothian, VA. I don't have annuities either and my guy is doing a good job for me. Thrivent seems to be a very good place.
Financial Advice
- Thread starter cpayne5
- Start date
- Status
Originally Posted by Leo99
We discussed annuity but decided against it. What he's suggesting is a retirement income fund instead of the handful of stocks I currently own and he wanted me out of Fidelity's small cap fund. The fund he recommends is NDARX.
I suppose. I'm not a fan of funds that have a short track record. If you compare it to the S&P 500 index fund like FXIAX, the index fund beats it on return every year. Even in a down year, that fund was down 4.99% while the index fund was down 4.40%. Morningstar only gives it a 3 star rating and the index fund is 5 stars.
We discussed annuity but decided against it. What he's suggesting is a retirement income fund instead of the handful of stocks I currently own and he wanted me out of Fidelity's small cap fund. The fund he recommends is NDARX.
I suppose. I'm not a fan of funds that have a short track record. If you compare it to the S&P 500 index fund like FXIAX, the index fund beats it on return every year. Even in a down year, that fund was down 4.99% while the index fund was down 4.40%. Morningstar only gives it a 3 star rating and the index fund is 5 stars.
Originally Posted by Leo99
Originally Posted by Vikas
Suppose you earned $100K. Would you be willing to hand over $25K to your guy? How about an year when you *lost* $200K? Would you *still* hand over $22K to your guy that year, so that your total loss now would be $222K ?
*REALLY*?????
It's not based on earnings it is based on assets under management. If I had him manage $1M, that would be $10k per year. So, if the return was 4% for $40,000, then, the advisor would get 25% of my income. If the loss was $200k, he'd still get $8k.
https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/how-much-does-a-financial-advisor-cost/
This is *exactly* what I said. If you made $40K, you gave $10K to him and thus lost 25% of your annual income for that year.
If you lost $200K in a year, your actual loss would be $208K.
Even after understanding that you still want him to manage your investments?
May I ask you what was your profession which allowed you to build a nice nest egg but did not require even rudimentary math?
Originally Posted by Vikas
Suppose you earned $100K. Would you be willing to hand over $25K to your guy? How about an year when you *lost* $200K? Would you *still* hand over $22K to your guy that year, so that your total loss now would be $222K ?
*REALLY*?????
It's not based on earnings it is based on assets under management. If I had him manage $1M, that would be $10k per year. So, if the return was 4% for $40,000, then, the advisor would get 25% of my income. If the loss was $200k, he'd still get $8k.
https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/how-much-does-a-financial-advisor-cost/
This is *exactly* what I said. If you made $40K, you gave $10K to him and thus lost 25% of your annual income for that year.
If you lost $200K in a year, your actual loss would be $208K.
Even after understanding that you still want him to manage your investments?
May I ask you what was your profession which allowed you to build a nice nest egg but did not require even rudimentary math?
Last edited:
I know a few legitimate millionaires, between $5M - $8M net worth.
All have very simple and surprisingly very basic ETF and mutual fund portfolios..... nothing glamorous or exotic.
If you earned your money, you need to educate yourself on low risk investments and stay away from people trying to steer you into high commission investments that a basic S&P 500 fund will consistently beat over the decades.
All have very simple and surprisingly very basic ETF and mutual fund portfolios..... nothing glamorous or exotic.
If you earned your money, you need to educate yourself on low risk investments and stay away from people trying to steer you into high commission investments that a basic S&P 500 fund will consistently beat over the decades.
Originally Posted by Vikas
Originally Posted by Leo99
Originally Posted by Vikas
Suppose you earned $100K. Would you be willing to hand over $25K to your guy? How about an year when you *lost* $200K? Would you *still* hand over $22K to your guy that year, so that your total loss now would be $222K ?
*REALLY*?????
It's not based on earnings it is based on assets under management. If I had him manage $1M, that would be $10k per year. So, if the return was 4% for $40,000, then, the advisor would get 25% of my income. If the loss was $200k, he'd still get $8k.
https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/how-much-does-a-financial-advisor-cost/
This is *exactly* what I said. If you made $40K, you gave $10K to him and thus lost 25% of your annual income for that year.
If you lost $200K in a year, your actual loss would be $208K.
Even after understanding that you still want him to manage your investments?
May I ask you what was your profession which allowed you to build a nice nest egg but did not require even rudimentary math?
You're acting unprofessionally. We're having an adult conversation. If you don't agree with a AUM fee of 1%, that is your decision but childish insults are not necessary. It's a common advisor fee. It's a decision I need to make and I'm on the fence about.
Originally Posted by Leo99
Originally Posted by Vikas
Suppose you earned $100K. Would you be willing to hand over $25K to your guy? How about an year when you *lost* $200K? Would you *still* hand over $22K to your guy that year, so that your total loss now would be $222K ?
*REALLY*?????
It's not based on earnings it is based on assets under management. If I had him manage $1M, that would be $10k per year. So, if the return was 4% for $40,000, then, the advisor would get 25% of my income. If the loss was $200k, he'd still get $8k.
https://www.nerdwallet.com/blog/investing/how-much-does-a-financial-advisor-cost/
This is *exactly* what I said. If you made $40K, you gave $10K to him and thus lost 25% of your annual income for that year.
If you lost $200K in a year, your actual loss would be $208K.
Even after understanding that you still want him to manage your investments?
May I ask you what was your profession which allowed you to build a nice nest egg but did not require even rudimentary math?
You're acting unprofessionally. We're having an adult conversation. If you don't agree with a AUM fee of 1%, that is your decision but childish insults are not necessary. It's a common advisor fee. It's a decision I need to make and I'm on the fence about.
Originally Posted by Mr Nice
I know a few legitimate millionaires, between $5M - $8M net worth.
All have very simple and surprisingly very basic ETF and mutual fund portfolios..... nothing glamorous or exotic.
If you earned your money, you need to educate yourself on low risk investments and stay away from people trying to steer you into high commission investments that a basic S&P 500 fund will consistently beat over the decades.
A coworker that was buying an Exxon station told me, "the first million is the hardest." The investing is the easy part. It's knowing when and how much to withdraw to keep you afloat throughout retirement that is tricky. If you die with a million in the bank...maybe you should have gone on that exotic vacation or bought that Hellcat that you decided not to spend the money on or more importantly, maybe you could have retired a few years earlier. If you run out of money before you die....maybe you shouldn't have gone on that exotic vacation or maybe you should have worked an extra year or two.
I know a few legitimate millionaires, between $5M - $8M net worth.
All have very simple and surprisingly very basic ETF and mutual fund portfolios..... nothing glamorous or exotic.
If you earned your money, you need to educate yourself on low risk investments and stay away from people trying to steer you into high commission investments that a basic S&P 500 fund will consistently beat over the decades.
A coworker that was buying an Exxon station told me, "the first million is the hardest." The investing is the easy part. It's knowing when and how much to withdraw to keep you afloat throughout retirement that is tricky. If you die with a million in the bank...maybe you should have gone on that exotic vacation or bought that Hellcat that you decided not to spend the money on or more importantly, maybe you could have retired a few years earlier. If you run out of money before you die....maybe you shouldn't have gone on that exotic vacation or maybe you should have worked an extra year or two.
Last edited:
Yes I agree with your coworker 100% in that the withdrawal in retirement part of life is more difficult than the accumulation phase.
May I suggest that if you are still on the fence about hiring an advisor, you have him manage half then after a period of say 5 years, compare your results to his.
I still say it's not that hard to do it yourself and save the 1% fee. Also keep in mind that advisors like to put their clients in high expense ratio funds so your costs will be even higher.
May I suggest that if you are still on the fence about hiring an advisor, you have him manage half then after a period of say 5 years, compare your results to his.
I still say it's not that hard to do it yourself and save the 1% fee. Also keep in mind that advisors like to put their clients in high expense ratio funds so your costs will be even higher.
If you know how to find a competent financial advisor, then you no longer need one. You did NOT hand over 25% of your money while you were earning it earlier from a job or business before you retired. Why would you hand over approximately 25% of your investment income?
Please visit BogleHeads forum. The advice there would be immensely valuable.
Please visit BogleHeads forum. The advice there would be immensely valuable.
Thanks for the replies.
To answer a couple questions...
I'll be 38 in July, did not cash out my pension, and have not moved my TSP funds. I have 11 years of federal service, which will pay me $1300/month when I turn 62. I can elect to start collecting on my 57th birthday, with a 25% penalty.
I signed up for blooom.com a couple of years ago and gave them control of my TSP allocations. Before that, I was scared to do anything with it, fearing I might do something dumb and lose it all. So, I kept the money in bonds only.
My salary is quite a bit higher now, and I'd to be as smart as I can with it. My plan is to max out a Roth 401k that the new employer offers, but beyond that I'm not sure what options I have - which is the reason for this thread - figure out who I should trust locally (or otherwise) who can guide me beyond the 401k. Sounds like I'd be well served to find a CFP.
To answer a couple questions...
I'll be 38 in July, did not cash out my pension, and have not moved my TSP funds. I have 11 years of federal service, which will pay me $1300/month when I turn 62. I can elect to start collecting on my 57th birthday, with a 25% penalty.
I signed up for blooom.com a couple of years ago and gave them control of my TSP allocations. Before that, I was scared to do anything with it, fearing I might do something dumb and lose it all. So, I kept the money in bonds only.
My salary is quite a bit higher now, and I'd to be as smart as I can with it. My plan is to max out a Roth 401k that the new employer offers, but beyond that I'm not sure what options I have - which is the reason for this thread - figure out who I should trust locally (or otherwise) who can guide me beyond the 401k. Sounds like I'd be well served to find a CFP.
38 ?
You're still a baby.
Yes, max out everything and retire early.
You're still a baby.
Yes, max out everything and retire early.
Originally Posted by cpayne5
Thanks for the replies.
To answer a couple questions...
I'll be 38 in July, did not cash out my pension, and have not moved my TSP funds. I have 11 years of federal service, which will pay me $1300/month when I turn 62. I can elect to start collecting on my 57th birthday, with a 25% penalty.
I signed up for blooom.com a couple of years ago and gave them control of my TSP allocations. Before that, I was scared to do anything with it, fearing I might do something dumb and lose it all. So, I kept the money in bonds only.
My salary is quite a bit higher now, and I'd to be as smart as I can with it. My plan is to max out a Roth 401k that the new employer offers, but beyond that I'm not sure what options I have - which is the reason for this thread - figure out who I should trust locally (or otherwise) who can guide me beyond the 401k. Sounds like I'd be well served to find a CFP.
You've got a long way to go. At your age, you should have very little bonds. I'm older than you and finally got rid of bonds year ago. They never seemed to do what they claimed to do. When the market was down, even bonds were down and they were never down that long to make bonds pay out over the long term. Index funds are the way to go and just ride out the downturns in the market. I think 2 years ago people were thinking the market was too high and then you get that 30% return from the S&P 500. The doom and gloom headlines get the news. Basic indexes would be the S&P 500, Total Stock market or Russell 1000.
Thanks for the replies.
To answer a couple questions...
I'll be 38 in July, did not cash out my pension, and have not moved my TSP funds. I have 11 years of federal service, which will pay me $1300/month when I turn 62. I can elect to start collecting on my 57th birthday, with a 25% penalty.
I signed up for blooom.com a couple of years ago and gave them control of my TSP allocations. Before that, I was scared to do anything with it, fearing I might do something dumb and lose it all. So, I kept the money in bonds only.
My salary is quite a bit higher now, and I'd to be as smart as I can with it. My plan is to max out a Roth 401k that the new employer offers, but beyond that I'm not sure what options I have - which is the reason for this thread - figure out who I should trust locally (or otherwise) who can guide me beyond the 401k. Sounds like I'd be well served to find a CFP.
You've got a long way to go. At your age, you should have very little bonds. I'm older than you and finally got rid of bonds year ago. They never seemed to do what they claimed to do. When the market was down, even bonds were down and they were never down that long to make bonds pay out over the long term. Index funds are the way to go and just ride out the downturns in the market. I think 2 years ago people were thinking the market was too high and then you get that 30% return from the S&P 500. The doom and gloom headlines get the news. Basic indexes would be the S&P 500, Total Stock market or Russell 1000.
Originally Posted by Leo99
A coworker that was buying an Exxon station told me, "the first million is the hardest." The investing is the easy part. It's knowing when and how much to withdraw to keep you afloat throughout retirement that is tricky. If you die with a million in the bank...maybe you should have gone on that exotic vacation or bought that Hellcat that you decided not to spend the money on or more importantly, maybe you could have retired a few years earlier. If you run out of money before you die....maybe you shouldn't have gone on that exotic vacation or maybe you should have worked an extra year or two.
Well said.
I have a brother-in-law with a PhD in the field (retired department chair) that I've spoken to extensively. He is very familiar with the 4% withdrawal rate study and has some personal involvement. Finance guy good at math, computer programming, and research, yikes!
The 4% withdrawal rate isn't based upon leaving $ to your heirs, but based on a 90 or 95% (I forgot which) chance you won't go broke in your lifetime. Withdrawals are initially 4% of your initial stash annually, adjusted upward for inflation in each subsequent year. The numbers assume you withdraw when the market is down just like you will withdraw when it's up.
Since it's a 90 or 95% success scenario, 90 or 95% of the people who follow this guideline will die leaving an estate. The lucky ones (if you could call it that) that retire near the start of a bull market will die with a lot of money. The unlucky ones that retire at the start of a bad bear market may die broke.
My take is this study doesn't consider that most people are above the sustenance level and can adjust their spending levels. If you were in an S&P 500 ETF and made 30% gains last year, why not buy the Hellcat, take the trip to Europe and spend those gains like a drunken sailor? Then, if the market tanks the next year, adjust your spending way down so you don't have to sell stocks/ETFs/mutual funds at the bottom.
In my main retirement account I followed the advice of my Fidelity account manager and went with professional management. Fees were 1% of the total, or 10% of my gains (my choice). After a couple of disappointing years (mostly stocks and covered calls) they made 14%. That gain was about 8% below an S&P 500 ETF gain that year. When they bragged about the 14% return (net after fees 12.6%) I fired them. Since then I've beat their returns even if you ignored their fee. I am a long way from being a financial genius and follow the strategy of a mutual fund with a great track record, S&P500 ETF, and a couple of stocks.
What I'm trying to say is that if you go with a managed account, keep a close eye on it, and be prepared to dump them if you are unhappy. If that is the case make up your mind and don't allow an account executive [salesman] talk you out of it.
A coworker that was buying an Exxon station told me, "the first million is the hardest." The investing is the easy part. It's knowing when and how much to withdraw to keep you afloat throughout retirement that is tricky. If you die with a million in the bank...maybe you should have gone on that exotic vacation or bought that Hellcat that you decided not to spend the money on or more importantly, maybe you could have retired a few years earlier. If you run out of money before you die....maybe you shouldn't have gone on that exotic vacation or maybe you should have worked an extra year or two.
Well said.
I have a brother-in-law with a PhD in the field (retired department chair) that I've spoken to extensively. He is very familiar with the 4% withdrawal rate study and has some personal involvement. Finance guy good at math, computer programming, and research, yikes!
The 4% withdrawal rate isn't based upon leaving $ to your heirs, but based on a 90 or 95% (I forgot which) chance you won't go broke in your lifetime. Withdrawals are initially 4% of your initial stash annually, adjusted upward for inflation in each subsequent year. The numbers assume you withdraw when the market is down just like you will withdraw when it's up.
Since it's a 90 or 95% success scenario, 90 or 95% of the people who follow this guideline will die leaving an estate. The lucky ones (if you could call it that) that retire near the start of a bull market will die with a lot of money. The unlucky ones that retire at the start of a bad bear market may die broke.
My take is this study doesn't consider that most people are above the sustenance level and can adjust their spending levels. If you were in an S&P 500 ETF and made 30% gains last year, why not buy the Hellcat, take the trip to Europe and spend those gains like a drunken sailor? Then, if the market tanks the next year, adjust your spending way down so you don't have to sell stocks/ETFs/mutual funds at the bottom.
In my main retirement account I followed the advice of my Fidelity account manager and went with professional management. Fees were 1% of the total, or 10% of my gains (my choice). After a couple of disappointing years (mostly stocks and covered calls) they made 14%. That gain was about 8% below an S&P 500 ETF gain that year. When they bragged about the 14% return (net after fees 12.6%) I fired them. Since then I've beat their returns even if you ignored their fee. I am a long way from being a financial genius and follow the strategy of a mutual fund with a great track record, S&P500 ETF, and a couple of stocks.
What I'm trying to say is that if you go with a managed account, keep a close eye on it, and be prepared to dump them if you are unhappy. If that is the case make up your mind and don't allow an account executive [salesman] talk you out of it.
Originally Posted by ArrestMeRedZ
Originally Posted by Leo99
A coworker that was buying an Exxon station told me, "the first million is the hardest." The investing is the easy part. It's knowing when and how much to withdraw to keep you afloat throughout retirement that is tricky. If you die with a million in the bank...maybe you should have gone on that exotic vacation or bought that Hellcat that you decided not to spend the money on or more importantly, maybe you could have retired a few years earlier. If you run out of money before you die....maybe you shouldn't have gone on that exotic vacation or maybe you should have worked an extra year or two.
Well said.
I have a brother-in-law with a PhD in the field (retired department chair) that I've spoken to extensively. He is very familiar with the 4% withdrawal rate study and has some personal involvement. Finance guy good at math, computer programming, and research, yikes!
The 4% withdrawal rate isn't based upon leaving $ to your heirs, but based on a 90 or 95% (I forgot which) chance you won't go broke in your lifetime. Withdrawals are initially 4% of your initial stash annually, adjusted upward for inflation in each subsequent year. The numbers assume you withdraw when the market is down just like you will withdraw when it's up.
Since it's a 90 or 95% success scenario, 90 or 95% of the people who follow this guideline will die leaving an estate. The lucky ones (if you could call it that) that retire near the start of a bull market will die with a lot of money. The unlucky ones that retire at the start of a bad bear market may die broke.
My take is this study doesn't consider that most people are above the sustenance level and can adjust their spending levels. If you were in an S&P 500 ETF and made 30% gains last year, why not buy the Hellcat, take the trip to Europe and spend those gains like a drunken sailor? Then, if the market tanks the next year, adjust your spending way down so you don't have to sell stocks/ETFs/mutual funds at the bottom.
In my main retirement account I followed the advice of my Fidelity account manager and went with professional management. Fees were 1% of the total, or 10% of my gains (my choice). After a couple of disappointing years (mostly stocks and covered calls) they made 14%. That gain was about 8% below an S&P 500 ETF gain that year. When they bragged about the 14% return (net after fees 12.6%) I fired them. Since then I've beat their returns even if you ignored their fee. I am a long way from being a financial genius and follow the strategy of a mutual fund with a great track record, S&P500 ETF, and a couple of stocks.
What I'm trying to say is that if you go with a managed account, keep a close eye on it, and be prepared to dump them if you are unhappy. If that is the case make up your mind and don't allow an account executive [salesman] talk you out of it.
Good advice. You can't really run out of money with social security. If we flame out early and live longer than we're planning to, great for us. We'll be 80+ and surviving off social security just millions others our age. You're correct that too many of these model assume you'll spending big bucks on vacation when you're 80 or whatever and don't account for spending less in a year or two. A lot of folks think the 4% withdraw rate is too conservative and I agree. I read that 4% assures capital preservation and extrapolated that to mean inheritance.
Originally Posted by Leo99
A coworker that was buying an Exxon station told me, "the first million is the hardest." The investing is the easy part. It's knowing when and how much to withdraw to keep you afloat throughout retirement that is tricky. If you die with a million in the bank...maybe you should have gone on that exotic vacation or bought that Hellcat that you decided not to spend the money on or more importantly, maybe you could have retired a few years earlier. If you run out of money before you die....maybe you shouldn't have gone on that exotic vacation or maybe you should have worked an extra year or two.
Well said.
I have a brother-in-law with a PhD in the field (retired department chair) that I've spoken to extensively. He is very familiar with the 4% withdrawal rate study and has some personal involvement. Finance guy good at math, computer programming, and research, yikes!
The 4% withdrawal rate isn't based upon leaving $ to your heirs, but based on a 90 or 95% (I forgot which) chance you won't go broke in your lifetime. Withdrawals are initially 4% of your initial stash annually, adjusted upward for inflation in each subsequent year. The numbers assume you withdraw when the market is down just like you will withdraw when it's up.
Since it's a 90 or 95% success scenario, 90 or 95% of the people who follow this guideline will die leaving an estate. The lucky ones (if you could call it that) that retire near the start of a bull market will die with a lot of money. The unlucky ones that retire at the start of a bad bear market may die broke.
My take is this study doesn't consider that most people are above the sustenance level and can adjust their spending levels. If you were in an S&P 500 ETF and made 30% gains last year, why not buy the Hellcat, take the trip to Europe and spend those gains like a drunken sailor? Then, if the market tanks the next year, adjust your spending way down so you don't have to sell stocks/ETFs/mutual funds at the bottom.
In my main retirement account I followed the advice of my Fidelity account manager and went with professional management. Fees were 1% of the total, or 10% of my gains (my choice). After a couple of disappointing years (mostly stocks and covered calls) they made 14%. That gain was about 8% below an S&P 500 ETF gain that year. When they bragged about the 14% return (net after fees 12.6%) I fired them. Since then I've beat their returns even if you ignored their fee. I am a long way from being a financial genius and follow the strategy of a mutual fund with a great track record, S&P500 ETF, and a couple of stocks.
What I'm trying to say is that if you go with a managed account, keep a close eye on it, and be prepared to dump them if you are unhappy. If that is the case make up your mind and don't allow an account executive [salesman] talk you out of it.
Good advice. You can't really run out of money with social security. If we flame out early and live longer than we're planning to, great for us. We'll be 80+ and surviving off social security just millions others our age. You're correct that too many of these model assume you'll spending big bucks on vacation when you're 80 or whatever and don't account for spending less in a year or two. A lot of folks think the 4% withdraw rate is too conservative and I agree. I read that 4% assures capital preservation and extrapolated that to mean inheritance.
What are the circumstances of the loss, example, with him your account drops 10% however the market dropped 15%, He saved you 5%!
He only needs to make you 1% more than the market to break even. If he makes you 2% or more, you are ahead $$$
1% makes sense.
There are many money managers that charge up to 25% of the profits and some a significantly higher asset fee.
He only needs to make you 1% more than the market to break even. If he makes you 2% or more, you are ahead $$$
1% makes sense.
There are many money managers that charge up to 25% of the profits and some a significantly higher asset fee.
Originally Posted by JLawrence08648
What are the circumstances of the loss, example, with him your account drops 10% however the market dropped 15%, He saved you 5%!
He only needs to make you 1% more than the market to break even. If he makes you 2% or more, you are ahead $$$
1% makes sense.
There are many money managers that charge up to 25% of the profits and some a significantly higher asset fee.
That's how it works in theory but not reality. Look at the returns of the S&P 500 for the last 10 years. You can go back 30 years if you like. What happens is that there's only a couple years that are really bad and several that are spectacular. While they claim they are less risky, over the long term, they're making you less money and charging more in fees.
The key questions to ask is to have them disclose their suggested portfolio for the last couple of years and compare that to how the market did. As I mentioned earlier, 75% of fund managers can't beat the S&P 500. What I've also noticed from the ones who put together a sample portfolio, the funds they pick haven't been around that long. It's easy to come up with a fund that might have a good short term track record, but much harder for a fund that's been around for 10+ years. The key problems I have in their pitch is that claim that they're professionals and yield higher returns, but they can't guarantee it. Basically the math is that there's a 75% chance they will under perform the index. With the 1% charge on top of that, it is even harder for them to beat the index. It's worth paying the 1% if they can do it. The main thing is to get them to show you the data that says they've been doing it. You are basically gambling 1% that they can beat out 75% of the other fund managers out there.
There is the classic cartoon of where the stockbroker shows off all the yachts of the brokers, and then the question is where are all the client's yachts?
What are the circumstances of the loss, example, with him your account drops 10% however the market dropped 15%, He saved you 5%!
He only needs to make you 1% more than the market to break even. If he makes you 2% or more, you are ahead $$$
1% makes sense.
There are many money managers that charge up to 25% of the profits and some a significantly higher asset fee.
That's how it works in theory but not reality. Look at the returns of the S&P 500 for the last 10 years. You can go back 30 years if you like. What happens is that there's only a couple years that are really bad and several that are spectacular. While they claim they are less risky, over the long term, they're making you less money and charging more in fees.
The key questions to ask is to have them disclose their suggested portfolio for the last couple of years and compare that to how the market did. As I mentioned earlier, 75% of fund managers can't beat the S&P 500. What I've also noticed from the ones who put together a sample portfolio, the funds they pick haven't been around that long. It's easy to come up with a fund that might have a good short term track record, but much harder for a fund that's been around for 10+ years. The key problems I have in their pitch is that claim that they're professionals and yield higher returns, but they can't guarantee it. Basically the math is that there's a 75% chance they will under perform the index. With the 1% charge on top of that, it is even harder for them to beat the index. It's worth paying the 1% if they can do it. The main thing is to get them to show you the data that says they've been doing it. You are basically gambling 1% that they can beat out 75% of the other fund managers out there.
There is the classic cartoon of where the stockbroker shows off all the yachts of the brokers, and then the question is where are all the client's yachts?
Wolf,
Do you manage your wife's retirement account(s) ?
I manage my wife's investment accounts and my kids retirement cause they really don't follow the markets.
Do you manage your wife's retirement account(s) ?
I manage my wife's investment accounts and my kids retirement cause they really don't follow the markets.
Originally Posted by Mr Nice
Wolf,
Do you manage your wife's retirement account(s) ?
I manage my wife's investment accounts and my kids retirement cause they really don't follow the markets.
I don't manage anyone's account, but people ask me for advice all the time. So I give it away for free. I just remember telling one secretary once that sat in front of me to stick her 401k savings into an index fund. She was just keeping it a money market fund for a few years. She was super happy when she had returns of 20+% a few years later. She said thanks. She probably made thousands over just keeping it in the money market fund.
Wolf,
Do you manage your wife's retirement account(s) ?
I manage my wife's investment accounts and my kids retirement cause they really don't follow the markets.
I don't manage anyone's account, but people ask me for advice all the time. So I give it away for free. I just remember telling one secretary once that sat in front of me to stick her 401k savings into an index fund. She was just keeping it a money market fund for a few years. She was super happy when she had returns of 20+% a few years later. She said thanks. She probably made thousands over just keeping it in the money market fund.
Originally Posted by cpayne5
I recently left my federal job and am now working for a small contracting firm. As a fed, my retirement plan was pretty much "set it and forget it" in regards to my pension and TSP.
In my new path, I feel that I need to be a bit more proactive in order to compensate for the pension that I walked away from.
My question is...any advice on who/what I should(not) seek counsel from going forward? Any general advice in regards to the big names out there? Schwab, Edward Jones, etc?
Unless you are in Love With the rigged stock market, I would seek counsel from an unbiased independent fiduciary it doesn't necessarily have to a fee only, just someone who's not married to one company or product or financial strategy (like wall street and the AUM model)
Have you read Rich Dad Poor Dad? How do you feel about CashFlow Real Estate or alternative investments?
Beware that most financial advisors are just salespeople pushing the flavor or the day that their company tells them too. When i inquired about fees with my Edward Jones person they said "We don't have fees" I asked well then how to pay for that Mercedes? I got the blank stare with that.
I recently left my federal job and am now working for a small contracting firm. As a fed, my retirement plan was pretty much "set it and forget it" in regards to my pension and TSP.
In my new path, I feel that I need to be a bit more proactive in order to compensate for the pension that I walked away from.
My question is...any advice on who/what I should(not) seek counsel from going forward? Any general advice in regards to the big names out there? Schwab, Edward Jones, etc?
Unless you are in Love With the rigged stock market, I would seek counsel from an unbiased independent fiduciary it doesn't necessarily have to a fee only, just someone who's not married to one company or product or financial strategy (like wall street and the AUM model)
Have you read Rich Dad Poor Dad? How do you feel about CashFlow Real Estate or alternative investments?
Beware that most financial advisors are just salespeople pushing the flavor or the day that their company tells them too. When i inquired about fees with my Edward Jones person they said "We don't have fees" I asked well then how to pay for that Mercedes? I got the blank stare with that.
Originally Posted by SVTCobra
Buy a book. I'd rather take the advice of a published author vs a lot of opinions (which some are good, don't get me wrong) to determine my financial life.
And a book isn't an opinion? didn't Karl Marx write a book?
Buy a book. I'd rather take the advice of a published author vs a lot of opinions (which some are good, don't get me wrong) to determine my financial life.
And a book isn't an opinion? didn't Karl Marx write a book?
- Status
