I grimace when a guy tells me he's an attorney...

Seriously, I agree that we deserve some respect and I feel like I get my fair share.  It might be in the approach...if you are overly friendly and volunteer what you do without being asked, people may well see the sales pitch coming, particularly if they are often the target of such pitches.  A low-key approach...don't act overly interested in them, don't get more interested when they tell you they have a high-income occupation, don't volunteer what you do for a living, do use a less shop-worn title than financial advisor or wealth manager (I once caught my dog calling himself a financial advisor), such as investment advisor, certified financial planner, etc., do let clients introduce you.  My favorite is when one of my high profile clients introduced me by telling his friend, "this guy has made me a hell of a lot of money".  You can't buy advertising like that.  It wasn't long before I had a substantial piece of the friend's money on my books.

Life gets a lot easier and you get a lot more respect when you can put away the pitch and work from referrals.  Until then, my experience is that you'll get more respect with a low-key approach.

How come we dont catch a break in terms of reputation versus these other professions?...these days to be an advisor the path is quite difficult with lots of exams and continuing education...like private practice lawyers and doctors we also have to do alot to grow our own practices...

It is a great question, with a lot of implications, just don't look for a lot of deep thinking from the group here. You asked the big question and it is a good one. But the implications are too much for most to handle. I'll bet you have a pretty good handle on some starter answers to why our collective reputation sucks in relation to some other professionals, especially since we really do accomplish so much for our clients.

The good ones do get lots of respect.  The problem from a perception point of view is that any bozo can be a financial advisor.

It’s the fault of the bank brokers that hover around the teller window and salivate whenever someone deposits a 4 digit check.

[quote=DCedjones]

We deserve some respect[/quote]



See how people react when you tell them you are a Realtor™



The core problem comes from the fact that Brokers are Registered
Representatives of the Firm, who are acting in the firms best interest.
Thus there is a missmatch in perception between the broker (salesman of
financial products) and client (trusted advisor).



I.e when a broker telsl a client to buy a closed end fund at IPO, Do
he  tell them that they are buying at 6% premium to NAV and that
90%+ of closed end funds trade below NAV within 12 months of IPO?



After getting worked over by the markup/down on bonds, closed end offerings, sales loads, annuities, etc most people have a vague unease about stockbrokers.



Vanguard/Fidelity know they have struck a nerve and will keep working the anti-broker message.



It’s up to you to offer more value than a fidelity target date fund.

[quote=AllREIT]

I.e when a broker telsl a client to buy a closed end fund at IPO, Do he  tell them that they are buying at 6% premium to NAV and that 90%+ of closed end funds trade below NAV within 12 months of IPO?
[/quote]

Is this one of those "94% of all statistics are made up on the spot" facts?

[quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=AllREIT]

I.e when a broker telsl a client to buy a closed end fund at IPO, Do he  tell them that they are buying at 6% premium to NAV and that 90%+ of closed end funds trade below NAV within 12 months of IPO?
[/quote]

Is this one of those "94% of all statistics are made up on the spot" facts?

[quote=AllREIT] [quote=DCedjones]
We deserve some respect[/quote]

See how people react when you tell them you are a Realtor(tm)

The core problem comes from the fact that Brokers are Registered Representatives of the Firm, who are acting in the firms best interest. Thus there is a missmatch in perception between the broker (salesman of financial products) and client (trusted advisor).

I.e when a broker telsl a client to buy a closed end fund at IPO, Do he  tell them that they are buying at 6% premium to NAV and that 90%+ of closed end funds trade below NAV within 12 months of IPO?

After getting worked over by the markup/down on bonds, closed end offerings, sales loads, annuities, etc most people have a vague unease about stockbrokers.

Vanguard/Fidelity know they have struck a nerve and will keep working the anti-broker message.

It's up to you to offer more value than a fidelity target date fund.
[/quote]

The better solution is to offer a guarantee of below market returns net of your fee?

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=AllREIT]

I.e when a broker telsl a client to buy a closed end fund at IPO, Do he  tell them that they are buying at 6% premium to NAV and that 90%+ of closed end funds trade below NAV within 12 months of IPO?
[/quote]

The 6% premium to NAV isn't shocking considering the markup on them. I'd like to see the 90% trading below NAV in 12 months supported. 

Is this one of those "94% of all statistics are made up on the spot" facts?

[quote=Bobby Hull]It's the fault of the bank brokers that hover around the teller window and salivate whenever someone deposits a 4 digit check. [/quote]

LOL...the bank brokers?  Considering how the proliforation of "bank brokers" has only been a decade or so...I think you might have to work on that a little.

[See how people react when you tell them you are a Realtor(tm)

Agreed

Vanguard/Fidelity know they have struck a nerve and will keep working the anti-broker message.

I would agree but people have to understand they are brokers to.

I let clients know I work for them and that LPL works for me. And also if I  was at a wirehouse or Fidelity or Schwab I would work for that BD and not for them.      

[quote=Greenbacks]

[See how people react when you tell them you are a Realtor™

Agreed

Vanguard/Fidelity know they have struck a nerve and will keep working the anti-broker message.

I would agree but people have to understand they are brokers to.

I let clients know I work for them and that LPL works for me. And also if I  was at a wirehouse or Fidelity or Schwab I would work for that BD and not for them.      

[quote=BankFC]

[quote=AllREIT] [quote=DCedjones]
We deserve some respect[/quote]

See how people react when you tell them you are a Realtor(tm)

The core problem comes from the fact that Brokers are Registered Representatives of the Firm, who are acting in the firms best interest. Thus there is a missmatch in perception between the broker (salesman of financial products) and client (trusted advisor).

I.e when a broker telsl a client to buy a closed end fund at IPO, Do he  tell them that they are buying at 6% premium to NAV and that 90%+ of closed end funds trade below NAV within 12 months of IPO?

After getting worked over by the markup/down on bonds, closed end offerings, sales loads, annuities, etc most people have a vague unease about stockbrokers.

Vanguard/Fidelity know they have struck a nerve and will keep working the anti-broker message.

It's up to you to offer more value than a fidelity target date fund.
[/quote]

The better solution is to offer a guarantee of below market returns net of your fee?

[/quote]

[quote=joedabrkr] [quote=mikebutler222]

[quote=AllREIT]

I.e when a broker telsl a client to buy a closed end fund at IPO, Do he  tell them that they are buying at 6% premium to NAV and that 90%+ of closed end funds trade below NAV within 12 months of IPO?
[/quote]

Is this one of those "94% of all statistics are made up on the spot" facts?

[/quote]

Actually Mike I think that's accurate.  I've read it elsewhere before.
[/quote]

I think the 6% premium to NAV is a slight exaggeration (at least in my experience I believe it is) and I'd like to see the "90% trading below NAV in 12 months from IPO" supported.

Notice, btw, it doesn't say "90% trading below the NAV AT IPO 12 months after the IPO.

[quote=Greenbacks]

I let clients know I work for them and that LPL works for me. And also if I  was at a wirehouse or Fidelity or Schwab I would work for that BD and not for them.      

[/quote]

Now there's an assertion that would interest tens of thousands of wirehouse brokers who, as a matter of ethical business practice place the client's interest first.

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=Greenbacks]

I let clients know I work for them and that LPL works for me. And also if I  was at a wirehouse or Fidelity or Schwab I would work for that BD and not for them.      

[/quote]

Now there's an assertion that would interest tens of thousands of wirehouse brokers who, as a matter of ethical business practice place the client's interest first.

[/quote]

His line gets apppointments with wirehouse clients. Another one that gets them is "the first thing I'm gonna do is turn off those perpetual fees." Or "I work with people who have outgrown what they're getting at the large firms."

[quote=Bobby Hull][quote=mikebutler222][quote=Greenbacks]

I let clients know I work for them and that LPL works for me. And also if I  was at a wirehouse or Fidelity or Schwab I would work for that BD and not for them.      

[/quote]

Now there's an assertion that would interest tens of thousands of wirehouse brokers who, as a matter of ethical business practice place the client's interest first.

[/quote]

His line gets apppointments with wirehouse clients. Another one that gets them is "the first thing I'm gonna do is turn off those perpetual fees." Or "I work with people who have outgrown what they're getting at the large firms."

[/quote]

So, dishonesty sells. Congrats....

[quote=mikebutler222][quote=Bobby Hull][quote=mikebutler222][quote=Greenbacks]

I let clients know I work for them and that LPL works for me. And also if I  was at a wirehouse or Fidelity or Schwab I would work for that BD and not for them.      

[/quote]

Now there's an assertion that would interest tens of thousands of wirehouse brokers who, as a matter of ethical business practice place the client's interest first.

[/quote]

His line gets apppointments with wirehouse clients. Another one that gets them is "the first thing I'm gonna do is turn off those perpetual fees." Or "I work with people who have outgrown what they're getting at the large firms."

[/quote]

So, dishonesty sells. Congrats....

[/quote]

Actually, I really DO turn off those perpetual fees. Wirehouse clients are the easiest to steal. "I'm a little confused, Mr. MS client, most of the MS clients that I meet are doing almost as well as I'm doing with my clients. In fact, I tell a lot of them to stay where they are. Why is your case different?" Gets 'em every time.

BTW, anyone else notice how the thread about RR reputations very quickly, and in a covert fashion, answered the basic question?<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

It isn’t just outside threats to us, it’s how quickly some of us will impugn the integrity of others in the business in order to try to gain an advantage in the perpetual competition.

People selling annuities will quickly (and dishonestly) assert their products have fewer fees (thus the “broker meter” comment). Some <?:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" />Indies are happy to suggest that they hold their client’s interests first while other channels don’t. People who are enamored with passive investing will quickly question the integrity of the active management contingent.

Pogo was right….