Yes, financial planners will be one of the first industries to totally revamp itself because of AI. $2,000 for some SoA which is 99% boiler-plate? No thanks.
I spent years in this industry, and the advice from these 'experts' is demonstrably poor.
I spent years in this industry, and the advice from these 'experts' is demonstrably poor.
It was never about ROI anyway, just preservation of capital and peace of mind - makes a lot of sense in the analog/less automated financial world of yore when non-professionals were writing checks or wiring money to people over the phone, and checking stock prices in the paper.
There will also never be a way to pay $10/mo for Gecko+ and trade your way to a lambo with it, because whatever advantage an amateur investor might have is purely from their niche knowledge/information/heterodox beliefs, though I give it about 6-18 months until we’re hearing all about it because it’s a timeless siren song.
Which is what's so funny about 99% of people that talk about DCA...they don't have any other option.
What you're describing is better analyzed as a continuing series of lump sum investments. You're investing as soon as you have cash available, not unnecessarily holding onto cash.
Not a hill worth dying on.
If you put all in at a certain price, and later the market moves down, you'll regret that you didn't buy cheaper, and think you timed it badly.
If, however, you commit to a strategy of putting in say 5% per month over the next months, then a) you just automate it, and don't think about it anymore, and b) you don't really have a reference price at which you bought (sure, you can determine your actual cost basis, but who does that...) and thus avoid regret when the market tanks. Plus you reduce variance (by reducing the variance of your cost basis).
Yeah for a start if you're really planning to buy $10 K of a world fund pick one with stock options. Sell a PUT secured by the $10 K with a 7 DTE. This is already guaranteed better returns (but still a bad strategy) than this dumb way of DCAing.
But when people say they DCA what they mean is basically: "I make $10 K net per month, I spent $6 K, I keep $1 K in cash and I invest the $3 K that are left". Which is actually not a bad strategy at all.
That being said, I agree with the bad and expensive advisors, but I think financial planning is hard, and you really need to educate yourself.
After they pay their rent and feed themselves, they may have a little left over which they will simply spend on basic pleasures, or simply rack up debt to get by.
The financial advice ignores the fact that we have people like Musk with a net worth of 600M while the rest struggle to afford necessities.
The wealth inequality gap is simply too much to ignore and I worry that it will reach a breaking point.
Why do you think poor people often fall into get quick rich schemes? You don't think they are seeking advice?
Can you clarify what you're trying to communicate on the topic of "financial advisors" other than a general class grievance before commenting?
If you're struggling to pay rent... Your quality of life is too high and you need to reduce it.
Straight up.
This isn't a wealth inequality issue, it's a "you're overspending" issue.
Regardless i sincerely doubt people in that situation are taking up the least expensive option available.
Your statement is not in line with reality.
Sorry, your appeals to emotion aren't effective, and your arguments do not agree with reality.
There is no able bodied person in the US who is unable to save and invest enough of their income to have a decent life. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either lying or ignorant about reality.
It’s not fun. It’s very stressful. Our systems have a positive feedback loop against financial instability.
However there is another category of homeless which is a person pushing a shopping cart on the side of the road. And this is an exteme level of dysfunction and despair.
I saw a tweet that summarized this issue as “you’re as likely to become a CEO or NBA player as you are to become homeless.” Meaning that it’s a track of genetics and behavior resulting in dysfunction several standard deviations away from normal.
> stop responding to all incentives and deliberately go against the grain of every system and form of aid.
Yep, that’s a pretty unique kind of person.
The level of discipline and focus to be that kind of super saver doesn’t sound like the origin story of a guy with a shopping cart.
Another aspect that gives ms pause is living in ann unmaintained apartment where you don’t have insurance etc is miserable. And that’s the reality of being poor. I’m not sure why we need to pretend we can all become homeless when the actual danger is already real and bleak.
Where?
Also, from your own link:
>Is It Illegal to Be Homeless
>No US law makes the status of being homeless a crime. You cannot face arrest simply for not having a permanent address or for being unable to afford rent.
Just so that I understand your position, you think the reason a cashier at McDonald struggles is because he is overspending on his rent? and not due to wealth inequality which causes low wages ?
This is a tautology. Low wages are caused by having skills which are in high supply and low demand.
At my local McDonalds you can make 60k/yr. So that sounds like a decent start.
Yes, if a Mcdonalds employee is struggling, it is almost without exception 100% his own fault.
Some Uyghur in China: "There's a government representative who lives in my house and watches over my shoulder whenever I use technology."
Yes if you’re poor you are not in the market for a financial advisor. You’re also not in the market for a dentist or family doctor. These are services for middle class people.
This is not a thread about class grievance.
You can change your weighting if you want to, that’s your prerogative, but don’t be surprised if it doesn’t lead to nearly as good of average returns.
The only times you need very custom advice is at very high levels of networth or ownership, as in "you want to sell stock but you have to physically find the buyers and negotiate deals because you can't just sell on the open market without disrupting the price"
So basically if you’re larping as a trader you will consistently get your ass handed to you unless you are genuinely better than all the pros, but if you’re investing or optimizing for a specific risk profile/exposure/timeline you’re playing a different game.
Anyway the fact that it’s so hard to explain this stuff to individuals does strengthen the argument that most individuals are better off following the herd.
their edge is basically political so that they get a bail out and thats what the quants will never see in their models.
not to get cynical further, just do what the GP says, buy index or figure out what the biggest movers are and buy those for more exposure
Here in Europe I too have been working for years and I just don't feel like I'm earning actual money. Most of my income is eaten away by taxes and very basic living expenses. ETFs won't compound for me much if there is not a lot invested into them in the first place. This is exactly what led me to despite high electricity costs to buy 2x open source bitcoin lottery miners (NerdQaxe++) and just hope for the best.
Now you start at -9000 and earn 3000. With investment and luck you could make that 6000 and end up at -3000 so that's still a guaranteed loss. To have any hope of hitting the positives at all, you need to excessively gamble. Sure you could end up at -999999 (which is no worse than 0) but also +999999.
The answer is almost always index funds