The answer to that question is probably "no".
The answer to that question is probably "no".
Maybe, but with a total of 10 different registered and non-registered accounts it is nice to have someone look at the entire picture.Originally posted by Buster
The answer to that question is probably "no".
Sure I can do that, but I really don't have time, and one of the problems I have is I constantly can't make a decision when it comes to my investments. I build up cash in a "high interest savings" account and then can't decide what to do with it. I also understand the concept of re-balancing but have a hard time actually following through. Plus my unregistered investments will pass $100k this year and I like that someone else looks at what is most tax efficient based on my income as opposed to me trying to stay up-to-date with the latest ways the government is trying to tax trusts, corporate class funds, or dividends.
My wife and I are both very busy with full time jobs and do our best to enjoy every minute of free time. That one percent buys me more free time and less stress. And if the performance is at least the same as I could do on my own (and it should be) then it is worth it.
Time will tell though.
As long as you realize that you are buying a service, and not increasing your returns by using such a service, then all good.
I doubt you would match a properly constructed index fund, but it's all whether you want to do that or not. I spend lots of money on things I refuse to do, even though the ROI isn't there.
Originally posted by SEANBANERJEE
I have gone above and beyond what I should rightfully have to do to protect my good name
Well I'd say if they're a CFP that is good enough to have a set of ethics. When I took those courses each of my profs were constantly hammering in how job #1 at being a CFP is advising your customer in a way that suites their needs first, and that doesn't mean giving them the biggest return either. There are a lot of questions you need to ask and be able to answer before you can even start talking about what to do with their money. Almost 20 years later I don't remember much, but I remember that 'lesson' like it was yesterday.Originally posted by blownz
So I actually received a call back within an hour.
My investment advisor said that article had gone viral within Dominion Securities and they were preparing a release.
However she did say that the spelling isn't even an option for them. The titles are determined by DS. She said they are required to have and maintain their CFP and to them that is more important than the title. They also have no targets and are not encouraged to sell RBC products. She said they are expected to act in the best interest of their clients.
Now she did point out that at the actual banks this is very true, but at Dominion Securities and Wood Gundy (where she used to be) they don't push bank funds. Her group made all the choices on my funds and only one is an RBC fund.
I personally haven't been with DS for long enough to have a strong opinion regarding their service (less than a year). But so far I have liked the level of advice and involvement from them. I will need a few years to determine if the 1% fee is worth it.
As for old man with a million dollars in that video, someone needs to explain to him that investments are not guaranteed, and bitching about a 3% return is retarded, because you win some and you lose some. I bet the people who lost 10% would love to have his problem.
Now he has a completely valid point bitching about getting advised by a guy potentially making $12 an hour who couldn't finance a cheese burger himself, let alone put money in a tfsa or something else to invest... but that is why you do not walk into a branch at a bank and get financial advice. Someone without a finance degree (or some sorta similar formal education) and a legit designation (CFP I'd trust, those courses were fucking brutal 20 years ago. 2500 page text books you were expected to read front to back and the hardest test i've ever taken to pass for each course. I only did 3 out of 6 courses myself) is not someone I'd let advise me.
There are only a few ways to know if your Advisor carries a fiduciary duty to you as their client:
1) They are licenced as a Portfolio Manager (another title carrying this licencing is Investment Counselor). To get this licensing you need your CFA or CIM designation.
2) They have their CFA (Chartered Financial Analyst) designation, which is a requirement to become licenced as a Portfolio Manager. The CFA designation is the only designation in the investment industry that carries a fiduciary duty on its own, regardless of licensing. No other designation does (CFP, CIM etc.).
So, if a CFA charter holder and someone with their CIM designation or CFP designation have the same job, which is not a position that carries a Portfolio Manager licensing, then ONLY the CFA charterholder carries a fiduciary duty to his client.
3) They are managing your investments on a "discretionary basis". Discretionary investment management gives the advisor full authority to manage the clients investments on their behalf as outlined in an investment policy statement. In order to become a discretionary investment manager you have to be licenced as a Portfolio Manager, so this service goes hand in hand with point #1
You should always seek discretionary investment management services when available. Unfortunately there are account size minimums, so this service isn't available to everyone and is typically reserved for high net worth individuals. Next best would be to seek out an Advisor with their CFA designation - there are some non discretionary advisors who carry the designation. Next best would be someone with the CFP. This designation does carry high ethical standards and is definitely a well respected designation, but it just doesn't carry a fiduciary duty by law.
Using these outlines is much better than and accurate than asking whether their title is spelt with an E or an O.
Hope that clarifies.
This is a hilarious topic because so many people are so damn naive and stupid when it comes to their finances. The CFP designation is a complete joke. I have friends with 0 education that have been sponsored by these scam investment companies (freedom 55, investors group, bank branches) so they can peddle their mutual funds to poor victims. These guys are no better then used car salesman or insurance salesman. For the future, look for the following 3 things when choosing a financial advisor 1) university education majoring in finance. Please make sure this is a legitimate university that is respected for its finance program (U of C, U of A, U of T, and not Lethbridge, Mount Royal, Athabasca, etc.); 2) they must have their CFA. This is something all half decent finance people work towards on the investment/research side of the game; 3) Ask them how much money they manage, where they live and what kind of car they drive. I absolutely don't want anyone touching my money who doesn't manage a shit ton more than I am putting in or who lives in a shittier house or drives a shittier car than me. The finance industry is extremely lucrative for those who are good at their job. If the guy you are talking to isn't loaded then he isn't one of the better guys.
Type_S1 is pretty much on the money. Designations and titles don't mean, or prove, anything. The good, bad, and ugly finance people are all mixed in. CFA/CFP/CIM etc.Originally posted by Type_S1
This is a hilarious topic because so many people are so damn naive and stupid when it comes to their finances. The CFP designation is a complete joke. I have friends with 0 education that have been sponsored by these scam investment companies (freedom 55, investors group, bank branches) so they can peddle their mutual funds to poor victims. These guys are no better then used car salesman or insurance salesman.
If you want someone looking after your best interests, you have to pay them directly, either AUM % or project/hourly/monthly, not via commissions. If it's not clear how they are getting paid, it is through commissions.
Hell Bent on the Worst Kind of Infamy
I wouldn't use that as my only guideline.Originally posted by Type_S1
If the guy you are talking to isn't loaded then he isn't one of the better guys.
Wasn't someone on this site selling investments and he drove a benz and dad drove an AM... Doesn't always work out...
I actually had met a guy trying to sell investments years ago and he drove a sweet new Bentley Continental Speed and he bragged about how the lease payments of it and his other vehicles were over $10K a month. A few months later he made front page of the Edmonton Journal business section. And not for good reasons. Sometimes guys with lots of money are just good scam artists.
I do totally agree with you that I wouldn't trust someone that didn't look like they had money either.
That's why there are multiple criteria, not just nice cars. Education is a huge one as a proven track record. The last legitimate guy I talked to about finances was more then willing to show me his own investment portfolio and ROR's, and willing to discuss in detail certain business sectors which he specialized in (and I also knew about). He also walked me through his investment strategy in certain sectors and both his past hits and misses and reasons behind them. The only problem with the qualified and good guys is they usually wont talk to you unless you have $500k - $1mm to invest unless you are referenced by someone they are managing a lot of money for.Originally posted by blownz
I wouldn't use that as my only guideline.
Wasn't someone on this site selling investments and he drove a benz and dad drove an AM... Doesn't always work out...
I actually had met a guy trying to sell investments years ago and he drove a sweet new Bentley Continental Speed and he bragged about how the lease payments of it and his other vehicles were over $10K a month. A few months later he made front page of the Edmonton Journal business section. And not for good reasons. Sometimes guys with lots of money are just good scam artists.
I do totally agree with you that I wouldn't trust someone that didn't look like they had money either.
Here is an investment strategy for the financially inept better than 99% of ones you will get from the no-education hacks at your local bank(and not sayig this is ideal either)...throw your money into CN Rail, Telus, Manulife, CIBC, CNRL, Cenovus (they will recover nicely) and SNC Lavalin. Collect a dividend and don't worry about shady investment advisors or big losses.
Close.Originally posted by Type_S1
That's why there are multiple criteria, not just nice cars. Education is a huge one as a proven track record. The last legitimate guy I talked to about finances was more then willing to show me his own investment portfolio and ROR's, and willing to discuss in detail certain business sectors which he specialized in (and I also knew about). He also walked me through his investment strategy in certain sectors and both his past hits and misses and reasons behind them. The only problem with the qualified and good guys is they usually wont talk to you unless you have $500k - $1mm to invest unless you are referenced by someone they are managing a lot of money for.
Here is an investment strategy for the financially inept better than 99% of ones you will get from the no-education hacks at your local bank(and not sayig this is ideal either)...throw your money into CN Rail, Telus, Manulife, CIBC, CNRL, Cenovus (they will recover nicely) and SNC Lavalin. Collect a dividend and don't worry about shady investment advisors or big losses.
Basically the best is a balanced portfolio of index tracking ETFs, covering both global/US and maple. Then mix in a quarter or a third of fixed income fund. Done.
The concept of active management for retail investors is basically bogus at this point.
Type_S1 is far from close. Picking 7 Canadian equity stocks is hardly a strategy. It's what amatuers do who think they have it all figured out.Originally posted by Buster
Close.
Basically the best is a balanced portfolio of index tracking ETFs, covering both global/US and maple. Then mix in a quarter or a third of fixed income fund. Done.
The concept of active management for retail investors is basically bogus at this point.
Buster's suggestion is wayyyy better and would work for many people, however depending on your age, risk tolerance etc. I'd argue its almost too conservative for someone younger and just starting to save for retirement.
There are way too many factors at play to recommend a general strategy that works for all.
Well, I was being generous because he was at least thinking along the lines of an index fund.
I'm not sure increasing risk/return is beneficial for the average investor through more active management. Younger investors might go more heaving on the equities vs the fixed income. But I don't k now if I agree that moving towards having a pro do stock picking for you is a good idea for a young investor either.
I assure you that just because an Advisor is charging you a % of assets (a fee based account) doesn't mean they are looking after your best interests. I cant even count the number of garbage fee based portfolios I've seen from the likes of RBC, National Bank, CIBC etc.Originally posted by Dycker
Type_S1 is pretty much on the money. Designations and titles don't mean, or prove, anything. The good, bad, and ugly finance people are all mixed in. CFA/CFP/CIM etc.
If you want someone looking after your best interests, you have to pay them directly, either AUM % or project/hourly/monthly, not via commissions. If it's not clear how they are getting paid, it is through commissions.
Sorry, to clarify I fully agree with you. I was referring altering the risk/reward profile by adjusting the fixed income / equity mix, not the index vs active part.Originally posted by Buster
Well, I was being generous because he was at least thinking along the lines of an index fund.
I'm not sure increasing risk/return is beneficial for the average investor through more active management. Younger investors might go more heaving on the equities vs the fixed income. But I don't k now if I agree that moving towards having a pro do stock picking for you is a good idea for a young investor either.
I'm a proponent of both indexing and active depending on the asset class but that's off topic from the discussion at hand.
To be honest most people starting out are better off using a robo-advisor. It's cheap. It's diversified. It maintains an investment strategy for you and you don't have to worry about being "ripped off" by a salesman.
and you don't have to handle ACB bs, etc.Originally posted by 91_Integz
Sorry, to clarify I fully agree with you. I was referring altering the risk/reward profile by adjusting the fixed income / equity mix, not the index vs active part.
I'm a proponent of both indexing and active depending on the asset class but that's off topic from the discussion at hand.
To be honest most people starting out are better off using a robo-advisor. It's cheap. It's diversified. It maintains an investment strategy for you and you don't have to worry about being "ripped off" by a salesman.
speaking of active investing, I invested in a private placement for one of the bigger robo-advisors in Canada.
Active investing in a robo advisor, I love that!
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Originally posted by ExtraSlow
Active investing in a robo advisor, I love that!
If you are seeing increased returns (ie the Two Minute), without identifying where that return is coming from (ie increased risk), then you aren't doing yourself any favors. Unless you think that the Big Cap companies are under-valued across the board in each sector? Has the market missed an opportunity with the Two Minute portfolio, and why hasn't it been arbed out of existence yet?
I think your complain about the TSX is valid. But it's not just the TSX, it's the Canadian economy and Canada, reflected in a stock index. We're a resource based economy. So you can solve your complaint by re-balancing your index fund towards US/global and away from maple.
Why did it put my post before your post?