FA

SirGlass

Its up to you but investing is easy if you have disipline and follow some simple rules I follow the bogleheads method and just invest in low cost index funds, IMHO you get the same or better results then you would with an FA and save on the fees [https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Getting\_started](https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Getting_started) [https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Three-fund\_portfolio](https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Three-fund_portfolio) You can open an account with vangaurd , fidelity or schwab and just invest your money in a simple 3 fund lazy portfolio

Benji2108

Thanks ,I figure an FA wouldn’t really dig too deep into these things that’s why I take it to Reddit in the first place. I guess I have questions for you then. Even though we might have different goals, do you ever sell or is this long term? Do I need to understand crypto very much to simply invest ? I used to be the guy that made fun of it fyi. And as far as materialistic deprecating assets such as cars, would you ever say leasing might be better in my situation or buying with cash ? I’m finding more pros in leasing than I wish I did and it’s sorta driving me crazy.

UncleSamCassell

Good to know. My FA at Chase convinced me to move a ton over, then I saw my returns on the self directed, as well as ETH now on my old robinhood and panicked a bit..their returns on their automated and now with FA have been trash. But it has only been 1 year so will give it at least another before moving everything back over to self-investing. Wish I woulda just stuck with my ETFs and SPY and what not on self directing though...but as a beginner, you get nervous you can't be doing it better than a licensed FA..

Grizzzlybearzz

I use jpm. I hold the bitcoin etfs for crypto exposure. All other crypto outside of maybe eth is trash anyway and you shouldn’t be holding it. I don’t use a FA. I do all my investing myself. Mostly mutual funds and etfs I selected to get broad exposure

Throwawayasf_99

That's exactly what it's looking like. Someone also commented that OP isn't even doing it legally. I'm an FA so I'm not exactly a consulting expert, but not only is this illegal in virtually every country, it's one of the most unsustainable things I've heard of. It's delusional and frankly it's a horrendous idea. Yes, I've made over 40% in a year on investments when the market is booming, but you don't think I've also been down overall? I mean come on OP that's insane risk especially witb such a small initial sum.

rampshark

.. Soo buy more AMC. FA taken.

royjones

[https://rasr.pcaobus.org/Firms/FirmSummaryPublic.aspx?FirmID=F0C298206D055E20355165A6436401FA](https://rasr.pcaobus.org/Firms/FirmSummaryPublic.aspx?FirmID=F0C298206D055E20355165A6436401FA)

alwaysmyfault

u/rayrayrex was quoted on an article that Etrade linked to on NVDA. [Benzinga (seleritycorp.com)](https://content.seleritycorp.com/hosted/assets/www/No63obiJPnKeqtiks2GaX6ugrgsO20FA3bMPkqUm2lc) Check it out OP, you're famous.

Relentlessbetz

First one is always free. Get your money out and do some real investing. Or at least your initial investment and do some 0 DTE Good luck and not FA

letGoDontWorry

Would you quit a job at a firm you started 2 weeks ago making $65k as a Client Service Associate to make $70k as an FA. The FA role also has 2% higher matching 401k and is like 5 minutes away whereas the CSA role is a 30m bus ride uptown. Mid cost of living city single.

WhoGotDaKeys2MaBeema

Stop thinking of it as over valued and start thinking of it as over saturated. If you enter into a market thats over saturated, your going to have too much competition. If you enter into a market that is under saturated its probably because there not necessarily a need. Its about finding the sweet spot. It doesnt necessarily mean you have to wait and it doesnt necessarily mean you are obligated to choose that security. It is impossible to have unlimited growth. TSLA has a lot of people talking about it, its in the news constantly and even my grandma knows about it. Its already too late to have much more growth. Its already down from 400 in 2022 to 180 in 2024. Still too much hype around it even then. A FA investor that regularly checks his metrics against stocks wouldnt have touched TSLA anyway because it had way too much debt in the beginning and the only way to start paying it back was for Musk to start paying for things out of his own personal accounts. Not a good look. Musk is also a very smart man. So smart infact that he did a pump and dump with doge coin. He was smart enough to know he had a cult like following, hyped up a worthless security and pulled out at I believe 75 cents. I talked about this before with the Jim Cramer effect, you remember that? Yet another reason why I have never bought TSLA and never will. The funny part is I actually kinda like teslas.. just not enough to own it.

WhoGotDaKeys2MaBeema

Im not using the TMC to GNP ratio to time the market. Im using that as an example for the FED injecting money into the markets. Never once did I say anything about having a short position and timing it. I keep saying that FA to its core is used to help assist on making decisions for the buy and hold strategy. FA is all about reading cash flow statements, balance sheets and income statements to make an educated decision to assist on buying into a stock. Sure you can buy and hold a company with a D/E ratio of 3 and maybe the company can fix itself when it rearranges the management team but that is not likely to happen. To say its an investments strategy not proven to work but buying and holding is, sounds very uneducated because you need to have both to be succesful and anyone who is an angel investor, fund manager or anything else in between would tell you that statement is the difference between actual investing and gambling. Watch the tv show "Shark Tank". They ask the same questions an FA investor would, "whats your cogs?" "Whats your margins?" Thats all part of FA.

Greenbargo

Once again, you are conflating two things: 1. Buying and holding. This is an investing strategy that has been scientifically proven to work if done by investors who invest in the market average. 2. Fundamental Investing. This is an investing strategy that has NOT been proven to work and no amount of anecdotal evidence can provide it. You say the market is highly over valued. I say that your opinion on what the market is is useless since you don't know when it will crash. Sure you can hold your short positions until you die (paying monthly premiums on them), but for every year you live before the market crashes you are losing money while someone investing the market average is gaining money. Do you see now how FA provides you no edge unless you know WHEN the market will react the way you expect it to? If investing was as simple as comparing a TMC ratio to a GNP ratio don't you think everyone would have figured that out by now? The reason massive hedge funds who spend all day and night trying to find an edge in the market still lose more money than investing in the market average is likely because no such technique exists to predict the market accurately. You can say the market is under or over valued all you want but it ultimately means nothing since life is not endless and your capital is not infinite. You may be "right" but unless you are right at the correct time, you might as well be wrong.

BrownBritishBrothers

I know some people and research believes that it is okay to dump it all at once. However the answer lies in how you expect markets to behave over the next 12 months. If they continue to grind up steadily, it’s better to invest it all. However, given the uncertainty around rate cuts, inflation and economy - let’s just say there is more downside than upside in near term, given how perfectly priced markets are. It is going to be choppy. No FA, but I would personally DCA it.

Greenbargo

> You can't say that a buy and hold strategy cant work I never that strategy can't work, I said I don't se how FA can work. Buying and holding has nothing to do with basing your investment choices on fundamental analysis > Michael Burry did months to years worth of research to figure out the housing market was being inflated Here you have actually hit on an interesting example. Burry's fundamental analysis really did lead him to have an edge since he could predict that housing prices should eventually crash using publicly available information. This example is evidence of an instance in which FA worked. However, this example alone does not prove that FA always works but merely that it can work on the very rarest of occasions and when you have enough capital to outlast for a very long time. In many ways Burry was just very lucky that he didn't run out of money before the market crash he predicted actually took place. Trying to time the market is famously an incredibly stupid thing to attempt to do and it happened to work for a handful of investors in 2008. This does not mean that it is ever a wise strategy just because in extreme cases it may prove beneficial. The market could easily have gone on without crashing for another 5, 10, or even 100 years and Burry would have never seen the profits of his accurate FA. Currently there are millions of 'overpriced' stocks depending on who you ask and many have remained overpriced for decades. Since one cannot know when something is going to crash the method still seems a useless one. I agree with you that you should buy and hold, just not that deciding what you buy and hold based on FA will provide you any edge over someone who invests in the market average. If you have any evidence (NOT single instances but rather a real causal pattern/relationship between FA and gains) that FA works then I would think otherwise. When I look at which strategy works I see that investing in the market average has produced the highest gains for people overall. You have the Burrys and the Buffets of the world as your sample size and I have every investor in history as mine. I trust mine more.

AntA1Day1

I think this depends on your age, income, and future ability to add capital to your portfolio. Is this your only retirement account or separate from you employer retirement diversified funds? I've always contributed to the max with my 403B. I own 9 individual stocks right now. Currently my holdings are 5-20% each. I'm 50 and we have done very well for ourselves. For perspective, I invested heavily into AAPL in early 2000s and grew into the heavy majority of my individual holdings. I've only sold it twice over the past 20 years. My FA always has pushed for my wife and I to diversify from AAPL and AMZN but we haven't sold much ever. We have always made it our goal to add additional capital into diversifying our portfolio over time rather than selling our big winners we still believe in. Know your risk appetite, track record of success, and ability to contribute capital over time and you will do well.

WhoGotDaKeys2MaBeema

There is more than only having an A or B choice. There are swing traders that hop in and out and scalpers that do the same. The idea is that these trading strategies inflate the value of the stock. FA at its core is simply a buy and hold strategy. The point is to wait for this inflation to come back down to a point you see reasonable. Not every FA investor comes to the same conclusion. Some may say $32 is its intrinsic value, another may believe $30 is. You can't say that a buy and hold strategy cant work when it is quite literally is the most proven method to work due to compounding interest. Think back to the housing crisis. Michael Burry did months to years worth of research to figure out the housing market was being inflated artificially by the banks to make groups of junk mortgages to have a higher rating. The idea is the same only he was on the flip side of a value investor. He started shorting that market knowing it was going to go down. An FA investor would have did that research and waited to jump in at its lower end or use put options to keep selling puts to buy on the lower end. There are hundreds of methods and strategies you can use. FA stands the test of time when you buy in on the lower end and hold onto it forever. Do you buy a pair of jeans at its full price of $100 or do you wait for the sale and buy them for $40? You already know you like the brand, you already know the brand and quality is dependable, you love the way they feel and they move with your body. Why buy them at full price when you can wait a bit and know you can get a nice discount later in the future?

Greenbargo

I'm afraid you are indeed going in circles because you keep missing my central question about, and issue with, FA: How could my predictions of a stock's success based on publicly available knowledge possibly advantage me? If I use this knowledge in a way others do as well: it is useless since if everyone is doing it then the stock is accurately priced and no gains can be made based on my FA. If I use this knowledge in a way other do not: it is useless since I only gain money if people buy the stock I am hoping will increase in value, but they won't since their predictions do not line up with mine. It doesn't help to be 'right' if the market won't move in the direction it 'should' based on my FA. You have never throughout this entire comment chain come to terms with this reality or given me any evidence that there are any other options than these two scenarios. > You are also forgetting human emotions play a role as well. This is not something I'm forgetting but rather something I have been emphasizing all along. People do not all invest the same way. It is precisely because of this that FA seems useless to me because to predict the market one would need to predict human emotion/activity in the market which we all know is not possible. Since it is impossible to predict human impulses and 'irrational' behavior then why bother trying to time the market or buy specific stocks at all? The answer to this question that you are providing is that it is worth doing if you do it 'right' by assessing a company's 'true' stock value. However, you have just stated that because people do not invest rationally that knowing the 'true' value of a stock is useless since people will not necessarily buy it just because they 'should'. To believe that you can predict the future price of a stock because of an assessment of the company's fundamentals today is to ignore your own points about human irrationality or to forget that what determines share prices is not quarterly earnings, P/E ratios, or any other metric but in fact is solely market demand for that share. If we lived in a world where company profits determined (or even tracked with) share price then we would be having a different conversation, but that is not the world we live in. Exactly due to the reasons you mention (people not using FA 'correctly'), stock prices are impossible to predict. No investor in history has shown that *any* FA method can consistently predict stock success or failure. If people's emotions are what move share prices then people's emotions are what you need to predict; that is not what FA does. It is good FA doesn't attempt to do this since it is not possible to predict such things. To believe FA can do anything based on zero theoretical and empirical evidence is a deeply unscientific belief. You claim people are irrational and accept that share price is determined solely by people, but then wind up concluding that the share price can be predicted off of fundamentals alone, regardless of what people think. Your argument is logically flawed. You don't need to read a book to see that. It is self evident.

Client_Hello

While an individual FA may want to help people, their compensation is usually structured to incentivize them otherwise. The people become the product sold to funds/insurers for a commission.

NoBreakfast8259

It really matters what your purpose is I think. For me, I don’t trust them because I think humans act accordingly with incentivized systems. In the case of FAs, the incentive is to pull in as much AUM as possible from you and not let it fall. But, ultimately growing your account is not incentivized, and in many cases it’s actually discouraged in order to be more risk averse (especially in larger institutions). Which is why for building wealth, personally I don’t trust them. If your purpose is to help you make financially smart decisions and wealth preservation then maybe the fee on AUM makes sense. There are the extra things like tax and estate planning, trusts, etc. others have mentioned but some institutions will actually charge additional fees for those things, so then again…what’s it worth to you? Look, being an FA isn’t rocket science, and in most cases they just blindly put you into pre-approved funds and models the institution vets. They have very little control at the individual level. Unless you’re worth billions, where there’s a special echelon of FAs and services available to you that no other Joe Shmoe gets, then having one in most cases isn’t worth it financially. But everyone is different and people value different things. Some want peace of mind and not worrying about their money so will gladly use an FA, others are knowledgeable and passionate on the subject of money, will gladly carve out the time to DIY and so don’t value the fee to be worth it. FAs aren’t going anywhere no matter how many DIY investors there are. There’s always people who don’t want to do things themselves and would rather pay others to do it, there’s always people who will value peace of mind over money, and there’s always people who will YOLO into TSLA options, make a quick buck, then say having an FA is dumb, go broke 10 years later, and then get an FA.

phlebface

FA is one hell of a move

Sufficient-Iron-5667

My FA is super high on Intel

ButterscotchGlobal67

Ahh missed that comment - thanks for that and the quick reply! Am I correct in thinking the Kelly optimal leverage (with additional bond and commodity exposure/diversification) is now 5:1? I’m assuming you’re following full Kelly for maximum growth/wealth function - curious to know if you considered backing off to say half Kelly or more/less given the massive step up in leverage? I’d be shitting bricks that I got the math wrong haha (but that’s just me - seems you’ve thought it out with a FA and done the math 😊)

Aceofspades968

This isn’t r/wallstreetbets I’m not interested in having a portfolio competition, what are you 5? Glad you’re not my FA. Anywho, don’t think I’ll be continuing this convo ✌️

Maleficent_Specific4

lol no that’s not all that we do. We have a team of estate planners, lending officers, tax efficiency planning etc that work with you to handle literally ANY financial need that may arise. We have someone for everyone. An FA isn’t just an FA. Typically an FA is part of a team or they have access to a PLATFORM of wealth management for their client.

eolithic_frustum

Here's my logic: I have worked with and known many people like yourself over my career. I have met very few FAs who truly care, who are not a leech on their clients' wealth, who do not approach their clients without using a cookie cutter-like understanding of risk tolerance or what financial products and strategies to sell them, and who are not under some pressure to sell complex financial products by their company or because they get a commission. I knew one FA--a fiduciary!-- who would brag about regularly churning client accounts for the rip. Maybe you're a fee only, independent advisor who refuses all commissions and carefully studies each of his clients' needs, adjusting portfolio allocations on a case by case basis to get them to the right spot of the capital market line. Great. The world needs more people like you. But a 59 year old with $12k to invest probably doesn't need a person like you.

Affectionate-Arm9547

I was with you until 12. Why don’t you feel advisors have their clients’ best interest at heart? If an FA’s compensation is as a percentage of their clients’ AUM, wouldn’t the FA want the portfolio to do as well as possible? Meaning they are looking out for the clients’ best interest? And yes, I am an FA. It makes no sense saying we don’t have our clients’s best interest in mind, when their interests (making money while hopefully taking the emotion out of investing, among many other things) align with our interests (making money). Explain your logic in that one.

BetweenCoffeeNSleep

There are certainly a lot of people who aren’t. However, 5 minutes on this subreddit’s daily thread will turn up multiple people whose decisions are costing them more money than an FA would charge them.

thewimsey

> With the popularity of ETFs the need for a FA has declined. How are ETFs different from mutual funds in this context? I don't think we've needed FAs for decades. It's not new.

thewimsey

You don't have the skills of a professional carpenter, and it's an insult to professional carpenters to suggest that you do. I have done better by indexing than I would have with a FA. I can not build a house better than a professional carpenter. Studying at home for 4-6 weeks is all it takes to be a FA. You need to stop pretending that you have actual skills. Other than sales.

Smaddid3

My wife and I manage all of our investments ourselves, but we've used a fee-only financial planner three times and found it useful and worth the cost. We typically have a set of questions we're looking for guidance on and also ask for a Monte Carlo simulation of our situation to help us predict different retirement scenarios. One of our questions is always a review of our asset mix and recommended adjustments to it. This is of course different than an FA that takes a fee to manage assets, but it is the same profession with the same skill set and certifications.

BNS972

I think it depends on how the client uses their FA. My parents use theirs as a consultant, primarily for tax purposes and love him. But I think a lot of redditors assume FAs solely are responsible for managing clients money, which is where a lot of the discontent comes from

AstraTek

>>... most advisors are going to sell you the company's products  ... Every FA or IFA I've ever been to has always pushed their own products. Once they get your questions out the way, the banter always seemed like a sales pitch. They only get their fees (as kick backs usually) if they sell you one of their products. Nothing wrong with that if that product does what you want, but the conflict of interest is huge.

fatsocalsd

If a person knows nothing and doesn't know anyone they trust who can show them the way, won't/can't do the research on their own in this day and age of Youtube for some reason and it is staying on the sidelines as a result of that...then an FA has value. But once they know even a little bit that fee gets you little to no value.

SirGlass

This is it, if you do not have a complex tax situation just want to save money for retirment , an FA is never going to do better then an simple 3 fund boglehead portfolio They only thing they may help with is if you do not have the displine to stick with the 3 fund portfolio and want to deviate and FOMO in on the latest meme stock or something

Fladap28

They prey on idiots. If you’re paying a FA a percentage, you’ve already lost

iiluvvvvu2

I would still only keep a 6 month emergency fund in the HYSA and put all of the house fund into T-Bills. Once you’re close to buying the house, then move the money back to the HYSA so it’s easily accessible. HYSAs are earning ~4.25% while T-Bills are earning ~5.3% and the interest is not taxed at state and local levels. Since you’re buying a house in 5-6 years, you could scrap crypto, gold, and the brokerage with individual stocks. Although I would still put a very small % into all of them. Everything else would stay the same. If you see the house you’d be buying being very expensive, then consider not maxing out the 401(k) and IRA, but ideally I’d max them out if possible. So summarizing: - 401(k) and Roth/Traditional IRA maxed out every year and invested in ETFs or Mutual Funds - 6 month emergency fund in HYSA - Spending money plus some cushion in checking account - House fund in T-Bills - Small % in individual stocks, crypto, and gold Again, not an FA but just what I would do.

SirGlass

I just think your average person doesn't need one. If you have a w-2 job contribute to your 401k/IRA / Roth IRA and just want to save for retirment I do not see they add much benefit vs just doing a standard Bogleheads 3 fund portfolio If you have a higher net work, maybe own a business and have somewhat more complicated tax situation they can be good. Or if one is not disiplined just to do the Boglehead 3 fund portfolio , if you think you are going to FOMO into the latest meme stock well an FA can be a good check on that. I think you just hear too many stories about them taking advantage of a clueless 23 year old kid. Even on this sub we sometimes get some 23 year old that is like "So I hired an FA because I wanted to start saving for retirment in a Roth IRA and now he has me in the universal whole life inusrance policy that cost like $500 a month" Honestly it kids of hard not to hate people that take advantage like that. Not saying all FA do but those type of stories seem to be more common then they should be

gizmole

High AUM fees is usually a rip off for most people. I have no issue paying an FA for hours worked like I would a lawyer or accountant. But I feel the AUM model is mostly predatory to financially naive consumers.

FatAustrian

I would rather put my money in A 529 Plan Than ever speak to a FA again

AManHere

I'd say I didn't know such a service existed, I have an investments banker who invests for me. What you are saying is that there is a service where a person helps you plan all your finances, taxes, retirement etc. That seems like an interesting service offering that I would consider paying for. I don't think I have much assets to benefit from it yet in my 20s, but maybe in my 30s or 40s I would look into an FA.

Mental_Ingenuity_310

You didn’t answer my questions Do you get a bonus when clients invest with you or when they buy a product or does your company get incentives from the companies charging said management fees? That bonus alone is against my financial interests as it comes the management fees. If you don’t then great you are a fiduciary, and this would only recommend low to no management funds…. If yes to any of these then No doubt you are a certified fiduciary, but that doesn’t mean you are acting as one at your work. Most FA are certified fiduciary per your comment, most also have some fine print that says they are not acting as fiduciary for certain products… My fiduciary advisor used to only recommends vanguard funds to me as they generally have the lowest fee or no fee. I have to do the clicking inside my accounts to buy the mixes or set the future contributions etc. I pay for the consultation with the fiduciary so I know they are compensated to have my interests at heart not product companies and FA represents. Yes age and life goals drive a portfolio mix, and that knowledge is worth charging for sharing currently (until AI replaces it shortly) but saying you have “access” to everything makes no sense if you are acting as a fiduciary. Your client can buy anything they want as that’s how free markets work, why do you say you “have access”?? Are you managing these accounts for them? Is that the fee you mean? If so that means you are charging them to open accounts, transfer funds, select funds etc if that is the case the reason people hate the fee is that fee can have huge effects on long term returns when the person could have very very very easily done it themselves. Hell they c could do it during a consult with you shoulder surfing the clicks.

ChopSueyMusubi

Ask yourself this: what can your FA possibly do to not "screw this up"?

cheazandryce

Wife and I are at about 1MM NW and I manage it myself. I have 180k in individual stocks, never meant for it to get that high, the rest is in ETFs. Both 33 y/o, I'll admit I am considering a FA because I never thought I'd be at this point and don't want to screw it up lol

__redruM

I think for a lot of people, index fund investing is such a safe simple choice that a FA really isn’t needed. Maybe a FA would help with min/maxing Tax advantage for 7 figure portfolios, but even then is that service really worth a 1% management fee?

_ii_

The problem is you have to able to trust your FA with the intimate details of your finances. That’s not an easy relationship to build from a 30 minute meeting every few months. To make the situation worse, too many low quality FA out there eroding the little trust the public have with the industry as a whole. Let’s be honest, the bar for someone to call themselves Financial Advisors isn’t very high. And too many scammers become FA to get close to their prey. I suspect a neighbor’s financial advisor is basically stealing from them with the investment/insurance products, but I don’t know how to tell them. It’s like you suspect the neighbor’s wife is cheating but don’t know if you should tell the husband.

Past_My_Subprime

If a FA can offer clients a set of mutual funds with a 3% commission or an annuity with equivalent funds with a 10% commission, which do you think they'll push?

thatburghfan

I don't automatically hate FA's as i know there are good and bad ones just like in any business. I know there are reasons some people need to use an FA - they don't know how to handle their money, or don't want to, or need an FA to keep them from making kneejerk moves with their money, or even to protect themselves from liability from bad outcomes if they handle other people's money. Personally I am comfortable not using an FA. My sibling though would absolutely need one as she has zero interest in managing her money yet knows the answer is not simply to put it in her checking account. So for her and people like her, it's a good thing FAs are there. The problem is that business attracts silver-tongued shady people and since the vast majority of people aren't getting a referral from a trusted person, most people don't know if they picked a good FA until years down the road - and typically there are no do-overs. The damage is done. I recognize it's a tough road. You can't guarantee results, many of your peers are shady and there's no way for anyone to identify them, and it's difficult to explain your value to financially naive people.

HiredGoonage

With the popularity of ETFs the need for a FA has declined. The 1% fee doesn't sound like much but when your portfolio gets large this has a huge impact. If I stick with mine I'll be paying him around $400,000k over the next decade for very little work.

cheesewhiz15

In response to the edit. I also think a FA is only good for putting money into etfs and stocks. I do not /do not know about other aspects that they can offer. Also, I would mostly want a 1 -time meeting every so often, not a percentage of my investments. That's expensive

Interesting_Mix_3535

I hate when financial advisors start acting like investing gurus. I'd very much prefer if my FA can tell me what plans to get and is responsive and efficient for claims. I.e. tell me about the latest changes in CI policy, etc. I don't need FA to tell me about the Fed's next interest rate decision, because (1) you're not qualified to do so; and (2) i'm pretty sure explicitly promoting a stock pick is illegal for them. Plus FAs love being predatory - either pushing naive layman into buying irrelevant plans by posing as investing gurus, or by trapping young innocent students in their get-rich-fast pyramid schemes.

Agile-Strawberry-604

Why do coaches exist? Why not just let Michael Jordan, Tom Brady, LeBron James run the team? Think in the context of exercising. You can watch some YouTube videos, pushups and burpees are free, get some protein powder, and turn the calendar over to January, thinking your New Year's resolutions will finally stick this year. You will maybe even do some research on dieting and macros and try to figure out how to optimize your own personal body structure after seeing all the Ads for V-Shred guy eating donuts with his 6 pack abs 😂...this might have a success rate of 1%. 99% failure. This is comparable to day trading your own investments on your own research. A step up would be to get a gym membership for maybe $10 or $20 per month. Now, you have to physically take yourself to a gym to do the exercising, or there is a nominal cost associated with your complacency. Eventually, you'll feel like a failure if you don't get yourself motivated to go. This might have a success rate of 5%. This is comparable to just buying an index fund or two and calling it a day, hoping your needs never change for decades. A better solution would be to hire a gym trainer. You can pay them a significant fee compared to doing the exercising routine yourself... but their hoh is not to grow your muscles. They give you advice on what exercising to do, what to eat, when to rest, what form to use, how to stretch... and on and on. The chances of you seeing results with a competent trainer are probably 85%. Compare this to an FA, and all the professional services they SHOULD be offering and professional networking they grant you access to, and the decision of Vanguard vs FA... turbo tax vs accountant... attorney vs legal zoom... all become very clear.

solidrok

IMO advisors have three main roles. Tax planning, allocation management, emotional management. I think most “FAs” don’t have the chops to tax plan well and should at the very least defer to a CPA or at least work in conjunction with one. I think allocation management has been 90% solved for 95% of people with target date requirement funds and various index’s. I think the people that need advisors the most are folks who lack the emotional strength to follow through with a good sound plan. FA’s main role atm is to make sure their clients don’t pull the eject cord during a dip/crash. The problem for many FAs is that assets under management billing is the standard. I honestly don’t believe that AUM is required for the first two FA responsibilities I have laid out above. So I think the number of folks that “need” FAs will go down over time but there will always be a subset of the population that just can’t be bothered and is emotionally immature. These are the folks you hope make it rich and you can add them to your firm. Good luck out there!

Really-bad-at-this

FA’s got a real bad name in a lot of places. Mainly there were three types. 1.) did their job and made you money and took a decent cut 2.) stole your money for commission based everything and didn’t give a rats ass what happened to yours. 3.) ones that everyone loved because they made decent money but when you looked all they did was stick your money into mutual funds and blue chips that pay dividends. Basically today, 1 and 3 exist with changes to laws and people knowing what to watch for. While the “planners” exist, I could get the same mindset with age driven goals from any brokerage under their “investing videos” and planners, without commission. I think the only people moving forward from here who are going to need FA’s are super super rich, people with zero control or people HEAVILY in debt. Additionally, FA’s make a KILLING off people retiring out of state service with government jobs if you’re in the states but you need to have a great rep because it’s usually only a handful of FA’s people will trust to handle that nest egg and know the ins and outs with pensions/windfall/lump sums/buyouts and all of that. My .02.

spacemate

I’ve worked closely with FAs and in the industry. The main task is wealth preservation and feeling *heard* when it comes to their wealth; trusting somebody who in theory knows their shit. Not making money. People here want to maximize long term gains for retirement. For that, I do agree the index funds are easier. After fees and everything I doubt our aggressive models ever beat the market long term. But 95% of our clients had a conservative or moderate risk profile. And the accounts that were aggressive growth-oriented typically also had another larger account with a more moderate profile. So it’s two different goals IMO. What I don’t think works that well and I agree with that is people who will retire in 40 years using a FA. They’ll lose a lot of money with a 1% yearly fee.

i_sesh_better

I don’t hate them at all, I have one (though I’m leaving to manage myself soon). The majority of people here seem to think an FA is someone who’ll log into your brokerage account and buy some ETFs for you and charge 1% for the pleasure. My problem is that the advice I receive from mine is too conservative, with a 25+ year horizon I don’t want to hold 1/4 in cash as he suggests. My other problem is that my goals might change but the challenge doesn’t seem to be much harder when I have £100k vs £1m, so why is my fee 10x higher? I’d much rather pay a flat fee every so often for some advice which I can take action on, but most seem to want to get your money on board with them anyway. I think when you’re in the accumulation part of your life, if you do some research it can be fairly simple to understand how to be tax efficient and how to manage risk. Unless you’re a special case I can’t see why online advice would be wrong for most people.

borborygmess

I was a new widow, needing help navigating the finances that my husband used to take care of. My elderly neighbor suggested her financial adviser who worked with her for years (she was worth over $50M I think). FA and I met, he said there was a 1% fee, etc. That was all fine. A year later, I finally could think again. First thing I noticed was I was being charged 1.38%, not 1%. Also, some (most?) of the funds he got me in cost me 5%. And those funds were not doing as well as the usual funds like vtsax, which I had none of. In fact my entire portfolio was underperforming fairly significantly. I pulled everything out and moved my money into Vanguard. My elderly neighbor had since passed away. I was still friends with her daughter who inherited. But she seemed happy with the adviser and I admittedly didn’t know enough about their relationship, so I just didn’t say anything besides mentioning what I wrote here.

AttackBacon

Let's be real here: the current structure of the financial advising industry is broadly predatory and riddled with inherent conflicts of interest.  The AUM model is predatory. Selling financial products under a commission model is predatory. Putting clients into your firms high-fee funds is predatory. Etc.  Heck, the big players in the industry are extremely predatory when it comes to their own new hires. Low-level FA turnover is super high and they're often just being milled for their network.  The only current FA model that minimizes those problems is the fee-only fiduciary, but that's a small minority of advisors.  The "I just wanna help people" bit is pretty threadbare as well. If helping people was your primary motivation, you'd be at a fee-only firm and you'd be volunteering your time doing free advising clinics for seniors etc.  Let's all be honest and admit that your main motivation is having a successful career and reaching your own financial goals. The clients are secondary to that.  Which is fine, that's most professions. But being a financial advisor at a large firm is not altruistic. Every single one of your clients would be financially better-off with a set-it and forget-it low fee portfolio and a fee-only advisor, estate attorney, and CPA that they consult strictly when necessary. That's just math.  That's not to say that you can't help people improve their situation at your current firm. You absolutely can, a lot of people.are doing wildly stupid shit with their money. But your help comes with an inherent opportunity cost in that they could be getting the same results for significantly cheaper. 

FFF_in_WY

I'd put FA on par with NAR in general. Mostly outdated way of getting things done for anyone with an ounce of good sense.

reedy2903

You don’t really need them anymore with a few days of research on each topic you can basically do it yourself. Investments - global index funds….. property, maybe some bitcoin, maybe small amount of gold. Inheritance tax and planning tax advisor. Pension max match to company set and forget. Retire at 60. Also younger people 30 and below now live day by day and in the moment when I do the school drop off am in a 10 year old car. I see people younger than me all in new cars etc. no one saves or plans for the future. What they do is save for a house get a house pay a mortgage invest noting and spend the rest on Rolex cars and holidays. I reckon though by time the now 20-35 year olds hit retirement it’s going to be utter chaos as none will have any savings but maybe equity in a home. My wife’s friend is a FA and I reckon he knows less about money and investing and making money than myself for example we are similar age he has noting and rents. Has all sorts on finance. I have 2 mortgages a good pension a healthy

Affectionate-Arm9547

lol I commented before scrolling that a colleague of mine (I’m an FA) has a client with a $4mm portfolio in 11 stocks, and that his largest and oldest holding is Union Pacific) he has held it for over 40 years!

Civil_Musician_9521

FA let you enter real institutional funds that really make you money if you know what you are doing. But a lot of people here yolo their money into other crazy stuff on the band wagon.

zatsnotmyname

I pay 1% on part of my portfolio. My FA is a fiduciary and she is someone I can talk things out with ( job change, expense modeling, withdrawal strategy ) without triggering my wife's anxiety about money. Also, I know she's in place if something happens to me. She can help my wife cash my life insurance, get access to our funds, etc. So to me, it's someone I can trust to help my family with money situations who is not emotionally involved with our finances. That is worth something. Is it worth 1%? To me, yes. I am 2-5 years from retirement, so this 1% drag on my portfolio isn't that big of a deal.

joesmith127_reddit

Since you are in the industry, most likely with friends and associates in the industry, perhaps you can enlighten me on a question I've been wondering about. For people, money is personal. And with that in mind, do financial advisors, especially those who are fiduciaries, give advice, without prejudice to the gender, religious or ethnic background of their clients? There is certainly bias in the medical professions, in the justice system, in housing and even at the car dealership. How can anyone from a marginalized group believe that the FA is truly giving the client :the best advice" as opposed to "the best advice that I can give you."?

Maleficent_Specific4

1. Because the fees aren’t just to handle investments. A true FA does way more than just handle your investments. They help you with tax efficiency, estate planning, financial planning, home purchases, college planning etc. People have this incorrect idea that an FA is just a person you give your money to to throw into the market. Its most people fault for not using them properly and utilizing all the underlying tools their FA can provide. Yes most people don’t beat benchmarks. Thats 90% of the planet. You wanna beat benchmarks? You sign up for a hedge fund and take a 40% standard deviation. Sooooo you don’t trust financial planners, so you invalidate the actual financial planning process they provide? Make it make sense lol. That’s like saying a mechanic jobs fix cars but since I’ve only had them fix my breaks before I don’t trust them to work on my engine. A financial planners entire job IS to serve the idiots and those who can potentially harm them. That’s literally the best clients for an FA. No FA wants to work with super investment savvy people that are difficult and feel like they can’t be provided any value. There’s a ton of misinformation it seems you’re working with.

DishImpressive1314

Has similar in US -was my friend as FA and we had a policy of never discussing outside his offices Howyat my wedding he mentioned stuff tho my father about stuff I had In account that was from my mother’s family ( parents divorced 35 yrs earlier but dad had chip on his shoulder So he mentioned something to me and was hurt and trying to compare and. Compensate. I dropped my fried as my FA and basically stopped being a friend- I did move away so that helped but I shared the betrayal with other friends so they were aware and just moved on with life. Although I still get questions from my father when he remembers or wants to discuss investing. Now I have someone I don’t know personally!

sdhopunk

They seem to be sales people that hide behind that title of Financial Advisor. I inherited a large stock portfolio and a FA and the stocks just keep keeping sold and other stocks purchased.

Puckdropper

When I got started, I knew I knew nothing. A FA was a great decision for me.  Now I'm learning more and possibly outgrowing the need for my FA. I still need people to educate me, but can I say I'm really getting thousands of dollars per year of help and education from my FA?  Are they earning more than their fee in better market products?  Hard to say... But backtesting my portfolio, I would have been better off with an ETF.

Fun-Complaint-4724

I like my FA a heckuva lot more when the market is going up. Fact.

rackoblack

This is a giant commercial hoping to get people that know better to reconsider and pay for FA. Not gonna happen. Not for me. Find another sucker.

StreyDX

So as someone on the consumer side of the industry how does one know, when interviewing FA's, whether they are interviewing someone who cares about their clients vs. someone just in it to make a buck?

stumpyturk

I keep reading a common theme, that buying a vanguard product makes more sense than having a financial advisor manage your money. Vanguard is being sued by uneducated investors that purchased their target date retirement funds in taxable accounts. Those funds are designed for non-taxable accounts. Suddenly at the end of the year these uneducated investors were getting taxed for capital gains, having no idea that this was an eventuality. Even a beginning FA would have protected those investors from purchasing those vehicles in a taxable account.

stumpyturk

There is a real misunderstanding of the value a good FA.

stumpyturk

Setting up investments is a small part of what a FA does for a client. Setting up education accounts for a new born grandchild, convincing a grandparent to seed a Roth and educating the grandchild to put 25 away per month (and that an Index ETF is suitable). Importantly, if your FA spends three hours with you when you are settling your mom's estate, your FA WILL NOT bill you. I don't think people understand how great a value a good FA is.

iiluvvvvu2

I’m no FA but I manage my own finances…my thoughts if I were in your shoes: - Max out your 401(k) every year - Look into contributing to an IRA or Roth IRA (double check income limits and restrictions on having these plus a 401(k)) - Leave a 6 month emergency fund in the Ally HYSA and put the rest into T-Bills using the Treasury Direct website (you get higher rates than HYSAs, it’s considered the safest investment since you’re basically lending money to the US government, and the interest is not taxed at the state or local level while your interest from HYSA is). - Make sure your 401(k) is being invested into ETFs or Mutual Funds and not just sitting around. Or at the very least is in a money market account earning over 5% - If you want to take on additional risk (for potential additional reward): I’d open a brokerage to buy individual stocks and buy some crypto (I wouldn’t go more than 3-5% of net worth here). - I’d also have a small % of net worth in gold. That’s my two cents. You’re in a great spot!

BrownEye1129

I mean he has a point......you are on /investing and this whole discussion does sound like a sales pitch in a way.  Promoting the usefulness of a FA.  By you own words you are on social media asking why people here don't care for FAs. I got to ask are you worth anything?  It appears you have nothing better to do with your time and obviously you aren't busy working currently. Becareful with your words.  They have a way of coming back.

semicoloradonative

See my comment below. I invest in broad market funds and a few blue chip stocks. Do you think the FA had some sort of “magic bullet?” My shit only went up because the market went up. Why didn’t his shit go up the same, or nearly the same?

semicoloradonative

Laugh all you want, but the difference was significant. The fees ate into it. It’s not like I’m some genius or anything, so that makes it worse. Do you think that the mutual funds the guy was investing in was going to out perform the broad market over time with the fees? Nah…FA’s are pretty much worthless to anyone with more than a pulse.

medhat20005

I would contend that folks who *aren't* investment savvy are the ones who shouldn't (at first, if at all) get a FA. There are so many free online resources that, for someone new to investing, they should have a grasp of first, *then*, if they look at their situation and decide they want professional help, then seek out a FA. Seeking out a FA first can open the door to malfeasance, and the reality that there are those out there that place their professional and financial interests before that of their clients. So I think folks getting educated on their own, either through things like this sub, or a workplace 401k plan website, are all easy ways to start, and for many (majority?) that alone could put them in solid financial shape. There do arise over time situations where having a trusted advisor does come in handy, beyond asset allocation alone. In those cases then I think a good FA can not only save, but help make, money.

mcnut7

Also in the industry. Fact of the matter is, if people are on Reddit looking at investing, personal finance, or even wsb, they may not need a financial advisor. Think of all the people in the world who don’t know what a mutual fund, etf, or stock is. They are who NEED a financial advisor. I have met so many clients who thought having $500k in the savings earning half a percent was the best move they last 10 years. On top of that it differs from situation to situation. But not everyone needs a FA just like not everyone needs a CPA to file taxes.

AmaroisKing

I don’t think people hate FA, but they seem to have an image of not doing much and taking too many fees. My sister/ BIL use one and are happy. I’ve never used one , never felt the need.

GSDBUZZ

I really like our FA. To be honest we had a really bad experience with a previous FA years ago and as a result we did not get the help we probably needed for a long time. But a couple of years ago, as we approach retirement we found a FA we really like and we think he is well worth the fee. We pay a flat fee that works out to be about 0.2% of our assets. For that fee we get a report twice a year that provides a complete plan for our financial future. It also provides recommended trades and investments which we do in our own brokerage accounts. Our advisor is available for questions all year. Since we hired our advisor I feel much more comfortable about retirement. I have a template for how much we can expect to spend each year and we have more comfort in our future.

Lost-Practice-5916

Unfortunately I would say most. Retirees and those with complicated tax situations can really be helped by FAs. Beyond that, as Buffett often says, most of them they're generally predators looking for financially illiterate people. Like anything, not everyone is scum. But they have that reputation for a reason. I still think the average FA is often pushing things that increase their pay rather than what is in the interest of the client. The sad thing is, almost every firm has at least some incentives where it is impossible to prevent a conflict of interest to arise.

Bakahead_trader

At what point would you suggest to someone to get a FA? Even if I met that threshold and because I invest on my own I don't see a need foe a FA. I feel that even if I were to be at 6 figures some day I wouldn't use an FA because I got to that point on my own and don't see any added value in getting someone to do what I already do. Now, I may use an FA to bounce ideas off of them or find a new investment vehicle.

Wonton_noodle

Speaking for myself, when I was managing it on my own I tend to deviate and play wsb type of stupidity plays and lose money when I was younger. I also had a gambling problem. A FA made sense in the fact that I can keep a majority of my money out of my hands/access and let it grow the standard way, the 1% fee is more of a safety feature to protect myself from myself. 

desquibnt

You don’t need an FA to accumulate wealth. You need one to distribute it. And if you feel like you don’t need one to distribute it, you don’t have enough money for one.

WilliamCincinnatus

I work in the industry as well and work with a team that is absolutely amazing. We care deeply about our clients and do more than just invest the cash. There is financial planning and helping with taxes, estate planning, retirement planning, help making sure our clients have enough money to comfortably live until they pass away and hopefully leave a nice chunk to their beneficiaries. Do we charge a fee? Of course, but it’s reasonable for what we provide. I think what you see on Reddit is people who are in the top tier of “investment education” and they really don’t understand that it’s worth it for a 75 year old lady to pay us to make sure she’s safe for the next 20 years. They think it’s as easy as dump it all in VTI - which for most people is usually a good idea until they get close to retirement, that’s when the real work comes in. The US stock market has been great for the last 15ish years so it’s been easy to just pump it all into a VOO and forget about it because most people this site are young and don’t really have to worry about much and didn’t live through the crash back around 2008. I can go on forever about Reddit and the real world but just keep this in mind: If you actually give a shit about your clients and do your best to take care of them. Don’t pay attention to Reddit users and their hate for FAs most don’t have the assets needed for a real FA to manage their finances.

semicoloradonative

Honestly, there will always be a place for financial advisors...like there is a place for travel agents. People who don't want to put in the extra time to do the research and learn will continue to pay for the service. The rest of us....nah... Recent story. I had an (small) inherited IRA my mom had with a financial advisor. I kept it with him (initially) to compare with how I have been investing. Keep in mind, I told him what funds and stocks I have invested. Over a three month period my investments returned over 10%...his investments were basically flat. Fees were taken out monthly on the 10 different funds he had my small balance invested. Fees were eating into my returns. I yanked that think so fast. So, nah...most of us don't need FA's.

Shopalots

What are other things they should be checking? I am considering leaving my current FA to go to Chase and want to make sure I am getting the right fit for an FA

Bonghead13

I literally bought my house a few months ago. The trick: You need 2 people. Have a partner that makes enough money to split with you....tah-daaaah! You can now buy a house. You will, however, starve. Also, 67% of Canadians own their home. Here's a series of quick google searches. I'm not making this up: [Average American software developer salary] - US$130,286 per year (https://www.bing.com/search?pglt=41&q=average+software+developer+salary+usa&cvid=300bd6c3347046b48291666cd60e2f3c&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOTIGCAEQABhA0gEINTU0NWowajGoAgCwAgA&FORM=ANNTA1&PC=U531) [Average Canadian software developer salary] - $80,725 (https://www.bing.com/search?q=average+software+developer+salary+canada&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&ghc=1&lq=0&pq=average+software+developer+salary+canada&sc=11-40&sk=&cvid=E6F213DB56FB4D14B307DCB53E3D4C09&ghsh=0&ghacc=0&ghpl=) (not exactly double, but not far) [Average single-family home price - USA](https://www.bing.com/search?q=average+single+family+home+price+usa&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&ghc=1&lq=0&pq=average+single+family+home+price+usa&sc=0-36&sk=&cvid=BD2B3E0865E54B9FAA78E9E61E8CFB05&ghsh=0&ghacc=0&ghpl=) - $417,700 [Average single-family home price - Canada](https://www.bing.com/search?q=average+single+family+home+price+canada&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&lq=0&pq=average+single+family+home+price+canada&sc=0-39&sk=&cvid=A0CB03CB333B4540978EC173DC9E968C&ghsh=0&ghacc=0&ghpl=) - $804,400 We can go median household income if you would prefer that - the numbers are closer if you don't account for exchange rate: [Median household income - USA in USD](https://www.bing.com/search?q=average+household+income+usa&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&ghc=1&lq=0&pq=average+household+income+usa&sc=7-28&sk=&cvid=5EECE6F89CDF46378149DEC83F32CDA4&ghsh=0&ghacc=0&ghpl=) - $87,864 [Median household income - Canada - in CAD](https://www.bing.com/search?q=average+household+income+canada&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&ghc=1&lq=0&pq=average+household+income+canada&sc=11-31&sk=&cvid=69AC71E98A894E1E8C0ACD5662B64DB0&ghsh=0&ghacc=0&ghpl=) - $73,000 - converted to usd: $53,456.08 Houses literally cost us between 40-200% more in terms of purchasing power than they do in the USA, on average. BUT THAT'S NOT ALL! We also have variable-rate mortages, which a lot of people are forced to take, because they're easier to qualify for. For those who are lucky enough to have a fixed mortgage, the maximum term duration of their interest rate is 5 years, with many being 2 or 3 years. That means that if rates were to increase significantly (as they have in the past 2 years - from 0% effectively, to ~7.25%), when renewal day comes for everyone who bought houses, your payment will go up **Very significantly**. This has been hitting shit tons of people. The vast majority are still in their homes. In addition, prices for everything in the USA are lower than they are in Canada, at a staggering rate, even currency-adjusted. Meaning we not only make less and pay more for houses, but we pay way more for everything in general. Our real-estate values surely would be decreasing, right? I mean come on, we're paying an average of 54% of our income on housing...surely, nobody is buying, right? [Prices are still increasing, indicating that indeed...people are still buying houses, even at astronomically higher cost to purchasing power than in the USA](https://www.bing.com/search?q=median+single+family+home+price+canada+per+year&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&lq=0&pq=median+single+family+home+price+canada+per+year&sc=0-47&sk=&cvid=0AD6139AEAA24F80B6B46B9FA31DE7D7&ghsh=0&ghacc=0&ghpl=) You think you know housing pain? You haven't seen anything. If we can do it, so can you. The ONE caveat - and it's pretty significant - is that we don't have to pay out-of-pocket for healthcare. If we did, our entire economy would have collapsed years ago.

elitesense

Glad it's not just me. I have to do 2FA every single time I login from my computer. The mobile app doesn't seem to have an issue though.

WhoGotDaKeys2MaBeema

People do use them, not everyone uses it correctly. You are also forgetting human emotions play a role as well. People see values dip and pull out. You want a clear cut answer but you wont get one because their are too many variables between 7 billion people. I've also stated before that FA is just one of many different strategies to making money in the markets. I cant provide the answers you are looking for because we'll just keep going in circles. Reason why I said its probably not for you, there are plenty of books out there, read up, come up with a strategy that works for you and stick to the principles. Thats all I can give you.

gh5655

Kickbacks. I’ve wondered about this. My FA just set me up with a GS Select savings acct at 5.25%. He told me while he can see my balance, he has no control over it. I asked him if he gets the 1% compensation, like my 401k. He said “his company does not receive any compensation.” I thought it was strange. He used the word company. I was wondering whether he got any kind of kickback somehow? I called Goldman Sachs and they were a little bit vague answering me as well. Maybe I’m too pessimistic

Greenbargo

Again I ask, if knowing these criteria is all it takes for success as an FA investor than why on earth isn't everybody using them? I would really appreciate it if you answer my three questions from my previous comment as they are really the heart of this discussion. Describing what criteria you specifically (or you and others) choose to use doesn't answer the fundamental questions I've asked multiple times throughout this thread.

hhreddithh

Depending on the firm… lots of places are discouraging smaller accounts/households. The FA may get a smaller payout on accounts under X value. It just isn’t worth the time. Don’t take it personally. Just move the assets. I promise you they don’t care.

dietcokewLime

My thinking is that the allocation they are giving you may be the right one over the long run. You can tweak a few things and ask your FA some questions about how they see this current market/changes to your allocation over time. Part of the value the FA adds is that they will act unemotionally/rationally on your behalf when markets get volatile. If you are a disciplined enough investor on your own you can try do it yourself.

Greenbargo

> You can't even find any sources not related to reddit I never cited any sources, Reddit-based or otherwise. I don't need to cite any sources; I am the one asking for any proof of the theory that FA works. > You keep making claims saying that it doesn't work but fail to provide sources Again, what I said above: I don't need to provide sources since I am not making a claim that FA works. This is called a burden of proof and it is on you. Much like how I don't need to provide sources for the earth being flat. You are the one making a contention here that the earth is flat/FA works, so it is you who needs to provide proof that your theory makes any sense. > A simple google search will tell you how successful it has been used Funny you should mention a simple Google search as that is exactly what brought me to Reddit. I could not find a single source online that even theoretically explained how FA could work. here are the top 3 Google results for proof of FA: [1. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fundamentalanalysis.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/fundamentalanalysis.asp) [2. https://www.fool.com/terms/f/fundamental-investing/ ](https://www.fool.com/terms/f/fundamental-investing/) [3. https://www.ig.com/us/ig-academy/fundamental-analysis/the-pros-and-cons-of-fundamental-analysis](https://www.ig.com/us/ig-academy/fundamental-analysis/the-pros-and-cons-of-fundamental-analysis) You will find that none of these three give any justification for why FA would work or how it withstands the scrutiny presented in my previous comments. These articles leave all my questions still standing: What are the criteria for FA? If they are known, how are they not useless (since if everybody known a company is 'undervalued' it will instantly be accurately valued)? If they are unknown, how are they not useless (since you need others to agree with your predictions for them to hold true)? If you think my questioning of FA leads to something that is "plain wrong and flat out misleading" then please give me answers to my above three questions. If you can't/don't want to do that then I can't agree that a smart investor would ever use such an unjustifiable strategy. So far your only proof that FA has worked is that one in a billion investors (Warren Buffet and I'm sure some choice others) have made money off it. I'm afraid that is not very good proof for the reasons stated in my previous comments (probability curve). All the fancy lingo you throw at the end is not an answer to my three fundamental questions and so, I believe, is wholly irrelevant to the conversation. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

nicidee

Just one critique as an exemplar: you have allocations to MSFT and TSLA but they are also constituents of MGK Suggestion: tell the FA your risk appetite (to see if 70/30 is still right at 27) and once you have the split, ladder the bonds to provide the income, that you want to draw annually, tax efficiently and leave the equities in funds (I.e. no more duplication in individual names) but get the FA to be clear what the available themes are : region (US, developed intl, EM) / size of company (Small, mid, large, mega caps) / factor (value, growth, quality, momentum, etc.); and what the costs of each fund are. Choose with the FA based on cost and non-duplication of themes remembering that less is more (I.e with 6 funds you might be done on your equity allocation). The FA should be able to tell you how to benchmark the portfolio.

cbow60

Our FA gets 1% and I sure don’t think he is worth it for no more time than he puts in a year

Beard_fleas

I think FAs are really for people who have zero idea what they are doing and are not capable of using google to figure it out. For those people, a FA is probably going to be a net benefit. They will still underperform a simple mix of VTI/BND but will do better than leaving their money in a bank account.