Brokers add no value

or Register to post new content in the forum

51 RepliesJump to last post

 

Comments

  • Allowed HTML tags: <em> <strong> <blockquote> <br> <p>

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Jul 18, 2006 11:04 am

Good thing I sell annuities and not MF's.


This study is a farce. It says the FUNDS do better. It's completely silent on how advisors do managing the funds over how the cheapskates do managing them.


Personally...I think all MF's suck.

Jul 18, 2006 11:26 am

Interesting comments.


From the article:


"It is important to note that the authors are not anti-advisor. Remarkably, they had the cooperation and support of some of the largest and most respected industry groups and research organizations in America in working on this study. Further, the authors go out of their way to point out that financial advisors may offer significant "intangible benefits."


and


"The methodology of the study is rigorous and sound. The massive amounts of data involved have been analyzed for years from many different angles. Researchers from major universities around the country have contributed guidance and expertise to the authors. Morningstar and Financial Research Corporation contributed data (although the findings of the study and the conclusions drawn can only be attributed to the authors.) In addition, staff members of the Investment Company Institute and representatives of various mutual fund companies assisted the authors. This is not a biased study."

Jul 18, 2006 11:29 am

The BCT study also found that the clients of advisors are less educated and have lower net worth than do-it-yourselfers. 


Granted, I didn't conduct a study and I'm not here to profit by helping you counter said study, but I've found the above to be 180 degrees out of reality......

Jul 18, 2006 11:37 am
cranky sob:

Good thing I sell annuities and not MF's.


This study is a farce. It says the FUNDS do better. It's completely silent on how advisors do managing the funds over how the cheapskates do managing them.



Correct. The authors themselves say they get their data from FUND level info, not client account level info.

Jul 18, 2006 3:00 pm

So this study doesn't matter to you and it's business as usual?


You are happy to ignore what the (pro-advisor) Morningstar author of the article and the media had to say?


Is anyone here planning to write a rebuttal?


M

Jul 18, 2006 3:29 pm
William:

Is anyone here planning to write a rebuttal?





Go away troll.

Jul 18, 2006 3:32 pm
William:

So this study doesn't matter to you and it's business as usual?


You are happy to ignore what the (pro-advisor) Morningstar author of the article and the media had to say?


Is anyone here planning to write a rebuttal?


M



Morningstar is PRO-adviser?

You're a fool!!

Jul 18, 2006 3:55 pm
William:

So this study doesn't matter to you and it's business as usual?


You are happy to ignore what the (pro-advisor) Morningstar author of the article and the media had to say?


Is anyone here planning to write a rebuttal?


M



As joe pointed out, MorningStar isn't "pro-broker". Additionally, the author doesn't work for MorningStar. Finally, the "media" has been making money for years selling magazines that feature nothing more than “no-load” fund advertisements and a rotation of the “your broker is a thief”, “You don’t need an advisor, buy our TEN STOCKS YOU HAVE TO OWN NOW edition instead” and “Your broker is a thief, Second Edition” for as long as I can recall.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />


Should a client walk in my office and present me with a copy of that study, rather than explain to them that it’s based not on client accounts, but on fund money flows, I’ll simply ask him; “OK, how many funds are in the portfolio I run for you?”


His answer will be; “Oh, that’s right, none”….


Anything else on your mind?


Jul 18, 2006 4:04 pm

He's writing for Morningstar and he's an advisor. He's taking a pro-advisor stance in the article.


No, nothing else on my mind. You pretty much lived up to what I thought the response from advisors would be. I have some good quotes now. Thanks.


M

Jul 18, 2006 4:21 pm

And of course, now the article link is blown up by the board moderators so we can't read it or rebut if we even wanted to.


Jul 18, 2006 4:26 pm
William:

He's writing for Morningstar and he's an advisor. He's taking a pro-advisor stance in the article.


No, nothing else on my mind. You pretty much lived up to what I thought the response from advisors would be. I have some good quotes now. Thanks.


M



You're going to use anonymous quotes from an internet bulletin board?  Wow, you're editors will be very proud of you!!!

Jul 18, 2006 7:03 pm

He doesn't work for MorningStar, MorningStar isn't "pro-broker" by any stretch of the imagination and he "advises" reps. Furthermore, his “advice” about using a couple of closed-end bond funds could only be considered useful to the most junior of advisors. In fact there’s a pretty good likelihood that you’re here drumming up business for said “advisor”.


No, nothing else on my mind. You pretty much lived up to what I thought the response from advisors would be.


I doubt you thought;


a) advisors were smart enough to understand how little a study based on mutual fund cash flows instead of client account balances really matters.


b) advisors were NOT selling mutual funds to every client they work with I doubt


c) that advisors care little about what groups (the financial press and academics) that have been hostile towards us for years are now saying. The article itself quotes Clements, the WSJ columnist who’s been writing his “you don’t need an advisor, you just need my column” piece for years.


As someone who doesn’t use mutual funds, just what would you suggest I do about this “study” aside from adding it to the "dumb s*%t I've read recently" pile?


I have some good quotes now. Thanks.


No doubt you think anonymous quotes on the internet are worth as much as the "study" you brought us.


[/quote]

Jul 18, 2006 9:55 pm

Nicely done  Mike.

Jul 18, 2006 10:39 pm

If you want to read the study, it is:


"Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Brokers in the Mutual Fund Industry" by Daniel Bergstresser, Peter Tufano and John MR Chalmers.


I don't have editors. I show your quotes to investors. 


 "In fact there’s a pretty good likelihood that you’re here drumming up business for said “advisor”.


This kind of comment is usually made by the most junior of advisors.


It really is fascinating to see your reactions. I actually thought I would get some thoughtful responses. My bad.


Jul 18, 2006 11:30 pm
William:

I show your quotes to investors.]




And?

   

William:

It really is fascinating to see your reactions. I actually thought I would get some thoughtful responses. My bad.





Tell us, William, how long have you been in production?



Do you realize what a complete fool you have made of yourself?

Jul 19, 2006 8:14 am
William:

If you want to read the study, it is:


"Assessing the Costs and Benefits of Brokers in the Mutual Fund Industry" by Daniel Bergstresser, Peter Tufano and John MR Chalmers.


You should read it so you can counter it. Its weaknesses are obvious.


I don't have editors. I show your quotes to investors.


Anyone care to make a bet "William" doesn't show all the quotes, just the ones that fit his agenda?


"In fact there’s a pretty good likelihood that you’re here drumming up business for said “advisor”.


This kind of comment is usually made by the most junior of advisors.


That kind of claim is usually made by trolling hacks....


It really is fascinating to see your reactions. I actually thought I would get some thoughtful responses. My bad.


So, it's not "thoughtful" to point out that;


1) MorningStar isn't "broker friendly" (unless by "friendly" you mean "sells a do-it-yourself-service")


2) The writer of the article was attempting to drum up business for his "follow me and I'll show you (via my newsletter and bogus "accreditations") how to counter this "news"


3) That academics have been hostile to brokers (and active management, for that matter)for ages


4) the "study" didn't look at CLIENT ACCOUNTS it looked at MUTUAL FUND FLOWS


5) That many, many brokers know better than to use funds to begin with


6) That the "study" made the hysterical claim that "do it yourself types" are smarter and of high net-worth than people using brokers?


7) That the writer’s “advice” to use closed net bond funds instead of mutual funds wouldn’t be news to anyone that’s been licensed more than 6 months?



Here’s my guess; either “William” is a troll for the hack that wrote the “buy my newsletter and avoid this mess” article OR “William” is a part of that hard-core “all brokers are thieves, I’ve come to understand the market and the business of financial advice in the past 6 months and now know everything and anyone not buying Vanguard index funds is a fool” type would wouldn’t have been satisfied by any response short of a complete confession of unethical behavior, massive fraud and an offer to cut his grass for free for the rest of our natural lives.

Jul 19, 2006 8:16 am

net = end


would = who

Jul 19, 2006 8:45 am

Having slapped "William" a few times, I would recommend you read the study. In my searches I found a draft of it from the 90's, so I wonder how it's "news" today.


I also found a fairly reasoned response to it from a columnist who gets paid to give "free" advice to tens of thousands of people he has no clue about (I've always found "broker slurs" from people like that to be a perfect example of irony). He suggested that people "test" their FA by asking questions like "Emerging markets are hot, why shouldn't we sell everything about buy that"?


If that's the kind of question you'll get wrong and thereby lose the respect of the client, you deserve the fall out.


Jul 19, 2006 11:04 am

"In my searches I found a draft of it from the 90's, so I wonder how it's "news" today. "


Yes, that does seem strange. Especially since the data went through 2002. Perhaps you should look further, or ask for help.


How sad that I present a study that deserves consideration and what you are interested in doing is 'slapping me'.


As far as the 'reasoned response', the article 'Is Your Broker Just Making You Broker?' (MONEY Magazine), is not much of a response at all, let alone 'reasoned'. It mentions the study but does not draw conclusions or challenge or even discuss the study.


But hey, maybe your definition of 'reasoned response' is much different than mine.

Jul 19, 2006 11:17 am
William:

"In my searches I found a draft of it from the 90's, so I wonder how it's "news" today. "


Yes, that does seem strange. Especially since the data went through 2002. Perhaps you should look further, or ask for help.


How sad that I present a study that deserves consideration and what you are interested in doing is 'slapping me'.


As far as the 'reasoned response', the article 'Is Your Broker Just Making You Broker?' (MONEY Magazine), is not much of a response at all, let alone 'reasoned'. It mentions the study but does not draw conclusions or challenge or even discuss the study.


But hey, maybe your definition of 'reasoned response' is much different than mine.



Maybe this is a different study and an article written by a different journalist.  But, it follows a script that has been used over and over for at least a decade....nothing new.

Then again you most likely have been in the business for about 2 months, so how could I expect you to have any sense of perspective?