vania-janet/multiturn-rag-retrieval-data huggingface dataset:
Upselling you is how they make money.  That's the price of the free content. Test their recommendations.  Pretend to buy the stocks they say.  How do they do?  Do they ever say to sell the stocks after their buy recommendations? There are lots and lots of opinions out there.  I doubt people really hear about the good ones because (a) the good ones have paid newsletters and/or (b) the good ones aren't telling a soul because they're absolutely cleaning it up. Warren Buffett doesn't announce his intentions.  He's been buying for a while before anyone finds out.
You could just commingle your funds.  That way, she also learns how to keep track of things and how to figure things out, rather just learning to have the guy at the brokerage hand her an account statement which she blindly accepts. It might cause some tax problems though if the money grows to be substantial.
Guaranteed 8.2% annual return sounds too good to be true. Am I   right? Are there likely high fees, etc.? You're right. Guaranteed annual return is impossible, especially when you're talking about investments for such a long period of time. Ponzi (and Madoff) schemed their investors using promises of guaranteed return (see this note in Wikipedia: In some cases returns were allegedly determined before the account was even opened.[72]). Her financial advisor doesn't charge by the hour--he takes a   commission. So there's obviously some incentive to sell her things,   even if she may not need them. Definitely not a good sign, if the advisor gets a commission from the sale then he's obviously not an advisor but a sales person. The problem with this kind of investment is that it is very complex, and it is very hard to track. The commission to the broker makes it hard to evaluate returns (you pay 10% upfront, and it takes awhile to just get that money back, before even getting any profits), and since you're only able to withdraw in 20 years or so - there's no real way to know if something wrong, until you get there and discover that oops- no money! Also, many annuity funds (if not all) limit withdrawals to a long period, i.e.: you cannot touch money for like 10 years from investment (regardless of the tax issues, the tax deferred investment can be rolled over to another tax deferred account, but in this case - you can't). I suggest you getting your own financial advisor (that will work for you) to look over the details, and talk to your mother if it is really a scam.
Everything before long term plans seems fine. Vanguard and index funds is absolutely the smart, safe option. What most people should do. Not sure about the specific allocations or funds he chose (too lazy to look) but at worst this would be a 'solid' plan.  The long term plan looks more iffy but he seems to have a good head on his shoulders and I'm sure he'll figure that stuff out better with time.  &gt;Is this a safe plan?  Yes.  &gt;Is there anyway this could backfire and he loses all his money?  No way he loses it all. He could lose up to 30% or something in a bad year, but over the long term, if he follows this, it's highly unlikely he'll lose anything at all.
The way this works, as I understand it, is that financial advisers come in two kinds. Some are free to recommend you any financial products they think fit, but many are restricted in what they can recommend. Most advisers who work for finance companies are the second kind, and will only offer you products that their company sells. I believe they should tell you up front if they are the second kind. They should certainly tell you that if you ask. So in essence, your Scotiabank advisor is not necessarily making bad decisions for you - but they are restricted in what they will offer, and will not tell you if there is a better product for you that Scotiabank doesn't sell. In most cases, 'management fees' means something you pay to the actual managers of the fund you buy, not to the person who sells you the fund. You can compare the funds you are invested in yourself, both for performance and for the fees charged. Making frequent unnecessary changes of investment is another way that an advisor can milk you for money, but that is not necessarily restricted to bank-employed advisors. if you think that is happening to you, ask question, and change advisors if you are not happy.
Thanks for the response - ok so maybe the funds could be partially crowd-sourced and partially funded by an accredited investor?  Also yes - having an experienced adviser and a plan in place to replace existing directors sound like good plot devices.  There doesn't really have to be a limitation to banks, the idea comes from the protagonists being upset with the status quo of banking practices (foreclosures, fees, investing in weapons/warzones etc.)  what would you suggest?
"&gt; Although there are numerous countries that welcome investors   Yes, I hear that when one's welcome has been worn out in Japan, Thailand is the place to be. Ladyboys, sluts and frauds, Bangkok is your one-stop shop to get f*cked in more ways than one!  &gt;potentially profitable options  The key question being, ""Profitable for whom?""  &gt;Another factor which can help you make up your mind when searching for a good service provider is experience.  Yes, Richard Cayne's clients have undoubtedly amassed ""extensive experience""; not much money, but experience in spades. Suggest ""consulting with them on a wide array"" of these experiences first.  &gt; Richard Cayne Meyer the manager of the world renowned Meyer International   Ah yes, renowned indeed -for spamming and scamming, for cash and dash."
"Answering a more general question:  are financial services firms worth the money?  It really depends on the person.  Some can contribute regularly to index funds, and do the asset allocation on their own.  They are comfortable buying and selling various funds and there is really not that much management to do a Bogle like ""3 fund portfolio"".  All that is needed is an occasional re-balance.  This person probably does not need a firm like UBS or many of the others out there. Some do some active picking of funds and stocks, and also some indexing.  Again they are comfortable in doing the right thing and probably don't need a manager. There are others, however, that need a manager.  A friend of mine pulled all of his money out of the market when Trump was elected.  He missed out on some nice growth.  The extra percentage point that he paid to have an adviser would have been well worth it. For people who get spooked easily by the market and need things explained over and over, an advisory service is great.  My mom falls in that category.  I thank God every day for her service as she would otherwise call me with the same investment questions every other quarter."
A lot of work is done in the Santa Fe Institute to study ""complex adaptive systems,"" and we don't have any big, clear theory as of yet. Conventional risk management is based on the ideas of modern portfolio theory, but a lot of that is seen to be wrong. Behavioral finance is introducing new ideas on how investors behave and why the old models are wrong, which is why I cannot suggest you study risk management and risk models because I and many skilled investors consider them to be largely wrong. There are many good books on investing, the best of which is Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor. Although not a book on risk solely, it provides a different viewpoint on how to invest and covers how to protect investments via a ""Margin of Safety."" Lastly, I'd recommend Against the Gods by Peter Bernstein, which covers the history of risk and risk analysis. It's not solely a finance book but rather a fascinating historical view of risk, and it helps but many things in context. Hope it helps!"
The investments he's chosen are well diversified.  You can argue the  details, but it's a low-fee, low-risk plan that's simple to implement, which makes it better than what 95%+ of people do.  Starting saving early is also a great idea.  Now for the bad news.  $1mm is not enough to retire on.  It can't generate $80k / year without significant risk, and even if it could, those investment gains would be taxable.  The general rule of thumb is that you should have 25x your annual expenses saved when you retire, a bit more if you want to retire early at 50.  Don't forget that inflation means $1mm in 24 years will not have the same purchasing power it does today.
Immediate goals that I always tell people, are 6 months of income stuck in a liquid savings account, then start building a solid investment situation, and a decent retirement plan. This protects you from short term situations like loss of job, while doing something for the future. Is now a right time for me to see a financial advisor? Is it worthy? How would she/he help me? Rather it's worth it or not to use a financial adviser is going to be totally opinion based. Personally I think they are worth it. Others do not. I see it like this. Unless you want to spend all your time looking up money stuff, the adviser is going to have a better grasp of ""money stuff"" then you, because they do spend all their time doing it. That being said there is one really important thing to consider. That is going to be how you pay the adviser. The following are my observations. You will need to make up your own mind. Free Avoid like the plague. These advisers are usually provided by the bank and make their money off commission or kickbacks. That means they will advise you of the product that makes them the most money. Not you. Flat Rate These are not a bad option, but they don't have any real incentive to make you money. Usually, they do a decent job of making you money, but again, it's usually better for them to advise you on products that make them money. Per Hour These are my favorite. They charge per hour. Usually they are a small shop, and will walk you through all the advise. They advise what's best for you, because they have to sit there and explain their choices. They can be hard to find, but are generally the best option in my opinion. % of Money These are like the flat rate advisers to me. They get a percentage of the money you give them to ""manage"". Because they already have your money they are more likely to recommend products that are in their interest. That said, there not all bad. % or Profit These are the best (see notes later). They get a percentage of the money they make for you.
"The diversification offered by the advisor can easily be duplicated at Vanguard with something like the Ivy Portfolio. Simplify it or complicate it to your liking, with Vanguard index REITs, index stock funds, international, bond, etc. Set up automatic contributions and don't watch your money like a hawk. Set it and forget it, or maybe rebalance your holdings once a year. The main thing advisors are good for (at your level of assets) is persuading investors to stay in the market during a crash. Most investors will sell after a crash, and completely miss out on the rebound. It's human nature to be a terrible market timer. But if you can really promise yourself never to sell in a panic, then you don't need an advisor at your asset level. Fees like ""1.25%"" sound like a okay deal but should be viewed in context. With an average annual return of, say, 7%, a 1.25% fee represents nearly 18% of your gain for the year. And 1.25% may be the least of your fees - what about fees when you get out of the funds? (Neat trick, huh, calling a fee ""1.25%"" instead of ""~18%""..). Is active management worth 18% of your yearly gain? Your advisor's fee and the active funds' fees compound year after year, because they take the fees out of your account every year (or month)."
"Sending your money off to do the heavy lifting is just a stylish way to say ""investing"".  He is saying hold back 6 months of living expenses and don't invest it.   Keep it in cash or some cash-like investment (genuinely safe and liquid).  It's good basic solid advice you'll also get from Dave Ramsey, Suze Orman and any financial advisor worth a darn.    While this is good advice, that does not mean all of his advice is good.  A classic con-man trick is to tell you three things you know are true, mixed with a lie they want you to believe.  They want you to think ""I know 3/4 are true so the fourth probably is too."""
Otherwise they can find ways to insure/hedge the risk they're required to take on. If it's on their books but cancelled by something else then they aren't really exposed. So to provide incentive what we normally want is what Buffett does, which is for the fund manager to be invested in the fund to keep them keen, and to draw a salary in return for letting you in[**]. Their investment cannot precisely match yours because the fund manager's capital doesn't precisely match your capital. It doesn't cover your losses because it's in the same fund, so if your money vanishes the fund manager loses too and has nothing to cover you with. But it does provide the incentive. [*] All right, I admit it, worst case scenario there's a total banking collapse, end of civilization as we know it, and the cash account defaults. But then even in your proposed scheme it's possible that whatever assets the fund manager was using as security could fail to materialise. [**] So why, you might ask, do individual fund managers get bonuses in return for meeting fixed targets instead of only being part-paid in shares in their own fund whose value they can then maximise? I honestly don't know, but I suspect ""lots of reasons"". Probably the psychology of rewarding them for performance in a way that compares with other executive posts or professions they might take up instead of fund management. Probably the benefit to the fund itself, which wants to attract more clients, of beating certain benchmarks. Probably other things including, frankly, human error in setting their compensation packages."
"There are two things going on here, neither of which favors this approach. First, as @JohnFx noted, you should be wary of the sunk-cost fallacy, or throwing good money after bad. You already lost the money you lost, and there's no point in trying to ""win it back"" as opposed to just investing the money you still have as wisely as possible, forgetting your former fortune. Furthermore, the specific strategy you suggest is not a good one. The problem is that you're assuming that, whenever the stock hits $2, it will eventually rebound to $3. While that may often happen, it's far from guaranteed. More specifically, assuming the efficient market hypothesis applies (which it almost certainly does), there are theorems that say you can't increase your expected earning with a strategy like the one you propose: the apparent stability of the steady stream of income is offset by the chance that you lose out if the stock does something you didn't anticipate."
"I have seen Dave Ramsey give extremely bad retirement advice in the past. For example, he turned fund fees into a political issue and said people who worry about mutual fund fees are [""from a liberal political perspective...""](https://youtu.be/zR64-Ea_r5U?t=214) They are *actually* concerned about the [compounding returns of investors ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KuZvu_h3x1A) and how higher fees will eat at them, rather than the amount of money that investment companies will get in fees. There's no politics involved at all, he's just a blabbering idiot.  I don't see any reason to follow his advice."
100% agree with this guy. I worked in corporate development with two former investment bankers this summer and they both agreed that banks look, of course, for smart guys, but more importantly they look for smart guys who know how to have a good time and have interesting stories. Make sure it's clear that you are interested in more than just powerpoints and modeling.
"The link you originally included had an affiliate code included (now removed). It is likely that your ""friend"" suggested the site to you because there is something in it for your ""friend"" if you sign up with their link. Seek independent financial advice, not from somebody trying to earn a commission off you. Don't trust everything you read online – again, the advice may be biased.  Many of the online ""reviews"" for Regal Assets look like excuses to post affiliate links. A handful of the highly-ranked (by Google Search) ""reviews"" about this company even obscure their links to this company using HTTP redirects. Whenever I see this practice in a ""review"" for a web site, I have to ask if it is to try and appear more independent by hiding the affiliation? Gold and other precious metal commodities can be part of a diversified portfolio, a small part with some value as a hedge, but IMHO it isn't prudent to put all your eggs in that basket. Look up the benefits of diversification.  It isn't hard to find compelling evidence in favor of the practice.  You should also look up the benefits of low-fee passively-managed index funds. A self-directed IRA with a reputable broker can give you access to a wide selection of low-fee funds, not just a single risky asset class."
My beef with day (and to ape Yishai's answer a little) is that his good advice is no different than anybody's good advice.  The seven steps are on the home page, Clark Howard, Suze Orman and probably quite a few others all chat about spend less, save more, shop wisely and live within your means. Anything specific is just motivation, and it sort of irks me that Dave Ramsey charges $100+ buck to go to a seminar about how to save money.  A $30 book to read anecdotes and examples of how to follow the seven steps.  (Probably, I won't buy his books) I have no problem with somebody making money, but I doubt that Dave is just barely breaking even.  I was stand corrected if he is, but I just don't suspect he is. Clark Howard recommends that people go to the library and check out his book; he is a lot closer to practicing what he is preaching.
"Note that an index fund may not be able to precisely mirror the index it's tracking. If enough many people invest enough money into funds based on that index, there may not always be sufficient shares available of every stock included in the index for the fund to both accept additional investment and track the index precisely.  This is one of the places where the details of one index fund may differ from another even when they're following the same index. IDEALLY they ought to deliver the same returns, but in practical terms they're going to diverge a bit. (Personally, as long as I'm getting ""market rate of return"" or better on average across all my funds, at a risk I'm comfortable with, I honestly don't care enough to try to optimize it further. Pick a distribution based on some stochastic modelling tools, rebalance periodically to maintain that distribution, and otherwise ignore it. That's very much to the taste of someone like me who wants the savings to work for him rather than vice versa.)"
The knowledge and the experience of the finance experts at Wealth Generators will help you in making the good deals from trading. There are various Wealth Generator reviews which talk about the proper guidance and the earned profits in accordance with expert guidance. Your dream of getting best our of your hard earned capital comes true at Wealth Generators. We, not only guide you in making the bonafide trading deals but you also get aware of the financial ups and downs in the capital market.
"In my experience, Shiller is always way before his time with his predictions and often it comes at too early a point for anyone actually making some money to care about. His view is very long term - and I trust his predictions, because he so accurately predicted so many of the homepocalypse, and the measures that would follow. He even predicted that there would be bailouts in his book ""Irrational Exuberance"".  His opinons were poo-poo'd as doom and gloom and manipulative until every piece started falling apart in the specific order of events (give or take) that they did.  I personally think people like Dr. Shiller make bold predictions that are hard to swallow. The derivatives market is a bit skittish about rolling into bull territory with any kind of housing index, but Warren Buffet's old adage to ""buy when everyone is selling and sell when everyone is buying."" (paraphrase). I see this as a good long-term investment because I trust Shiller's judgement, he stuck to his guns when the doubts were lobbed at him incessantly  (and Krugman, et. al. to some extent), and he turned out to be more than vindicated.  To me, these kinds of sources are usually pretty sound. The man knows what he's talking about, and I wouldn't mind picking up a piece of that action, especially if the market just doesn't trust any real estate investments. It's pretty easy to realize that right now housing will be undervalued and now that mortgage applications are (supposedly) stricter, I think there's a good argument to be made that this economist should continue to exceed expectations."
Another caveat on Morningstar is that the ""star ratings"" on funds are dumb. Look at the Analyst Picks and the analyst writeups instead. I just flipped through my RSS reader and I have 20-30 finance-related blogs in there collecting unread posts. It looks like the only one I regularly read is http://alephblog.com/ which is sort of random. But I find David Merkel very thoughtful and interesting. He's also a conservative without being a partisan hack, and posts frequently. I read the weekly market comment at http://hussmanfunds.com/ as well. Most weeks it says the market is overvalued, so that's predictable, but the interesting part is the rationale and the other ideas he talks about. I read a lot of software-related blogs and there's some bleed into finance, especially from the VC world; blogs like http://www.avc.com/ or http://bhorowitz.com/ or whatever. Anyway I spend most of my reading time on career-related stuff and I think this is also the correct decision from a financial perspective. If you were a doctor, you'd be better off reading about doctoring, too. I read finance-related books fairly often, I guess there are other threads listing ideas on that front. I prefer books about principles rather than a barrage of daily financial news and questionable ideas. Other than that, I keep up with headlines, just reading the paper every day including business-related topics is good enough. If there's some big event in the financial markets, it'll show up in the regular paper. Take a class I initially learned about finance by reading a pile of books and alongside that taking the CFP course and the first CFA course. Both are probably equivalent to about a college semester worth of work, but you can plow through them in a couple months each if you focus. You can just do the class (and take the exam if you like), without having to go on and actually get the work experience and the certifications. I didn't go on to do that.