Money Magazine is a Joke then, I guess

or Register to post new content in the forum

29 RepliesJump to last post



  • 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.
Jun 18, 2006 9:53 am

I've been reading these forums because of the frank commentary, which I entirely respect.

That being said, Money Magazine must be a joke.  They ranked Financial Advisor as the number 3 job in America.  They rated average pay at $122,462.  They gave letter ratings as follows: Stress: C, Flexibility: B, Creativity: B, Difficulty: B.  They said job growth is 25%.

I am not second guessing anyone on this forum, because I have little to no experience in this area.

Having said that, since the reality is that the vast majority of folks don't make it in this business, and those that do end up with divorces and virtually no pay for five years.  From experiences here, stress should be an A+, and difficulty an A++ (I assume the higher rating, the worse it is).  I guess Money Magazine editors are on some kind of controlled substance.  I don't get it.

Jun 18, 2006 10:13 am

As usual, it depends upon who the editors of the magazine polled.

For example, ask a broker who's three years out and in a rough patch and he'll tell you that the job stinks.  Ask the same broker after he's been out ten or fifteen years and has a sizeable, annuitized book, and he'll tell you it's the greatest business in the world.

It's all about perspective, really.

Jun 18, 2006 10:16 am

Oh and by the way.....You're right.  Money Magazine IS a joke.

Why, for example, doesn't Money Magazine ever say, "The advice we printed last month worked so well that you can save the cover price THIS month and just do the same thing again"?

Jun 18, 2006 12:08 pm

Money Magazine, as well as Smart Money and all the others, becomes even more of a joke when you realize that they attempt to replace readers financial advisors. I wonder how much money people need to lose before the ditch the publication and hire a professional? That would be a very interesting study.

Jun 18, 2006 1:20 pm

Understand that magazines need to sell both subscriptions and ads to make money and that they are not always so particular about the quality of the content that they offer.

For example, how many of those publications continue to put out "Best Mutual Fund" lists or "Top stocks to buy now" lists?   Yet those lists change often and prove the worthlessness of such recommended lists.  (Mutual funds should be thought of as long term investments, as such, the best fund for you today should also be the best choice tomorrow, and quite frankly the cost to readers who choose to change their choice every year or so based on such lists is HUGE).

Being a financial professional carries a lot of perks that most in the profession will tout including flexibility of hours and theoretically limitless income.   That doesn't mean every person is suited for it.

There is a high failure rate because barriers to entry are low (hence some of the arguments on the thread) and because a lot of firms have little cost to hire a bunch of rookies and see who survives.

That doesn't make it less of a desirable career.  It just means that it isn't for everyone.

Jun 18, 2006 1:22 pm

Oh..and the first few years in any true profession require hard work and can be very stressful.  What do you think life for an entry level lawyer or doctor is like?    Imagine the stress of residency on a medical intern?

For those that make it, they get to determine their path, how much they work and with whom they get to work with.   How many other professions give you THAT flexibility?

Jun 18, 2006 2:48 pm

I appreciate the posts.  It seems to me that there are so many threads in the "avoid this industry unless you've already got a million dollar book or an angel" vein that it seemed strange that this career path would be one of the top rated in the US, at least according to Money.  Here are the top 5, by the way:

1. Software engineer
2. College professor
3. Financial advisor
4. Human resources manager
5. Physician assistant

It is clear that none of these positions are for everyone, but the message here is that this is a top opportunity for a great job, something that many (most?) here seems to disagree with.

Jun 18, 2006 3:33 pm


I guarantee you they polled people with 5 or 10 years of experience as a minimum.  This job gets easier and easier every year.

Jun 18, 2006 4:12 pm



I guarantee you they polled people with 5 or 10 years of experience as a minimum.  This job gets easier and easier every year.


Yet it remains intellectually stimulating?

Jun 18, 2006 4:14 pm


My wife stimulates me. I go to work to make money.

Jun 18, 2006 4:31 pm



My wife stimulates me. I go to work to make money.


I'm sorry, I forgot that guys of your ilk think with their little head.

What I have to say will only appeal to guys who think with their big head.

Jun 18, 2006 5:50 pm

I can see the support your gathering from others.  Wait, I haven’t seen one person support your ideas… that should tell you something…

Jun 18, 2006 6:03 pm

[quote=bankrep1]I can see the support your gathering from others.  Wait, I haven't seen one person support your ideas... that should tell you something...[/quote]

That I am smarter than everybody else who has read it?

That it's Sunday and most people have better things to do than read this forum?

That they can't stand to hear the message but know it's right anyway?

What's your point?  Right and wrong is not decided by a vote.

Jun 18, 2006 8:11 pm

Yes, Money Magazine is a much so, that we used to call it (Show Me the) Money Magazine in honor of the top 100 funds list, which appeared to show an unusually high concentration of regular advertisers....  Between money mags, CNBC (which someone...I think Don Conrad...used to call financial pornography), and Suze, a lot of damage is done to investors looking for the easy (and cheap) way out.

I'd be interested if there is anything beyond the WSJ or Barrons that advisors think is OK for clients to read...anyone?

Jun 18, 2006 8:46 pm

Don't forget that Worth magazine is owned by Fidelity.

I'll never forget something that Aim mutual funds (remember them?) did in the late 90's.  They performed a study that basically entailed following Money Magazine's recommendations (i.e. "The Top 10 funds of 1996"; "The Ones to own for the next 20 years; etc) Anyways, after 4 years you owned like 62 different funds.  And the performance was something like a 4% average return, with the S&P 500 up 16% during the same time frame.

Jun 19, 2006 2:33 pm

I like to read these magazines, Suze, CNBC, etc., just to see which direction the investing public (i.e. my clients) is being misled.  I helps to prepare for there “questions”. 

Jun 19, 2006 2:35 pm

… their …

Jun 19, 2006 2:37 pm

[quote=exEJIR]... their ...[/quote]

Atta boy, enough pride to catch a mistake and correct it.

Jun 19, 2006 2:39 pm

[quote=The Judge]

Don't forget that Worth magazine is owned by Fidelity.


Nope.  When it was orginally issued it was a transition from a magazine that Fidelity published that was so popular it was thought that it would sell as a newstand magazine.

But Fidelity soon dumped it and it has bounced among a lot of publishing house owners ever since.

Jun 19, 2006 6:42 pm

Ocassionally, Kiplinger’s will have some decent stuff and I don’t sense the “you don’t need an advisor, EVER” message as much.  I think a month or two ago they actually had an article about a couple looking for a good advisor, which I recall as being well done.  They seem to get out a lot of info that the attentive individual could use to manage their own financial lives.