Do you have a financial advisor?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. He is also my dad's financial advisor, and has been for years and years, and he came to my dad very highly recommended by someone he trusted as well. He's been my advisor for about 10 years now, and my dad's for probably 20. He takes 1% of total investments per year (that goes down to 0.5% when your assets reach a certain level, so my dad only pays a half a percent), with NO other fees or anything, so it's very transparent, which I like. I've averaged returns of around 8-9% returns during those 10 years, so he is significantly beating the market, and the 1% fee is worth it. My husband was skeptical (I've been with the FA since before I met him) and was very "there are no fee accounts" to which I say - everyone is getting paid. If there are no fee accounts, the fees are just hidden, like with kick backs from various funds. Having eased into it, he's now completely on board.

He manages our retirement accounts completely. He also managed our house savings account when we were saving for a downpayment, but we've now bought. He will likely at some point manage our kids 529s. He is also available for advice. He's reviewed our monthly budgets, given general financial advice, recommended insurance options, and helped us decide on a budget for our house. Basically, he'll do a call with us anytime if we have a question, but we're fairly low touch.

I love this arrangement, but finding someone you trust would be really scary for me. Getting a recommendation from my dad, who I trust completely, made it easy, but obviously that's not replicable.

It's obviously your choice whether to hire a financial advisor-- I pay someone to mow my lawn because that's how I want to spend my money. However, it's very unlikely that your advisor can beat the market long term (and certainly not on a risk-adjusted return basis). For example, if you just invested in the S&P500 index, you would have seen annual returns of almost 14% a year over the last 10 years. Also, if you are paying 1% of assets and getting 8-9% returns, you are paying over 10% of your annual returns, which will probably reduce your ultimate retirement "nest egg" by a pretty big chunk.

There's more to factor in than that, like tax loss harvesting, portfolio rebalancing, and your actual risk profile. For example, for our risk profile we are in a 70/30 equities vs bonds, then within those there are other categories for diversification purpose, like a mix of US and international equities; and on the bond side a mix of short and medium term bonds, emerging market bonds, and tax-efficient bonds specific to our state.

If your investing goal is to put all your money into a single S&P 500 index fund, then you don't need an advisor for that, but you're also not diversifying, and that's a high risk strategy.

SP 500 has over 500 companies. VSTAX has over 3000. Add a total international and total bond fund and I would call that highly diversified.

Omg, that's funny. I'm holding on Telsa and Bitcoin, and somebody here says that S & p 500 is not diversified. I'm diversified!
OP, no advisor for me. Made a lot of money last year. Need to move it to S and P soon and never work again. I'm not saying I couldn't have lost them both, but what were the chances that both go to zero and at the same time I'm in them. In and out, and your chances of losing it go way down.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. He is also my dad's financial advisor, and has been for years and years, and he came to my dad very highly recommended by someone he trusted as well. He's been my advisor for about 10 years now, and my dad's for probably 20. He takes 1% of total investments per year (that goes down to 0.5% when your assets reach a certain level, so my dad only pays a half a percent), with NO other fees or anything, so it's very transparent, which I like. I've averaged returns of around 8-9% returns during those 10 years, so he is significantly beating the market, and the 1% fee is worth it. My husband was skeptical (I've been with the FA since before I met him) and was very "there are no fee accounts" to which I say - everyone is getting paid. If there are no fee accounts, the fees are just hidden, like with kick backs from various funds. Having eased into it, he's now completely on board.

He manages our retirement accounts completely. He also managed our house savings account when we were saving for a downpayment, but we've now bought. He will likely at some point manage our kids 529s. He is also available for advice. He's reviewed our monthly budgets, given general financial advice, recommended insurance options, and helped us decide on a budget for our house. Basically, he'll do a call with us anytime if we have a question, but we're fairly low touch.

I love this arrangement, but finding someone you trust would be really scary for me. Getting a recommendation from my dad, who I trust completely, made it easy, but obviously that's not replicable.

It's obviously your choice whether to hire a financial advisor-- I pay someone to mow my lawn because that's how I want to spend my money. However, it's very unlikely that your advisor can beat the market long term (and certainly not on a risk-adjusted return basis). For example, if you just invested in the S&P500 index, you would have seen annual returns of almost 14% a year over the last 10 years. Also, if you are paying 1% of assets and getting 8-9% returns, you are paying over 10% of your annual returns, which will probably reduce your ultimate retirement "nest egg" by a pretty big chunk.

There's more to factor in than that, like tax loss harvesting, portfolio rebalancing, and your actual risk profile. For example, for our risk profile we are in a 70/30 equities vs bonds, then within those there are other categories for diversification purpose, like a mix of US and international equities; and on the bond side a mix of short and medium term bonds, emerging market bonds, and tax-efficient bonds specific to our state.

If your investing goal is to put all your money into a single S&P 500 index fund, then you don't need an advisor for that, but you're also not diversifying, and that's a high risk strategy.

SP 500 has over 500 companies. VSTAX has over 3000. Add a total international and total bond fund and I would call that highly diversified.

Omg, that's funny. I'm holding on Telsa and Bitcoin, and somebody here says that S & p 500 is not diversified. I'm diversified!
OP, no advisor for me. Made a lot of money last year. Need to move it to S and P soon and never work again. I'm not saying I couldn't have lost them both, but what were the chances that both go to zero and at the same time I'm in them. In and out, and your chances of losing it go way down.

Tesla is part of the S&P 500, but I guess you are holding it separately from your S&P500 holdings to further increase your investment in them:
https://www.barrons.com/articles/tesla-stock-sp-500-index-what-it-does-51608566479

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. He is also my dad's financial advisor, and has been for years and years, and he came to my dad very highly recommended by someone he trusted as well. He's been my advisor for about 10 years now, and my dad's for probably 20. He takes 1% of total investments per year (that goes down to 0.5% when your assets reach a certain level, so my dad only pays a half a percent), with NO other fees or anything, so it's very transparent, which I like. I've averaged returns of around 8-9% returns during those 10 years, so he is significantly beating the market, and the 1% fee is worth it. My husband was skeptical (I've been with the FA since before I met him) and was very "there are no fee accounts" to which I say - everyone is getting paid. If there are no fee accounts, the fees are just hidden, like with kick backs from various funds. Having eased into it, he's now completely on board.

He manages our retirement accounts completely. He also managed our house savings account when we were saving for a downpayment, but we've now bought. He will likely at some point manage our kids 529s. He is also available for advice. He's reviewed our monthly budgets, given general financial advice, recommended insurance options, and helped us decide on a budget for our house. Basically, he'll do a call with us anytime if we have a question, but we're fairly low touch.

I love this arrangement, but finding someone you trust would be really scary for me. Getting a recommendation from my dad, who I trust completely, made it easy, but obviously that's not replicable.

It's obviously your choice whether to hire a financial advisor-- I pay someone to mow my lawn because that's how I want to spend my money. However, it's very unlikely that your advisor can beat the market long term (and certainly not on a risk-adjusted return basis). For example, if you just invested in the S&P500 index, you would have seen annual returns of almost 14% a year over the last 10 years. Also, if you are paying 1% of assets and getting 8-9% returns, you are paying over 10% of your annual returns, which will probably reduce your ultimate retirement "nest egg" by a pretty big chunk.

There's more to factor in than that, like tax loss harvesting, portfolio rebalancing, and your actual risk profile. For example, for our risk profile we are in a 70/30 equities vs bonds, then within those there are other categories for diversification purpose, like a mix of US and international equities; and on the bond side a mix of short and medium term bonds, emerging market bonds, and tax-efficient bonds specific to our state.

If your investing goal is to put all your money into a single S&P 500 index fund, then you don't need an advisor for that, but you're also not diversifying, and that's a high risk strategy.

SP 500 has over 500 companies. VSTAX has over 3000. Add a total international and total bond fund and I would call that highly diversified.

There are a very small subset of companies that drive the 500. You are betting your savings on Amazon, Apple and Microsoft.

+1
The S&P 500 is comprised of large cap growth companies from one country. Yes, you got lucky recently. But that's not very good diversification.

[Anonymous]

C’mon you are argue about the theoretical benefits of small cap and int’l investing but it’s not serious to argue the S&P500 isn’t diversified

[Anonymous]

Yes I’ve used Edelman since I was 28.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:C’mon you are argue about the theoretical benefits of small cap and int’l investing but it’s not serious to argue the S&P500 isn’t diversified

Not to mention many of the S&P 500 companies are huge international corporations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:C’mon you are argue about the theoretical benefits of small cap and int’l investing but it’s not serious to argue the S&P500 isn’t diversified

Not to mention many of the S&P 500 companies are huge international corporations.

So you are maybe 80% invested in one country. This is called home bias, which has bit numerous investors in the ass.

If the S&P would have underperformed other asset classes like intl, EM, us small over the last 10 years, I don't think many people would be talking about how diversified the S&P is.

[Anonymous]

I go back and forth on this. We had one and there were so many fees, not to mention the capital gains taxes that were were unprepared for in our very conservative portfolio. We pulled out and now are doing it ourselves. Granted, I know how to crunch numbers, have several financial calculators that I use. I've even learned how to do it myself long hand so I can better understand how it really works year after year, including adding crashes and corrections. Now that I understand it much better, I am even less inclined to go back to someone who will charge me to manage our money.

As a PP said, as your portfolio grows, while there are levels where the percentage (with most firms) goes down, it's still a lot of money. We are at a .75 v 1% level, headed toward a .66%, but even then, there are fees for different programs you can get involved in. 50K in a down year would be a lot.

Lastly, the key to all of this and the money supporting you in retirement is having it invested in a way that it generate the amount you need to live. That's the only reason I would consider a financial manager again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. He is also my dad's financial advisor, and has been for years and years, and he came to my dad very highly recommended by someone he trusted as well. He's been my advisor for about 10 years now, and my dad's for probably 20. He takes 1% of total investments per year (that goes down to 0.5% when your assets reach a certain level, so my dad only pays a half a percent), with NO other fees or anything, so it's very transparent, which I like. I've averaged returns of around 8-9% returns during those 10 years, so he is significantly beating the market, and the 1% fee is worth it. My husband was skeptical (I've been with the FA since before I met him) and was very "there are no fee accounts" to which I say - everyone is getting paid. If there are no fee accounts, the fees are just hidden, like with kick backs from various funds. Having eased into it, he's now completely on board.

He manages our retirement accounts completely. He also managed our house savings account when we were saving for a downpayment, but we've now bought. He will likely at some point manage our kids 529s. He is also available for advice. He's reviewed our monthly budgets, given general financial advice, recommended insurance options, and helped us decide on a budget for our house. Basically, he'll do a call with us anytime if we have a question, but we're fairly low touch.

I love this arrangement, but finding someone you trust would be really scary for me. Getting a recommendation from my dad, who I trust completely, made it easy, but obviously that's not replicable.

It's obviously your choice whether to hire a financial advisor-- I pay someone to mow my lawn because that's how I want to spend my money. However, it's very unlikely that your advisor can beat the market long term (and certainly not on a risk-adjusted return basis). For example, if you just invested in the S&P500 index, you would have seen annual returns of almost 14% a year over the last 10 years. Also, if you are paying 1% of assets and getting 8-9% returns, you are paying over 10% of your annual returns, which will probably reduce your ultimate retirement "nest egg" by a pretty big chunk.

There's more to factor in than that, like tax loss harvesting, portfolio rebalancing, and your actual risk profile. For example, for our risk profile we are in a 70/30 equities vs bonds, then within those there are other categories for diversification purpose, like a mix of US and international equities; and on the bond side a mix of short and medium term bonds, emerging market bonds, and tax-efficient bonds specific to our state.

If your investing goal is to put all your money into a single S&P 500 index fund, then you don't need an advisor for that, but you're also not diversifying, and that's a high risk strategy.

SP 500 has over 500 companies. VSTAX has over 3000. Add a total international and total bond fund and I would call that highly diversified.

That's good diversification. What % do you put into each? How often do you need to rebalance it?

Is this real life?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:C’mon you are argue about the theoretical benefits of small cap and int’l investing but it’s not serious to argue the S&P500 isn’t diversified

Not to mention many of the S&P 500 companies are huge international corporations.

So you are maybe 80% invested in one country. This is called home bias, which has bit numerous investors in the ass.

If the S&P would have underperformed other asset classes like intl, EM, us small over the last 10 years, I don't think many people would be talking about how diversified the S&P is.

Wow you really are thick. Do you know how much pull us companies have on the world economy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:C’mon you are argue about the theoretical benefits of small cap and int’l investing but it’s not serious to argue the S&P500 isn’t diversified

Not to mention many of the S&P 500 companies are huge international corporations.

So you are maybe 80% invested in one country. This is called home bias, which has bit numerous investors in the ass.

If the S&P would have underperformed other asset classes like intl, EM, us small over the last 10 years, I don't think many people would be talking about how diversified the S&P is.

Fine, if you must. 100% into VTSWX

[Anonymous]

VTWSX

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:C’mon you are argue about the theoretical benefits of small cap and int’l investing but it’s not serious to argue the S&P500 isn’t diversified

Not to mention many of the S&P 500 companies are huge international corporations.

So you are maybe 80% invested in one country. This is called home bias, which has bit numerous investors in the ass.

If the S&P would have underperformed other asset classes like intl, EM, us small over the last 10 years, I don't think many people would be talking about how diversified the S&P is.

Wow you really are thick. Do you know how much pull us companies have on the world economy

I prefer to get my information from noble prize winning economists, not some schlepo on the net.

[Anonymous]

Biglaw partner here. I do not have the time to do this even if I thought I could. I do not have 10 extra minutes a day. I do have a fair amount of money so it has to be allocated correctly. I also can't wait to retire early so I like the advice and the structure that is imposed. It is possible if I had time I could do it. But I doubt I would.

[Anonymous]

Simple question to any financial advisor/wealth management offering - show me you returns that beat the relevant market index net of fees. It usually stops the discussion and I never hear from them again. Investing has been made so easy by the likes of Vanguard and Fidelity. You can buy target date funds that rebalance over time - it doesn't get any simpler. Why would you give up 1% when you can get professional management basically for free?

I am trying a SMA account that is suppose to map the S&P with additional tax loss harvesting - it has a .9% fee but outperformed the S&P last year by 10 points. So we'll see. Professional management that outperforms is worth paying for all day long, it's just not very common, especially for the average investor.