|
IRQ posted:Don't you not even have the IRA you keep saying everyone should have, or am I thinking of another work crew savings zealot? I technically don't have an IRA or Roth IRA because I have a Roth 401k 
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
My wife and are I certified Financial Advisors (non-fiduciary) now. Elfspotters, too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:My wife and are I certified Financial Advisors (non-fiduciary) now. Elfspotters, too. So once you find an elf, you can give it financial advice.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:So once you find an elf, you can give it financial advice. Depending on when that happens, though, I might have to advise them first that as a non-fiduciary advisor, I haven't exactly got a lot of "book smarts" when it comes to investments and stuff.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 21:28
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:Depending on when that happens, though, I might have to advise them first that as a non-fiduciary advisor, I haven't exactly got a lot of "book smarts" when it comes to investments and stuff. What's a million or ten between friends? I mean, when you think about it ten million is mostly zeroes.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 21:39
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:So once you find an elf, you can give it financial advice. But is the elf your fiduciary?
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 21:43
|
|
|
I was given the chance to be a financial advisor, all I'd have to do is take a course they paid for and steer clients towards one of a dozen low-risk, acceptable-returns investment vehicles. Vehicles that also paid the company kickbacks which was how you got paid
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
I'm almost 30 and I don't even have a full time job yet. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:I was given the chance to be a financial advisor, all I'd have to do is take a course they paid for and steer clients towards one of a dozen low-risk, acceptable-returns investment vehicles. Vehicles that also paid the company kickbacks which was how you got paid Right up until the end I was thinking "huh that's not that bad". I mean low-risk, acceptable-returns investments are what people SHOULD be investing in (hence index funds) and banks like to steer you towards higher risk stuff because they make more money. Although the fact that the scheme you described is steering people towards those vehicles for kickbacks probably suggests that said vehicles are not as financially sound as they may be presenting themselves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Right up until the end I was thinking "huh that's not that bad". Index funds aren't inherently low risk. There are quite a few high risk funds, especially the flagship fund to rule them all (S&P 500). More than likely what he's talking about is steering people toward a high fee bond fund because bonds are fairly safe in the market, AND you get a large % back anyway that you could easily lose on stocks. Plus young people, who are the ones who should invest in high risk funds probably aren't the clientele. Either way if i'm a bank I want people who are 5-10 years away from retirement, and really need to catch up so they dump a ton of money in high fee bonds. Young people are a 40+ year investment in which they can take risks so gently caress that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:Right up until the end I was thinking "huh that's not that bad". It'd be vehicles offered by established insurance companies. So the return rate is lower than comparable plans offered by banks but the risk is much lower. It still feels off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 22:33
|
|
|
RandomPauI posted:It'd be vehicles offered by established insurance companies. So the return rate is lower than comparable plans offered by banks but the risk is much lower. It still feels off. Yeah it's probably not so bad for the consumer, but it's still right to feel that it's a bit off. The real problem is that a lot of the financial system IS off, with unethical practices like paying financial advisors to steer people towards your company (even if your stuff is perfectly valid) not being that unusual. Nobody does anything about it because it's so ingrained in the system and most of the time it doesn't really hurt anyone. It's just that when it DOES, it tends to hit really hard.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
I've actually been working as an analyst/number cruncher/intern/gopher for a firm for a while. It's a super small one (only three people), but we have about 300 million under management, and basically everything about this segment was a bunch of "Yep, yep, yep" from me. Active management is a crock, we work with Dimensional, and ever since I started, every theoretical portfolio we've explored that goes beyond "buy and hold in low-cost index funds" has ended up falling apart with backtesting. Same with the fees, we've had sheets for forever that show how hard fees can break a portfolio, and going above 100 basis points (we manage at 40), really cuts performance. I wasn't so keen on the whole "anyone can get away with saying they're an XXX" though, considering that I've spent the last year or so prepping for my Series 65 so I'm allowed to do so much as talk to clients, so idk where that came from.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
The only thing I have to look forward to right now is that because I got taken advantaged of and forced to become the primary tenant of a 1400$ apartment I managed to gradually raise the rents to the subtenants to the point I now live for free (Rent was 200$) So once my career starts (I have my first contract for an indie game studio right now I hope to use as a reference) saving money becomes feasible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 13, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
ACES CURE PLANES posted:I wasn't so keen on the whole "anyone can get away with saying they're an XXX" though, considering that I've spent the last year or so prepping for my Series 65 so I'm allowed to do so much as talk to clients, so idk where that came from. Is that a legal thing or a company policy thing though? His point in the segment was that all the stuff he listed weren't legally protected terms. A company looking to hire someone might have their own internal standards for qualification. It's just that there's no universal legally enforced standard for those titles.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
so do certifications not exist in the US? Cuz the stuff John was talking about with "anyone can call themselves an advisor" isn't really true here in Canada. Or at least since my dad is a CFP and a CA he told me and my siblings long ago who we do and do not trust with investing and it certainly isn't the guy at the bank saying "you should buy our GIC/Mutual Fund/RRSP"
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 04:06
|
|
|
There are regulations and certifications, but most of them are made by the financial industry themselves. I feel like a lot of industries end up guiding most of their regulations because the industry tends to be boring and overcomplicated to outsiders, but the financial industry is definitely the worst offender. I like that this one was personal for a change.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
Aces High posted:so do certifications not exist in the US? Cuz the stuff John was talking about with "anyone can call themselves an advisor" isn't really true here in Canada. Or at least since my dad is a CFP and a CA he told me and my siblings long ago who we do and do not trust with investing and it certainly isn't the guy at the bank saying "you should buy our GIC/Mutual Fund/RRSP" There are a few different things here in the US. First, to offer sell securities (stocks, bonds, mutual funds, etc) you must pass two exams (the Series 7 and either the 63 or 66) to be a licensed member of FINRA. The Series 7 is 260 questions and six hours and covers everything from industry rules to product types to how to determine what is suitable for a client. There is no minimum classroom learning. If you are lucky enough to walk into an exam and pass without studding you are just as qualified as a guy at Goldman Sachs. This covers most of the "financial advisors" you've probably heard about. The ones that are not fiduciaries and can be best thought of as securities salespeople or "stockbrokers". To sell insurance or annuities you must pass an exam and be licensed with the state (or states) in which you do business. For certain types of insurance/annuities you must also have a FINRA license. We also have Certified Financial Planners. To be a CFP requires you have previously worked in the financial planning field and have at least a bachelor's degree. You must take additional classes in financial planning topics. After the classes you take a 6 hour exam. There are also continuing education you must keep up with to maintain your license. There are also other designations like CFP but that's the big one. There are also Registered Investment Advisors (RIAs) that have always had the fiduciary responsibility. They do not charge commissions and usually work on a fee only basis (ex: take 1% a year of assets under management or an hourly fee). These firms need to be registered with their state (or directly with the SEC if they are big enough) but advisors usually don't have a Series 7 license. They may have taken the Series 65 exam or have an exam waiver by being a CFP or one of a few other designations. These types of advisors are legally required to give you the best advice on how to invest and are sometimes also CPAs or Trust/Estate planners.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
Zero One posted:There are also Registered Investment Advisors (RIAs) that have always had the fiduciary responsibility. They do not charge commissions and usually work on a fee only basis (ex: take 1% a year of assets under management or an hourly fee). These firms need to be registered with their state (or directly with the SEC if they are big enough) but advisors usually don't have a Series 7 license. They may have taken the Series 65 exam or have an exam waiver by being a CFP or one of a few other designations. These types of advisors are legally required to give you the best advice on how to invest and are sometimes also CPAs or Trust/Estate planners. Yeah, this is what I've been working towards. It's a special kind of hell, the Series 65. I think a while back the Series 7 was required, but no longer is, according to old-guard coworkers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 05:18
|
|
|
TheCenturion posted:The intro was heart-breaking. Watching him after the opening jingle sitting there, not drumming on the desk like usual, looking somber, then watching him slip into his persona like putting on a jacket, was both heart-breaking and impressive.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 06:27
|
|
|
Veskit posted:
Why would I ever want to invest in high risk things just because I'm young when I could invest in low risk things and get the safe return for an additional 10-20 years? Why not just "invest" in going on a Vegas vacation or a thousand lottery tickets if you're going to leave whether or not you make profit toward your retirement in any given year to risky market plays?
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 07:40
|
|
|
Sanguinia posted:Why would I ever want to invest in high risk things just because I'm young when I could invest in low risk things and get the safe return for an additional 10-20 years? Why not just "invest" in going on a Vegas vacation or a thousand lottery tickets if you're going to leave whether or not you make profit toward your retirement in any given year to risky market plays? Long of the short of it is that high risk investments pay more over long periods of time than low risk investments. The risk is mitigated by time because of the volatility. To help conceptualize Apple is a high risk investment because a lot of things can cause it to drop in price within a year, so if you needed to make sure you had money to retire on in 3 years it'd be unsafe. Risk is a measurement of return not the chance of it failing itself
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 08:03
|
|
|
Zero One posted:There are a few different things here in the US. Ok that's a relief, watching this segment I was a little concerned that financial advisors were being allowed free reign. Although I suppose the same can be said in Canada as well, I just don't notice it because my dad has had his CFP designation for...as long as I have been alive
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
I guess I've gotten lucky because everywhere I've worked has had flat fees for management that are really low, and when I leave a company I just roll it into my TSP. Which I actually need to investigate, I guess. When they save you need to have saved your salary by 30, I assume they mean including retirement accounts? Otherwise, welp I'm hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 14:21
|
|
|
......and CFA is something else entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
ACES CURE PLANES posted:Yeah, this is what I've been working towards. If it was required that was before my time working with RIAs. A lot of them have the 7 anyway because they used to be brokers working for big wirehouses who saw the light and decided the didn't want to push high fee proprietary funds on people anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 15:41
|
|
|
The whole point he was making with the "Financial Advisor is a title that requires no formal credentials" bit was that while many official-sounding job titles do carry with them the legal requirement of some kind of credentialing, qualification, training, etc.--like lawyer, doctor, stock broker, certified public accountant, etc.--"financial advisor" is not one of those titles. It sounds official, but it means nothing. It is very close to titles that do have specific requirements, and that gives customers a false sense of security. But I don't care. I'm a certified Financial Advisor. I have a certificate from the Dean of Financery and everything.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 17:20
|
|
|
It's similar to the "nutritionist" issue. Lots of people call themselves that, and they may actually have valid dietary advice, but they never had to get any qualification to do it. So it's not that all financial advisors are crooked scam artists - it's just you should be aware that they aren't being held to any legal standard that requires them to act in your best interest as opposed to theirs.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 17:24
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:It's similar to the "nutritionist" issue. Lots of people call themselves that, and they may actually have valid dietary advice, but they never had to get any qualification to do it. So it's not that all financial advisors are crooked scam artists - it's just you should be aware that they aren't being held to any legal standard that requires them to act in your best interest as opposed to theirs. What's worse is they think they're some kind of official because they've been duped into paying for a class that gives them a certificate at the end. They're then qualified, in their minds, and confident, and they have something to hang on the wall... all the while, they're blissfully unaware that since their course and/or its material either isn't accredited or is accredited by a group that has no official recognition in the field at hand, their certificate is worth the paper it's printed on. Except it's not, because that otherwise perfectly good piece of paper has a useless certificate printed on it. It's like people who take ghost hunting classes to get certified. That's a thing. And it's why the terrorists are at least a little right for hating us.
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 18:00
|
|
|
tarlibone posted:It's like people who take ghost hunting classes to get certified. That's a thing. And it's why the terrorists are at least a little right for hating us. $75 will get you an online certificate from an IACET accredited provider!
|
|
#
?
Jun 14, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Veskit posted:You should try to have your salary saved by the time your 30
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 12:28
|
|
|
VagueRant posted:What's a "salary"? Much like payphones it's a thing that only old people ever remember having and that future generations will for the most part not get to enjoy.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 12:47
|
|
|
VagueRant posted:What's a "salary"? It's where they can make you work overtime but not pay you any more.
|
|
#
?
Jun 16, 2016 14:11
|
|
|
IRQ posted:It's where they can make you work overtime but not pay you any more. Until December and then if you're below $47k you will get overtime. THANKS OBAMA
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
Yeah what kinda crap is that! Salary is the biggest load of poo poo at times. But I probably shouldn't complain considering I have zero higher education. 11-12 hour days for the last 10 years is starting to take its toll. Would be nice to get paid for it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 17, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
It would be really convenient to know how much I was getting paid month to month instead of hoping that the managers are allowed to schedule us enough hours to make ends meet.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 04:28
|
|
|
im salary but still get OT it's rad
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 07:05
|
|
|
I was a manager at Best Buy making between 35k and 45k for a couple of years, and it was a nightmare working Christmas time. 6 days a week, minimum of 10 hours a day. IT would have been awesome to get paid overtime for those hours. Now I'm in a company where we're going to have to cut coverage during the day because we have an on call shift, and we have to schedule people to work after hours instead of rotating the salaried employees. It's going to suck - it'll be nice for the employee working that 10pm-7am shift because they MIGHT get one call, but that's a shift we have to cut during the day where we have ~100 calls to split amongst the employees with the new laws, as opposed to one employee being on call one day a month. I see both sides.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
I would just like it for everybody and not just for the poors. I spend way too much time in this place, now that I'm getting older and have a new daughter I wanna spend more time at home. At least OT would be incentive to stay here 15 more years and retire early. I'd probably make double my salary with all the extra time I have to spend here.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 07:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 13:07 |
|
|
Unpaid overtime should be illegal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 18, 2016 08:46
|
|
