Load vs Non Load

[Scanner]

JimmyEngland,

Sorry. . .lol. . .we totally hijacked your thread. . .I think for the most part at savingadvice.com, most people here are no-load investors because that's where value lies/lays.

[jIM_Ohio]

I think everyone brings some personal bias to the table. Also, nobody can be an expert and totally well-versed in every area and every financial instrument. So I would think that any planner or advisor would have products and services that he or she focuses on because those are the ones that he/she is most familiar with and most comfortable with.

I disagree with the premise no one can be well versed in every area.

I think the industry needs more people like that so people get good advice.


My insurance agent has sold wife and I a permanent insurance policy.
People here will probably say bad financial investment.

Another broker could determine my asset allocation (if I had more money and less time).

My thought is that what most people need is a point man to give them neutral advice, but recomend the products which solve their problems.

I won't sell anything, just make recomendations for what people need to buy, and can even suggest the salesperson-free of charge.

[sweeps]

With all due respect to those who are thinking about becoming a financial planner, it's a lot more complicated than you probably think it is. What we do here on SA doesn't scratch the surface on the kind of problems you'll have to solve in the real world. Pick up a copy of Financial Planning magazine and once you understand the technical strategies and jargon, then you might be ready. Not to mention all the business-related issues involved -- attracting and keeping clients, staying profitable, dealing with legal and regulatory issues, etc.

OP -- avoid funds with loads and high expenses. There are many good no-load, low-expense choices out there. Study after study has proved that paying loads and high expenses for funds provides no benefit -- just the opposite in fact.

[Broken Arrow]

So for the most part people here will not buy load funds?

I would say that is correct. I guess the only difference here is the varying degree of "nay-ness".

[Scanner]

Sweeps,

It's complicated but it ain't that complicated.

Look at it this way - if JimOhio was a real go-getter, able to charm people into financial planning by the dozens. . .the pied piper of financial planning. . .do you think the subject so vastly complex that anyone here couldn't handle it?

I doubt it.

Let me tell you . . .AG Edwards. . .PaineWebber. . .etc. . .they would rather have a top salesman/saleswoman in their office than a technical know-it-all.

I'd rather see him develop a soft skill (selling/marketing himself) than learning about the technicalities of stocks that move up or down on a daily basis. A lot of that is rancid piffle anyway and the average investor doesn't care about.

PS: I think it's this way in life in all professional fields. I can recall the professor I work-studied under at Delaware. She didn't have a great intellectual reputation in the dept. But my God, could she land the big DuPont grants and endowments. Consequently, she was tops in her dept.

It's not fair but that's life.

[jIM_Ohio]

With all due respect to those who are thinking about becoming a financial planner, it's a lot more complicated than you probably think it is. What we do here on SA doesn't scratch the surface on the kind of problems you'll have to solve in the real world. Pick up a copy of Financial Planning magazine and once you understand the technical strategies and jargon, then you might be ready. Not to mention all the business-related issues involved -- attracting and keeping clients, staying profitable, dealing with legal and regulatory issues, etc.

OP -- avoid funds with loads and high expenses. There are many good no-load, low-expense choices out there. Study after study has proved that paying loads and high expenses for funds provides no benefit -- just the opposite in fact.

This is my point. There is a market for detailed advice and a relationship which cannot be created online.

Most people can pick up a book and read it, then make decision about investing for themselves. Some people might need more help that that.

Or it could be the financial planning for college, or for dream house, or for dream vacation. It could be to solve all of above at same time and help a person make choices. And much of the planning is taking advantage of taxes (IMO) or incentives (tax deductions) while trying to achieve goals set forth by client.

In addition, I think there is room for someone which is neutral towards everything and does not push a product- I think that will go a long way. Someone wants to solve problem x with a combination of insurance and investments, I can be neutral because I don't sell either. If someone wants a retirement income stream, I could recomend how much of an annuity makes sense, how to withdraw and allocate assets, how to minimize taxes during all of the following.

Some people consider me a likeable guy. I definitely will stay away from sales, although my wife will tell you I could be a dominant salesman based on how she sees me sell things to people like the soccer club I coach for or the team I coach, or why my way is better than someone else's way (at anything).

Many times people want a second opinion, even when doing it themselves. Choosing to retire is a huge decision, so having a person look it over makes sense, even if the internet folks already said it is OK.

[jIM_Ohio]

Sweeps,

It's complicated but it ain't that complicated.

Look at it this way - if JimOhio was a real go-getter, able to charm people into financial planning by the dozens. . .the pied piper of financial planning. . .do you think the subject so vastly complex that anyone here couldn't handle it?

I doubt it.

Let me tell you . . .AG Edwards. . .PaineWebber. . .etc. . .they would rather have a top salesman/saleswoman in their office than a technical know-it-all.

A person seeking advice is often told to go to a fee only planner. The key is (IMO) to have a product (advice/planning) which is clearly unbiased and will then attract more people.

Fee only planners are few and far between because it's tough for lots of people to make money at it (it's possible for a few to make money at it, just not a lot of people). More than likely fee only planners also do something else for income to.

[sweeps]

Fee only planners are few and far between because it's tough for lots of people to make money at it (it's possible for a few to make money at it, just not a lot of people). More than likely fee only planners also do something else for income to.

Key point right there.

If someone wants to do financial planning as a hobby or as supplemental income, that's one thing. But if you need it to pay the mortgage and get your kids through school, it is going to be a lot harder than it appears on the surface.

[jIM_Ohio]

Key point right there.

If someone wants to do financial planning as a hobby or as supplemental income, that's one thing. But if you need it to pay the mortgage and get your kids through school, it is going to be a lot harder than it appears on the surface.

That's why I need to wait until the wife earns more than I do before leaving my current job.