|
Hoodwinker posted:That's not what he's saying. "Fee-only" is a specifically defined term under NAPFA. Is what he's doing even legal, I thought financial planners needed certification.
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 13:26 |
|
|
monster on a stick posted:Is what he's doing even legal, I thought financial planners needed certification. quote:In the United States for example a financial advisor carries a Series 65 or 66 license and according to the U.S. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA), license designations and compliance issues must be reported for public view. FINRA describes the main groups of investment professionals who may use the term financial adviser to be: brokers, investment advisers, accountants, lawyers, insurance agents and financial planners.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
Hoodwinker posted:Looks like as long as he's got his Series 65 or 66, he's good. NAPFA is a very small and select organization. Wikipedia says it only has 2,400 members. I wish we could just clone Allan Roth, then all would be good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:35
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:I wish we could just clone Allan Roth, then all would be good.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Hoodwinker posted:Same. I looked into the requirements for becoming licensed for this sort of thing and between the degree and the certifications, it's not the sort of thing I can slip in between my existing life. It's also, from my understanding, really hard to make a living as an actual fee-only fiduciary. Most people want "free" which means someone who will rip you off with loaded funds. The people who are smart enough to understand that you want a fiduciary who is fee-only are trending towards a Boglehead portfolio in which case you probably don't need a planner. Then you've got stuff like Betterment or target-date funds as competition. Roth does well because he has a stellar reputation, and people like Larry Swedroe do well because they focus on more esoteric stuff like high net worth people who are buying individual muni bonds and want to make sure they're not stuck with some lovely long bond from Illinois that is going to be defaulted on.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:44
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:It's also, from my understanding, really hard to make a living as an actual fee-only fiduciary. Most people want "free" which means someone who will rip you off with loaded funds. The people who are smart enough to understand that you want a fiduciary who is fee-only are trending towards a Boglehead portfolio in which case you probably don't need a planner. Then you've got stuff like Betterment or target-date funds as competition.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
I'd like to show some commitment toward helping friends and family with financial planning and personal investment. What certification/licensing would I need?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
EAT FASTER!!!!!! posted:I'd like to show some commitment toward helping friends and family with financial planning and personal investment. What certification/licensing would I need?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 16:07
|
|
|
Hoodwinker posted:Maybe I was digging too deep. I think I was looking at what it takes to become a CPA or CFA but if I'm reading some of this stuff right all you need is a Series 65/66. Not sure what it takes to do that but I have a hunch that it's got a $10k price tag. I looked into getting a CPA and fortunately/unfortunately it's something that requires ongoing, certified practice to actually earn the designation (it's not just certification, it's more like professional licensure).
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Hoodwinker posted:Maybe I was digging too deep. I think I was looking at what it takes to become a CPA or CFA but if I'm reading some of this stuff right all you need is a Series 65/66. Not sure what it takes to do that but I have a hunch that it's got a $10k price tag. 65 is like $200 test, no continuing ed requirements. I was running the IT department of a mutual fund accounting firm and took the series 7 on a lark, mostly to rub in the face of the fund accountants. It was not what I would call difficult - not for someone who was in that space to begin with. I didn't bother keeping it because of many reasons (it complicates the poo poo out of your own personal investments) but one of them was the expense of continuing ed, which actually costs real money. You can study for the test yourself entirely with used books/internet/whatever and pay your sitting fee. When it comes to continuing ed you need to pony up cash. The strangest thing......much of the continuing ed was counted when your card is charged, not when/if you actually show up or read the book. Perhaps they've cleaned that up by now, but I doubt it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2017 23:24
|
|
|
Motronic posted:65 is like $200 test, no continuing ed requirements. Motronic! I sent you a PM about something similar a while back, sorry to annoy you.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2017 00:42
|
|
|
Looks like I'm going to be laid off pretty soon. I was wondering what happens to my 401k. Am I able to transfer it to another institution? Currently, it's being run and managed by Aon Hewitt and I wanted to move it to Vanguard where my Roth is. Is that possible or does it need to stay with Aon Hewitt?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
obi_ant posted:Looks like I'm going to be laid off pretty soon. I was wondering what happens to my 401k. Am I able to transfer it to another institution? Currently, it's being run and managed by Aon Hewitt and I wanted to move it to Vanguard where my Roth is. Is that possible or does it need to stay with Aon Hewitt? You can roll it over to an IRA at a broker of your choosing, including Vanguard. Note that having a traditional IRA open complicates the backdoor Roth to the point where you may not want to do it at all.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:You can roll it over to an IRA at a broker of your choosing, including Vanguard. Note that having a traditional IRA open complicates the backdoor Roth to the point where you may not want to do it at all. If I'm maxing out my Roth on a yearly basis, I wouldn't need a backdoor option anyway right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 20:59
|
|
|
obi_ant posted:If I'm maxing out my Roth on a yearly basis, I wouldn't need a backdoor option anyway right? If your income gets above whatever the threshold is nowadays ($120k-ish if single) then you can't technically contribute to a Roth IRA and you'd have to do the backdoor.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
Anyone else roughly 30? I brought some 30 year EE Bonds into the bank the other day, and the teller said she's seen more paper EE bonds in the past 6 months than she had in her entire life combined. They must have been very in vogue as You Got Born gifts in the mid 1980s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:You can roll it over to an IRA at a broker of your choosing, including Vanguard. Note that having a traditional IRA open complicates the backdoor Roth to the point where you may not want to do it at all. You can also roll it over to a solo 401k which some brokerages will now establish for you for free, and this does not cause the problems a traditional IRA does. Money that has been rolled over from a qualified retirement plan to a solo 401k or IRA may be less secure from creditors than money in a qualified plan.
|
|
#
?
Jul 23, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
I'm mid 30s, with no retirement accounts. I'm planning on getting a roth ira that I should be able to hit the max contribution or at least close with. I'm not sure who is decent to go with. Is wealthfront a bad option. Also would I be an idiot to get one with trade options. I'm just starting to learn about trading and managing it myself seems appealing but maybe foolish?
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 11:25
|
|
|
Most of your questions are answered in the OP. Wealthfront is not good. You need to do a little reading on retirement investing in general. If you have employer based options where your employer will contribute money, you should use those first. Then the usual thread recommendation is park your money in a Vanguard Roth IRA in a target date fund. Expense ratios are very low, and that's where you get killed. If you want to actively manage money, you should do it in a traditional taxable brokerage account. I'm not sure why you think you're significantly more qualified to trade than say, a prop fund with a bunch of really talented quants and computing power. Those guys love investors like you as the guy across the table. If you treat your active management as "fun" money rather than "I will need this to sustain my life past age 65" money, you'll be fine.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:If you treat your active management as "fun" money rather than "I will need this to sustain my life past age 65" money, you'll be fine. To be a little clearer, treated as fun money because the important money for retirement in tax advantaged accounts (e.g. 401k, IRA, TSP) is passively invested for retirement and specifically is not part of the same pool of money as the fun money in question here.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 13:42
|
|
|
The information in the OP is very good. Also consider reading the book "If You Can" from the OP as well. It's like 19 pages. If you can swing reading the homework that it assigns, I highly support that too.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 13:46
|
|
|
Great, thanks. Yea certainly not at fun money point and don't think I'd do better than companies that know what they're doing. Employer doesn't do 401k so I'll setup a vanguard roth. Also will read everything suggested. Appreciate the advice!
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 13:59
|
|
|
If I make $130,000 this year, but I contributed $18,000 to a 401k, can I contribute to a Roth IRA? I can't get a clean answer from The Google.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:If I make $130,000 this year, but I contributed $18,000 to a 401k, can I contribute to a Roth IRA? I can't get a clean answer from The Google. Yes assuming you aren't filing MFS
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Yes, traditional 401k reduces your gross income for purposes of Roth IRA. I'm assuming you meant traditional 401k.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:If I make $130,000 this year, but I contributed $18,000 to a 401k, can I contribute to a Roth IRA? I can't get a clean answer from The Google. Assuming you are single with no other big sources of income, yes. Remember that dividends and capital gains in taxable accounts all count toward your MAGI.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 18:55
|
|
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:You can also roll it over to a solo 401k which some brokerages will now establish for you for free, and this does not cause the problems a traditional IRA does. Money that has been rolled over from a qualified retirement plan to a solo 401k or IRA may be less secure from creditors than money in a qualified plan. Who is recommended? Last time I checked, there were options but they either were free and had bad investment options, or had low-cost index funds and you had to pay for the 401k administration. Guinness posted:Assuming you are single with no other big sources of income, yes. Remember that dividends and capital gains all count toward your MAGI. This is the big problem. If you make around $130K, a bonus or income from regular investments can kick you outside the limit. When I was in that income range, I always waited until I had all my tax paperwork in hand to figure out exactly how much I could contribute to a Roth, and then it was for last year's contribution. The backdoor is great if for no other reason than you can do it in January and max it out, and there's zero risk of having to deal with over contributions.
|
|
#
?
Jul 24, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:Anyone else roughly 30? I brought some 30 year EE Bonds into the bank the other day, and the teller said she's seen more paper EE bonds in the past 6 months than she had in her entire life combined. Yeah my husband's dad found a pile of them from when he (my husband) was born. Clearly from lots of different people. Amusing, but also probably more useful than most bullshit baby gifts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 25, 2017 23:18
|
|
|
ExtrudeAlongCurve posted:Yeah my husband's dad found a pile of them from when he (my husband) was born. Clearly from lots of different people. Amusing, but also probably more useful than most bullshit baby gifts. My family said that back in the 80's you used to get free savings bonds by saving diaper UPC's and that's where a lot of mine came from No idea if that's true or not - but definitely better than Kool Aid Points
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 00:00
|
|
|
I read an article and it got me thinking: http://thereformedbroker.com/2017/05/05/these-are-your-five-choices/ If bonds are priced really highly so they don't seem like a safe haven right now, when stocks seem to be valued really highly, then what about gold? Does gold make sense as an investment? E.g., instead of a conservative allocation of 60/40 stocks/bonds, then how about 60/40 stocks/gold? It looks like the price of gold was unaffected by the 2008/2009 crash: http://www.macrotrends.net/1333/historical-gold-prices-100-year-chart I just don't want to keep putting money into stocks and bonds only for that to have bad average returns over the next ten years. I figured REITs would be a good, third option, but people are always saying that those are companies just like any others, often publicly-traded, so their prices can be correlated, too. Is the price of gold historically correlated with the prices of stocks and bonds? I don't care if there's much less growth to expect, since it seems like gold prices are pure speculation, but I want to put some portion of my money into something that isn't stocks and bonds and isn't correlated with them.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
In the immortal words of Warren Buffett: "You may fondle the cube (of gold), but it will not respond." Owning it in proportion to all tradable assets could help you mirror the return on all assets, but a folksy Buffett-ism was that all of the mined and refined gold in the world would be. 69x69x69 foot square cube. At prices from the time of that quote for other assets and that cube, you could own about 16 ExxonMobils, every acre of farmland in the US and still have about a trillion dollars to play with. Ignoring diversification, if you wouldn't prefer that giant cube of gold over the alternatives, little pieces of the cube versus little pieces of the alternatives might not make sense either. Edit: this is the don't time the market thread, the degenerate gambling/stocktrading thread may be able to express opinions on gold and precious metals when we haven't fallen in love with chicken companies. crazypeltast52 fucked around with this message at 04:00 on Jul 26, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 03:55
|
|
|
Does anyone have a tilt towards value in their portfolio? Small cap value? If so, what's your asset allocation and reasoning? What did you research? I've been reading Intelligent Asset Allocation and some of Swedroe's columns and have become curious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 05:49
|
|
|
fozzy fosbourne posted:Does anyone have a tilt towards value in their portfolio? Small cap value? If so, what's your asset allocation and reasoning? What did you research? I've been reading Intelligent Asset Allocation and some of Swedroe's columns and have become curious.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 06:17
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:Who is recommended? Last time I checked, there were options but they either were free and had bad investment options, or had low-cost index funds and you had to pay for the 401k administration. I use TD Ameritrade, it requires you to fax an agreement or do one in an office but their administration is free and you can hold any security they broker in it (vanguard etc no problem at all). If you want to get exotic like holding notes or deeds you probably need one of those fee based checkbook 401k accounts offered by other companies.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 13:57
|
|
|
oliveoil posted:I read an article and it got me thinking: http://thereformedbroker.com/2017/05/05/these-are-your-five-choices/ https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Lazy_portfolios#Permanent_Portfolio A year ago I was surprised to learn that actually there is a somewhat reputable diversified portfolio approach that invests in gold - the "Permanent Portfolio" described by Harry Browne in the 1980s. I would discourage anyone from actually buying physical gold coins (due to the exorbitant transactional costs, the serious question/cost of physical security, and the typically huge bid/ask spreads found among coin traders) but there are plenty of low-cost gold-equivalent options (such as GLD) you can hold in your portfolio. That said, the Permanent Portfolio is controversial, and I do not personally advocate it at all. Gold prices have always been quite volatile, responding in part to the political situation in the world's major gold producers. If Australia or South Africa or some other major exporter decides to ramp up production for any of a variety of reasons, that could crush your investment in a matter of days. The US and virtually every other country on Earth moved off of the gold standard specifically because there was a huge benefit to be reaped by getting off of the commodity roller coaster, and that is just as true for an individual portfolio. If you would like to compare the Permanent Portfolio to other benchmarks, you can take a look at articles like this one: http://theirrelevantinvestor.com/2016/12/02/the-permanent-portfolio/ The takeaway, as mentioned in that article, is that PP underperforms a classic 60/40 portfolio, but seems to smooth out some of the volatility - which makes sense, since gold prices do tend to track opposite of the stock and bond markets (some investors flee to gold when stocks and bonds fall). On the other hand, a lot of that has to do with the fact that PP keeps 25% of your investments in cash-equivalent (1-month bonds might as well be cash). So, adding some gold might be of benefit for diversification, but probably it's not a good idea for most investors to have a significant gold position. I'd say maybe shift 5% to 10% of an otherwise balanced portfolio to gold, at the most. And again, that should be something like GLD, not actual physical gold coins.
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
That's pretty cool! Thank you! One thing I noticed was that, looking at the graphs, even though the 60/40 allocation had bigger dips than the PP, it seemed like those dips never took it below the PP in overall value. Did I misread the graphs in that article linked comparing the two?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Hoodwinker posted:My understanding is that small cap value historically has slightly better return than other equity options and allocating about 10% of your portfolio to it seems to have a positive trend but I also have very little to back this up beyond what I remember reading. I spent a good deal of time looking at small-cap value. The best I could determine was that the jury was still out and there just isn't enough data to say if it's real or just random deviation of the market that will smooth itself out in time. There have been periods where small value has significantly underperformed. Sometimes it's good to remind yourself that the only real long term trend data that we have is good old S&P 500, everything else is more or less speculation to a degree.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
GoGoGadgetChris posted:Anyone else roughly 30? I brought some 30 year EE Bonds into the bank the other day, and the teller said she's seen more paper EE bonds in the past 6 months than she had in her entire life combined. Did they give you any trouble in cashing them? I have a few myself. They probably made nice gifts when rates were 10%+.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 05:09
|
|
|
I'm in my employer's defined contribution plan that takes 5% from my paycheck and add 8% as a match into a 403b. I'm maxing out my Roth IRA, and now I'm budgeting enough to contribute more pre-tax income. However, I'm not sure how. Do I set that up through HR, payroll, my 403b provider? Asking around work, even HR, has gotten me a lot of "You can't." If I can't contribute more to the 403b, can I establish another pre-tax account?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 06:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 13:26 |
|
|
I admit I'm not familiar with a 403b per se, but with my 401k provider I can set how much I want out of the paycheck. I could theoretically set like 20% if I wanted to but the 401k isn't that great with limited fund selections and it's 100% match up to 4% so I just have it set at 4% for maximum match. So you should be able to set more. I'd say talk to Payroll and also your provider (mine is set by logging into my provider website and just changing a number with Slavic401k). Just be aware you can't contribute more than 18k a year in a 401k/403b You can also setup a traditional IRA, but you're still limited to $5.5k between your Roth and Traditional so it's redundant there since you're maxing out your Roth. Might just suck it up and use a Vanguard brokerage account for your spare cash if for some reason you can't contribute more to a 403b. Long-term gain taxes aren't that bad at all and kind of a joke anyways Xaris fucked around with this message at 06:35 on Jul 27, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2017 06:32
|
|
