All investors are looking for the "Perfect Advisor", but for some reason, many never find them. And It’s no wonder, if even some of what I’ve heard investors want in their "perfect advisor" is true! Allow me to elaborate. To these investors, the perfect advisor is:
Crummy is defined as dirty, run-down, tacky, worthless or just plain lousy. On the other hand, if you’re a “Crummey” advisor, that’s a good thing – especially if you’re making “Crummey” recommendations to your high-net-worth (HNW) clients. Let me explain what I mean about making “Crummey” recommendations.
Because every client’s needs are unique, a canned approach to tax-efficient savings of Roth IRAs, traditional IRAs, 401(k), 403(b), NQ annuities, NQ accounts, etc., is not necessarily the most flexible or tax efficient option for every client. As advisors, we know that the words “tax-free” don’t always mean there’s no tax ever paid, just like the term “pre-tax” doesn’t mean there’s always more tax to be paid later.
Tax planning for clients during tax season always generates new strategies and ideas, as unique situations tend to get my analytical wheels turning. From a risk/reward wealth management perspective, I like to look at tax planning with the actual cost to the client in mind, including what is the best cash flow option, because the most tax efficient savings strategy for each person’s situation is the ultimate wealth planning strategy.
I must say I was somewhat surprised by the reaction from the advisory community in regard to my recent articles about index and guaranteed annuities. I received some expected feedback from those who strongly disagreed with my views, while also getting many positive comments from fiduciary advisors who see the same factual logic I illustrated in these past articles relative to annuities. The discussion has obviously touched a nerve.
"A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” -Winston Churchill.
“If it doesn't make sense, it's usually not true.” ― Judge Judy Sheindlin I hear all the time from diehard investors and salesmen of annuity products that “the stock market is nothing more than rolling the dice at Vegas!”
As an experienced wealth manager and retirement planning advisor, I find it very challenging when a prospective client somehow thinks I can answer their “Can I retire?” question in an initial one- or two-hour meeting. I’m sure most fiduciary advisors have been asked the same question, which, as you know, entails a far deeper discussion, mostly driven by actions taken long before we ever meet the client.
One of the most publicized stories is that of returning Texas A&M quarterback, Heisman Trophy winner Johnny Manziel, aka “Johnny Football, ” who allegedly signed autographs for compensation. With the premise of college athletes getting paid over and above their scholarships as a backdrop, I thought it would be interesting to explore the actual financial details of the annual debate: Should college athletes get paid to play or should their free education be enough?
I’ve always fancied myself somewhat of a bubble gum aficionado, and fondly remember my childhood when I pestered my mom for some Big League Chew in the grocery store checkout line. I got pretty good blowing the largest bubbles and keeping them from popping all over my face. As I recently reminisced about my bubble gum-blowing days, I noticed some interesting similarities between U.S. bond bubble metrics and those of different bubble gums. Let me explain their shared characteristics.