Wow, pretty hard-hitting stuff there, Mike.

After specifically making the point, above, that this is not about holier than thou, I must question your reading comprehension, as they say.

The rest just looks like sour grapes.

But confusing the moral issue with the substance is the beginning of a lie.

rialsoon, you have a pretty snotty attitude for someone who seems to be pretty new in the business. 

 And here I'm speaking about preferred funds, for example, on b/d advisory accout platforms, that have revenue sharing arrangements, for example

And here you don't really know what you are talking about.  Many firms have preferred partner funds or some other name for them.  In my case it means my ticket charges are 10 instead of 12$ per trade.  Big whoop.  Even in the case of the notorious Jones preferred funds, the rep didn't get paid any differently from preferred to non preferred fund.  All it meant was the preferred families got more face time in front of the reps.....Big whoop again.  There was no real conflict of interest in having funds that paid for shelf space on the part of the reps.....maybe the firm, but not the reps.

So, I have a client who has 200K to invest and we buy a mix of mutual funds, bonds, etfs and uits.  I make an average of 2 ot 2.5% commission on the account.  In most cases we don't do much trading so it may be several years before we need to make any portfolio adjustments.   In the meantime you are charging them a fee assessed quarterly.  

Your conflict of interest comes when the client begins to wonder just what it is that you are doing to earn that $2000 to $2500 every year.......so you start to move the portfolio so it looks like you are doing something.  Moving the portfolio to look busy isn't necessarily in the best interest of the client, but that's how the fee based accounts seem to work.  Busy work to justify the fees.

More importantly, in my view, as a Certified Financial Planner Practitioner licensee, all of the inherent and apparent conflicts of interest associated with affiliation with a broker dealer will be eliminated.

Untrue.

Also, since you are fee-only, is it safe to assume that you don't help your clients with insurance issues?

Since you said, yes I assume you advise them to go to an insurance agent for all of their other financial planning needs since you are basically a product and investment pusher?  How can you possibly claim to be a financial planner CFP or otherwise if you don't assist your clients with their insurance needs.  Do you even know what I'm talking about?

[quote=rialsoon]

Wow, pretty hard-hitting stuff there, Mike.

After specifically making the point, above, that this is not about holier than thou, I must question your reading comprehension, as they say.

The rest just looks like sour grapes.

But confusing the moral issue with the substance is the beginning of a lie.

[/quote]

If you can read this line of yours;

"And please tell your friends that I am working as a fee only financial advisor - they may have some questions about how their financial accounts are currently being managed. "

As anything other than a holier-than-thou pitch line to clients and potential referrals, I question your reading comprehension.

I think the bottom line is, having read some of Allreits posts,and when sitting with clients and explaining the way things really work, it's just kind of funny to think that guys like Mike take sort of this corporate view of things.

You would think that financial advisor would want to be clever with money, but of course only to the extent that it does not threaten the status quo.

I see the whole ethics issue as a sort of muddling of reality (from both sides) - but ultimately to the benefit of b/ds, aka the Merrill Lynch rule fiasco.

But this is the registered rep union hall, I guess, so if this bothers you and you just want to lash out like Mike, save yourself.

rialsoon, 

Many of us are already able to do fee based accounts.  You aren't as special as you would like to think you are. I'm sitting for the 65 in the end of June and have completed the CFP training and plan to convert some (not all) of my clients to fee based.  Many will continue to be commission accounts and some will have both types of accounts with me.

You're preaching to the choir. Too bad you seem to be a one note song.

Dusty Bunny baby, your first sentence assumes an awful lot, more than you could know.

You need to learn more about the money mutual funds pay companies like LPL, even commonwealth.

How can you possibly claim to be a financial planner CFP or otherwise if you don't assist your clients with their insurance needs.  Do you even know what I'm talking about?

As a matter of fact, as a CFP, I study insurance quite a bit. It is one of the major areas of financial planning, as I think you know. Don't get your question.

Yeah Mike, I thought about that "managed" when I wrote it, and could have said managed and administered, and went for brevity. Please don't assume I am dissing your money management skills, I tried to make it clear we should all be respected as professionals.

I'm 66/7 licensed and have advisory platforms and brokerage platforms.  Typically, I use the brokerage platforms with C shares because its easier on my side and is actually cheaper for the client (1% 12b1 vs. 1.25% wrap fee).  I think you're narrow-minded if you think that a wrap fee is always cheaper.  Anyone who has 6 months experience in this business should know that (using brokerage examples that replicated pay-over-time that you pitch) an A share is cheaper than a C share for the client if they are holding the fund for 5 years or longer.

Same concept applies to a 1.5% commission vs. an annual 1% fee, unless you churn your advisory accounts like hell.

[quote=rialsoon]

Dusty Bunny baby, your first sentence assumes an awful lot, more than you could know.

You need to learn more about the money mutual funds pay companies like LPL, even commonwealth.

How can you possibly claim to be a financial planner CFP or otherwise if you don't assist your clients with their insurance needs.  Do you even know what I'm talking about?

As a matter of fact, as a CFP, I study insurance quite a bit. It is one of the major areas of financial planning, as I think you know. Don't get your question.

Yeah Mike, I thought about that "managed" when I wrote it, and could have said managed and administered, and went for brevity. Please don't assume I am dissing your money management skills, I tried to make it clear we should all be respected as professionals.

Dusty Bunny baby, your first sentence assumes an awful lot, more than you could know.

rial son,  No, I am quite correct in my assumption. You are a little snot.

As a matter of fact, as a CFP, I study insurance quite a bit. It is one of the major areas of financial planning, as I think you know. Don't get your question.

A little text book studying doesn't qualify you to have rookie level knowledge when it comes to insurance.  Regardless, I have no idea how you will consider yourself a "financial advisor" when insurance issues are going to get ignored.  Shouldn't you call yourself an "investment advisor"?

First of all, I did not post here to diss anyone, or challenge anyone's ethics.

Second, as a seasoned CFP insurance salesman with years of b/d affiliation, the question about addressing insurance needs at RIA is silly.

Third, Dust Bunny is quick with the labels, that is disappointing.

And Joe, my point is not absolute, as I took pains to point out. I think we are beating this to death, and if anyone can find a jewel in my observations, great, otherwise, sorry I stepped on this little hornet's nest.

I respect you all, except Bobby.

Happy summer to all !

[quote=rialsoon]I think the bottom line is, having read some of Allreits posts,and when sitting with clients and explaining the way things really work, it’s just kind of funny to think that guys like Mike take sort of this corporate view of things.

You would think that financial advisor would want to be clever with money, but of course only to the extent that it does not threaten the status quo.

I see the whole ethics issue as a sort of muddling of reality (from both sides) - but ultimately to the benefit of b/ds, aka the Merrill Lynch rule fiasco.

But this is the registered rep union hall, I guess, so if this bothers you and you just want to lash out like Mike, save yourself.[/quote]

RS, I'm not here to debate fee vs. commissions as much as I am curious as to what is motivating you to leave your B/D and take only the fee side of your book.  While I went the indy route, I briefly considered the RIA route, but (1) was a bit intimidated by the compliance and legal issues involved in setting one up and (2) hated to leave some clients behind or worse yet, be able to service only part of some households.

If you don't mind sharing, I'm curious about your background, what's motivating you to leave your current situation, what kind of situation you're currently in, and whatever else you're comfortable divulging.  It sounds like you've done some due diligence and have made your decision, but I'm curious as to why you decided RIA vs. a good independent B/D.  I don't have an agenda...I'm just curious to know if I missed something when I considered indy B/D vs. RIA, besides the obvious cut that my indy B/D takes off the top in exchange for support/compliance, etc.?

Second, as a seasoned CFP insurance salesman with years of b/d affiliation, the question about addressing insurance needs at RIA is silly.

I didn't question your insurance salesmanship as an RIA.  I questioned your ability to help people with insurance as a fee-only advisor.  These are very different things.

[quote=rialsoon]

I think the bottom line is, having read some of Allreits posts,and when sitting with clients and explaining the way things really work, it's just kind of funny to think that guys like Mike take sort of this corporate view of things.

You would think that financial advisor would want to be clever with money, but of course only to the extent that it does not threaten the status quo.

I see the whole ethics issue as a sort of muddling of reality (from both sides) - but ultimately to the benefit of b/ds, aka the Merrill Lynch rule fiasco.

But this is the registered rep union hall, I guess, so if this bothers you and you just want to lash out like Mike, save yourself.

[/quote]

What all that has to do with your obvious holier-than-thou pitch line is a mystery...

Hey Mike, Find our “Conflict of Interest Disclosure”.  I found yours.

[quote=$ N the Bank]Hey Mike, Find our "Conflict of Interest Disclosure".  I found yours.[/quote]

Either WM has one, or they don't have a fee in lieu of account, there’s no third option. Why should I dig it up for you (assuming you even have an internet presence), is it you figure you don’t have one? If you don’t have one, you have commission accounts, you figure they’re conflict of interest free?<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />

What’s with the need to be so cryptic?

[quote=rialsoon]Bobby, unless you are God, I suggest some basic finance
courses at an accredited college might be a real benefit to your
clients. [/quote]



You might benefit from some troll dectection classes.



Bobby is a long time RR troll who uses a persona of an abusive though sucessful annuity shark to annoy and insult everything that moves.



If you ignore him, he will ignore you. The supposed annuities (with 24% CAGRs) that he claims to flog don’t exist. Ignore him.

[quote=AllREIT][quote=rialsoon]Bobby, unless you are God, I suggest some basic finance courses at an accredited college might be a real benefit to your clients. [/quote]

You might benefit from some troll dectection classes.

Bobby is a long time RR troll who uses a persona of an abusive though sucessful annuity shark to annoy and insult everything that moves.

If you ignore him, he will ignore you. The supposed annuities (with 24% CAGRs) that he claims to flog don't exist. Ignore him.


[/quote]

What's your email address? I'll send you a statement. Don't post it if you don't want to feel like an a$$hole, though.

[quote=Bobby Hull]

[quote=AllREIT][quote=rialsoon]Bobby, unless you are God, I suggest some basic finance courses at an accredited college might be a real benefit to your clients. [/quote]

You might benefit from some troll dectection classes.

Bobby is a long time RR troll who uses a persona of an abusive though sucessful annuity shark to annoy and insult everything that moves.

If you ignore him, he will ignore you. The supposed annuities (with 24% CAGRs) that he claims to flog don’t exist. Ignore him.


[/quote]

What's your email address? I'll send you a statement. Don't post it if you don't want to feel like an a$$hole, though.

Bobby, you could always do what I did when someone kept questioning my series 7 score…cover all names, account numbers, etc, scan the rest and post the image here.  I used www.theimagehosting.com to post the image free of charge.  That’s the best way I know of to shut up doubters.