# Wealthbar Threads



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

I see w-bar today has 2 threads, all s upticky and all *locked for comments*, one is a duplication of a thread posted last month. 
If that's how this site earns it's money then why do I also have to look at ad banners?
If we have to look at sh^t, verticalscope and w-bar can eat it.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Locked for comments can not debate weather true or false & or good or evil. In the market place of free ideas it is good to debate for better understanding.


----------



## off.by.10 (Mar 16, 2014)

Some guesses:
- Diversification of income sources.
- Maximization of income.

Things we should all be familiar with really ;-) Honestly, as the internet goes, I find advertisement here fairly unobtrusive. There are forums which insert advertisement posts at random locations in *all* threads, which is a whole lot more annoying.


----------



## like_to_retire (Oct 9, 2016)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> If that's how this site earns it's money then why do I also have to look at ad banners?


My understanding is that in-situation advertising offers a premium to the owners over regular advertising, and I suspect that may be the case here. To me, this type of ad is consistent with any sponsored ad, that you see more and more when you read the news online, as they present what looks like an article or a catchy click-bait headline that someone might want to read, and in fact, is a sponsored advertisement. It looks like a real news story, just like this looks like a real post, nestled in with other member posts. 

And so, just like sponsored ads, where the lines are blurred between real editorial content and advertising, there may be unsuspecting forum members that mis-interpret the intent of these sponsored posts as legitimate caring without any monetary gain. 

ltr


----------



## Userkare (Nov 17, 2014)

like_to_retire said:


> And so, just like sponsored ads, where the lines are blurred between real editorial content and advertising, there may be unsuspecting forum members that mis-interpret the intent of these sponsored posts as legitimate caring without any monetary gain.
> 
> ltr


And when you open the thread there's a big red banner in the name panel that says "Supporting Vendors". If that's not displayed by some browsers, then it might need to be moved to the body of the thread as well.


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

Honestly, paid content in the forum doesn't bother me one bit. There is so little of it on this forum that it is barely registers.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

olivaw said:


> ... There is so little of it on this forum that it is barely registers.


Well, thanks to all for putting up with my rant. I'm just an old dog who likes things the way they were I guess.
I suspect the 'little of it' will grow with time as we seem destined to continue to morph into a pure consumer culture.


----------



## livewell (Dec 1, 2013)

Funny, I am logged in and use my default 'todays posts' and I cannot see these threads. Does that mean my browser is seeing them as ads? (I am using Safari with Disconnect and UBlock origin extensions). If you want non-commercial no consumer culture financial forum there is the other Canadian financial forum known for its wisdom.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

livewell said:


> Funny, I am logged in and use my default 'todays posts' and I cannot see these threads. Does that mean my browser is seeing them as ads? (I am using Safari with Disconnect and UBlock origin extensions). If you want non-commercial no consumer culture financial forum there is the other Canadian financial forum known for its wisdom.


On PC, when I go to Forum and choose Today's Posts from the Quick Links dropdown, the threads I referred to appear on page 2 of 2, as threads 18 and 19 (of 22).


----------



## RussT (Jul 11, 2016)

I have blocked Wealthbar. I see the threads but the posts are blocked. I object to advertising inside forum posts.


----------



## stantistic (Sep 19, 2015)

RussT said:


> ...... I object to advertising inside forum posts.


My feelings too. I am not an advertising copy writer for some advertiser into which they can insert (at will) their stuff into my  post.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Well, thanks to all for putting up with my rant. I'm just an old dog who likes things the way they were I guess.
> I suspect the 'little of it' will grow with time as we seem destined to continue to morph into a pure consumer culture.




onlyMO i don't feel you are ranting. I think there is a wide spectrum of opinion on infomercials, advertorials & especially on targeted internet advertising, a field that now includes political campaigning.

onlyMO may be towards one end of the spectrum but it's a legitimate place to be. I might not agree with his concerns to the extent he holds them, but nevertheless the concerns are certainly valid & should be aired, imho.

we can see a big difference in management's treatment of moneyCanada, another "Supporting Vendor," vs management's treatment of Vendor wealthBar.

moneyCanada's thread on robo advisors is still open. Cmffers are free to comment as they choose. WealthBar's new threads, on the other hand, are presented locked, so that no comments or discussion can ever be added.

perhaps it's also worth noting that the original Rules for Vendors, as posted by CMF owners, required ad posters to join existing threads instead of launching new threads. Furthermore, iirc, the rules limited Vendor participation in threads to one or at most a very few posts.

what concerns me most of all will be the quantity of the new ad posts. If there are only a few - now & then - a ratio of something like 10% of all posts - they would probably not be viewed as intrusive.

however if the ratio of ad posts creeps up, this will discourage free posting from non-aligned cmf members.

BTW, how do all find the new dark red rectangular icons that say Vendor? i think they're really good-looking. Check out that watermark maple leaf lurking in the background.

.


----------



## stantistic (Sep 19, 2015)

*My line in the sand*

 Let me say right off that CMF members and advertisers are co-dependent for continued existence. This discussion is about boundaries. My boundary is as follows:

If an ad is inserted into the "body" of my post, I will consider it an unwarranted intrusion and take my eyeballs and clicks to someone else's sandbox. I'll endure it if it is on the periphery only. I have lived without CMF before and, for the short while remaining, can do so again.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

Wealthbar thread might be locked also because they are scared someone might point out that someone could use qtrade 100 commission free ETFs & do the same as wealthbar for free. Just the ETFs names would be different.


----------



## OptsyEagle (Nov 29, 2009)

It's locked because how long would you pay a fee to have your ad listed on a site when right underneath it is a slew of posts with people badmouthing your service or pointing out its errors and/or available free competitors.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

It probably would have been wise to hide all ads from registered members

a) keep paid sponsors happy with the exposure to the many unregistered eyeballs without the registered users pointing out the better deals

b) keep registered users happy who happen to be the content creators and reason there are so many unregistered eyeballs in the first place

I doubt many registered users would use such services anyways as most are here to discuss the better alternatives

I use an AdBlock add-on which blocks the ads but not these sponsored threads


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

OptsyEagle said:


> It's locked because how long would you pay a fee to have your ad listed on a site when right underneath it is a slew of posts with people badmouthing your service or pointing out its errors and/or available free competitors.




yes, exactly

y'll remember that wealthBar launched a similar thread recently, back in the pre-watermark-logo days

that thread was not locked. ouf! the graffiti it attracted!


.






.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

OptsyEagle said:


> It's locked because how long would you pay a fee to have your ad listed on a site when right underneath it is a slew of posts with people badmouthing your service or pointing out its errors and/or available free competitors.


 Which is to be expected there is a conflict of interest wealthbar is trying to make money & the people using this site are trying to figure out ways to make money such as reducing fees. Billions are made on investment fees & or managing money. The banks are smart enough to not advertise on this site as they would be called out for having made billions that should have been in the pockets of the banks customers if they were a little smarter i.e., used credit unions instead or used ETFs instead of high fee mutual funds.

Making money from companies advertising seams to be the easy money these days do not have to produce anything. Though with netflick being able to raise prices is a sign people do not want to be exposed to advertising.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

Ah well, here's some new graffiti if that's what you choose to call it.

Anyone look at their website? They list 22 staff. Presumably these are not all full time employees are they? If so, the robo business must pay pretty well. As their principal advisor said in a 2015 interview, "I didn’t just invest in <my son and DIL > because they’re related ... I think it’s going to be a very successful business. Somebody is going to make this really successful.” I interpret that to mean 'make a lot of money'. 

That principal advisor has a long pedigree in the business. They manage $5 billion in assets. I'm not sure what that means? Does that mean if they are charging a measly miniscule 0.1% fee for the assets they have under management that they gross $5 million dollars a year? Wow.

The staff of 22 includes 5 advisors - note the 'o' in advisors, which means their accreditation is open to your interpretation. Wait, one is listed as a CFP. All five of them look younger than my son, by quite a stretch. I'd never considered my son to have enough experience to manage my assets, until he eventually executes my will. I'll reconsider this though. Maybe I'll make him acting POA now?

One of them must be paid to post the locked-down advertsing threads here. You'll see them after you get through with the banner ads. I don't know, would that be the VP of Engineering, or one of the seven software developers?

But not shaving shouldn't prejudice me. After all, their target is millenials. As their CEO said in 2015, _"typical of millennials to do a lot of their own research before approaching an investment adviser _(oops did she meant advisor?). _Millennials, as a generation, differ from other generations in that they are a lot more comfortable with technology and that is kind of reflected in everything they do. They have a wealth of information at their fingertips via technology, and crave the convenience that comes with Wi-Fi and smart phones that lets them conduct business wherever they are instead of having to go visit an adviser_ (I know, no 'o'). _And millennials know how they can get the best prices for their investments when it comes to fees."_

Millenial is another word like 'advisor', not well defined. Those of us older than 30'ish may have found out about them in a copy of the yellow pages while we were browsing books in the library, or on a microfiche of the Financial Times in the basement. Nevertheless, I think that they would still be willing to adviso us and take our money. 

I'm disappointed though if those millenials, given their adeptness with technology, can't find DIY information with Google and become comfortable managing there own money rather than handing it over to someone else. (Hint, search 'couch potato' and 'etf'). 

I guess it doesn't seem like much money to pay initially. But in my (pre-dinosaur) case, I'd be paying them half of what my daughter earns in a year for the comfort of being adviso'd, and supporting all those software developers. 
I'm not sure what I'd do with those TDDI excel downloads and monthly statements anymore.
Perhaps they'd move me to the Dad's company though. They do advertise it as an opportunity if I'm interested in having their private investment portfolio. But I fear then I'd be paying as much as both of my kids earn in a year. That really doesn't interest me. I can almost live on that much. I'd have nothing left to pay Applebee's (the restaurant - not the offshore experts).

Others who do their homework may come to different conclusions though. As always, this is only my opinion.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

Robo advising is a service that, in my view, takes care of the couch potato'ing for you. You can either couch potato yourself, or pay a fee for someone else to handle all that. Whether or not it's worth the fee is a subjective issue, but I think it's a legitimate service for those who want it.

One of my coworkers, an accountant and ex-auditor, uses a robo advising service and he's happy with it. It's a good service for him. He is aware of the fees and knows that he could do the same thing himself, but he sees value in what they do.

And yes, they definitely target millennials. Personally I have doubts that millennials have enough money to invest. I'm (apparently) at the border of the millennial group. In my case, I'm lucky to have high earnings -- above average there. However, like other millennials, I have no job security and typically we are forced to change jobs every few years. At the surface, it looks like I have enough money to invest, but the lack of job & housing security (a persistent reality in the new millennium) _means that I can't invest the same way that a Baby Boomer did._

I don't think the investment industry has yet understood this new reality. They are still operating with the outdated old model, where someone goes through these steps: graduate, start working, buy a home in a couple years, build a family, work continuously straight to retirement age.

I worry that millennials will try to shoe-horn themselves into that outdated 1980s model, investing the way the 'Boomers did, only to reach inevitable disappointment when they find themselves unemployed for another 2 years, or struggling to find housing and have to cash out their investments (at the bottom, of course). At the core of it I think there's a mis match between the 'Boomers investment model and the situations that millennials are in.


----------



## m3s (Apr 3, 2010)

With the changing economic reality, minimalism became trendy again and I imagine there are many young Canadians managing to invest. If there's millions of millennials in Canada there could easily be 100,000s of millennials saving and investing today.

I consider MMM (ex Canadian) to be of financial rockstar status and I noticed he recommends Betterment services since 2014, which apparently costs about $150/year per $100k. I'm sure he gets kickback for those referral clicks but his endorsement seems legit.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

james4beach said:


> Robo advising is a service that, in my view, takes care of the couch potato'ing for you. You can either couch potato yourself, or pay a fee for someone else to handle all that. Whether or not it's worth the fee is a subjective issue, but I think it's a legitimate service for those who want it.
> 
> One of my coworkers, an accountant and ex-auditor, uses a robo advising service and he's happy with it. It's a good service for him. He is aware of the fees and knows that he could do the same thing himself, but he sees value in what they do.
> 
> And yes, they definitely target millennials.




what's to debate? if enough customers ask for a service, it will be created. This appears to have happened in the robo advisor sector.

if it helps millennials save to pay for their lifestyles - homes, kids, eventual retirement - so much the better. At a reasonable cost, even better.


.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

james4beach said:


> ... Personally I have doubts that millennials have enough money to invest. I'm (apparently) at the border of the millennial group. In my case, I'm lucky to have high earnings -- above average there. However, like other millennials, I have no job security and typically we are forced to change jobs every few years. At the surface, it looks like I have enough money to invest, but the lack of job & housing security (a persistent reality in the new millennium) _means that I can't invest the same way that a Baby Boomer did._
> 
> I don't think the investment industry has yet understood this new reality. They are still operating with the outdated old model, where someone goes through these steps: graduate, start working, buy a home in a couple years, build a family, work continuously straight to retirement age.
> 
> I worry that millennials will try to shoe-horn themselves into that outdated 1980s model, investing the way the 'Boomers did, only to reach inevitable disappointment when they find themselves unemployed for another 2 years, or struggling to find housing and have to cash out their investments (at the bottom, of course). At the core of it I think there's a mis match between the 'Boomers investment model and the situations that millennials are in.





jas4 this is the really valuable part of your post, i believe. It's 100% forward-looking, based on current reality for young-to-young-middle-age, is insightful & relevant imho.

your topic came up the other night at dinner w old friend who spent 25 years in finance, the last 12 in a prominent options house. He was able to retire well at age 45, now he runs a small hedge fund.

they have 2 sons aged 20 & 16. Neither son has found the career of his dreams yet. His wife runs a marketing business for internet startups.

what will be the jobs of the future when automation & AI mean no jobs, the friend said. Just think about the impact that self-driving long-haul trucks are soon going to have on the economy, he said.

how will $$ be distributed so everyone has a standard of living, he asked. What will fill the time. Art, maybe, he thought (he's a talented artist himself)

jas3 you are describing precariousness of employment for a highly educated, highly skilled worker with critically relevant experience such as yourself. Someone in the top rank of sought-after employees.

if this is the future for an elite skilled worker, just imagine what the future holds for an ordinary bloke. Someone with a run-of-the-mill bachelor's degree, no technical skills or training. Surely he will be left with his close-to-minimum-wage service job & not much hope.

what are north america & western europe going to do about that.

my friend worries that the ultra rich are going to grow even richer while the standard of living will continue to slip for everybody else. Civil war,he predicts. It's remotely possible we are seeing the first stirrings of this in the US at the present time. 



.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

james4beach said:


> ... I don't think the investment industry has yet understood this new reality. They are still operating with the outdated old model, where someone goes through these steps: graduate, start working, buy a home in a couple years, build a family, work continuously straight to retirement age.
> 
> I worry that millennials will try to shoe-horn themselves into that outdated 1980s model, investing the way the 'Boomers did, only to reach inevitable disappointment when they find themselves unemployed for another 2 years, or struggling to find housing and have to cash out their investments (at the bottom, of course). At the core of it I think there's a mis match between the 'Boomers investment model and the situations that millennials are in.


Interesting James. I agree that job security & tenure are not what they used to be, and housing in GTA/GVA are from another planet.

But do you think the fundamental 'rules' or model have changed - or do you mean that millennials are destined to find it harder to be successful or reach FI because of this uncertainty? 

Because ISTM that the fundamentals such as 'pay yourself first', keep a cash-equiv emergency fund, contribute to TSFA, then RRSP have not changed. In fact it can be argued that it is easier now - greater information, TSFA's, etf's, lower fees... Not that those features will compensate someone who finds themselves with job loss, or buying a home in a high-priced city. But many are still doing well. 
If anything, the fundamentals are more important now for bridging the risk/uncertainty.

Also, I wonder about the inheritance the millennial demographic is supposed to see. You can't plan for it until it has occurred, and not everyone will see it, but as a group there is apparently a whack of money coming down the pipe, _"Millennials are set to inherit more than $30 trillion from their baby boomer parents."_ Hmmm, isn't that a group you'd like to have in your robo-clutches as the windfall rolls in?

http://www.businessinsider.com/millennials-inherit-record-wealth-manage-money-technology-2017-8


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Interesting James. I agree that job security & tenure are not what they used to be, and housing in GTA/GVA are from another planet.
> 
> But do you think the fundamental 'rules' or model have changed - or do you mean that millennials are destined to find it harder to be successful or reach FI because of this uncertainty?



onlyMO purely for the sake of discussion & to play the devil's advocate, i'll say here that the fundamental rules & the model have indeed changed (we will see what jas4 has to say)





> Because ISTM that the fundamentals such as 'pay yourself first', keep a cash-equiv emergency fund, contribute to TSFA, then RRSP have not changed. In fact it can be argued that it is easier now - greater information, TSFA's, etf's, lower fees... Not that those features will compensate someone who finds themselves with job loss, or buying a home in a high-priced city. But many are still doing well.
> 
> If anything, the fundamentals are more important now for bridging the risk/uncertainty.



i for one don't actually see that "many" are doing well, nor that the old rules such as "pay yourself first" will have any meaning when there shall be no wage or salary out of which to pay oneself.






> Also, I wonder about the inheritance the millennial demographic is supposed to see.



this is an interesting point. It might give rise to a more tribal, clan-oriented society in which families try to conserve wealth from one generation to the next, for as long as the taxman doesn't figure out a way to grab their assets from them. Still, i can't believe that it is a sound plan for equitable wealth distribution for a coming jobless millennium. What about all the millions of people who have no benefactor families, surely they will be the majority of citizens.

at best, one might be saying that some well-off parents might be able to cushion the lives of their low-paid artist/poet/volunteer/NGO offspring for one generation at most. But i don't see how this can be enough to stand an entire nation on its post-automation economic feet.

i suppose one could say that Norway today - proud owner of the world's biggest sovereign wealth fund - has managed to build future passive income to support its entire citizenry for the rest of time. Yet almost no countries have followed norway's path. Canada certainly has not.


.


----------



## lonewolf :) (Sep 13, 2016)

3 songs I have heard recently with the theme of not wanting to take responsibility. Dont put the blame on me, Country music made me do it, Look what you made me do by Taylor Swift. When no one wants to take responsibility Robo advisers will do well.

The problem I see is rebalancing if one ETF goes to zero throwing money into it from other ETfs will blow account up. I like Suzy Ormans way better for DIY of dollar cost averaging. The problem with Robo advisors is speculators are paying for a service that actually makes their account more likely to blow up.


----------



## james4beach (Nov 15, 2012)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Interesting James. I agree that job security & tenure are not what they used to be, and housing in GTA/GVA are from another planet.
> 
> But do you think the fundamental 'rules' or model have changed - or do you mean that millennials are destined to find it harder to be successful or reach FI because of this uncertainty?


I had the unique experience of having Gwynne Dyer visit my high school around 1998. He sat down with us and had a "talk" -- and what a talk it was. He said that our working lives will be very different from our parents. We won't just land a job and sit there for 30 years... he said we need to be more flexible, dynamic, creative. Expect unemployment and career changes, maybe multiple times. The world and economy is changing and nobody knows where it's going, but the one thing that's certain is that it's changing.

Mr. Dyer's words really stuck with me and he had incredible foresight for 1998.

Re investments, I'm not sure the fundamental rules have changed, but I think that (for my age group) the way to look at, analyze finances might have to change slightly. I believe that financial independence is still possible. We just have to think things out and plan for unstable incomes, gaps in employment, and get comfortable with periods of lower income. We have to get comfortable with accumulating our own nest egg instead of relying on a pension, and if we do have a corporate pension, we should water down our expected value of pension payout.

I've pointed this out before, that although I currently make around 110K, my average income through my working life is closer to 60K. I expect this kind of 'volatility' to continue and I am planning for it. _I do not expect to keep making 110K perpetually_.

Some examples of how my investment activities are impacted by all this:

- I maintain strong liquidity to stay prepared for when I have to start living off savings
- I keep relatively large cash & fixed income to compensate for lack of job security
- Though I have (something like) a corp pension, I leave it off my personal balance sheet
- My planning is based on average/expected long term salary, not current salary

When I look at the way retirement calculators and financial planners work, it seems like there are many baked in assumptions that no longer hold true (especially continuity of employment and stability of salaries).

Here's another example, one of my coworkers. He was making 95K and then was laid off. Found a contract gig that took him up to 130K. Then unemployment. The next stable job he found was closer to 50K. Look at that data series: {95, 95, 130, 0, 50, 50} ... that's what I mean when I say the techniques for planning have to change.

Can a guy like that realistically invest in 100% equities? No... because he hits that 130-to-0 transition and suddenly is drawing down his savings.

How about the investing and financial planning books he reads, that extrapolate from his 130K. Does that salary even mean anything? Probably not. We all know it's the high end of the ebb-and-flow of post-2000 employment.

As a result of these new realities, the financial planning "surveys" are flawed, as are the retirement savings calculators, etc. Does the robo advisor factor in these issues, like the liquidity needs of a millennial worker? I doubt it.

How about a young Bombardier engineer who has a 100K pension on paper. Come on, does anyone really think he's going to get to tap into that pension? Again, the traditional investment advice would over-value this stuff based on 1960s logic.

I recommend 50/50 allocation to all my friends for the above reasons. That's to give them enough buffer so that they won't ever have to touch that 50% equity, even when they're unemployed for a stretch of 2-3 years. I'm talking about people in their 30s here.



> Because ISTM that the fundamentals such as 'pay yourself first', keep a cash-equiv emergency fund, contribute to TSFA, then RRSP have not changed. In fact it can be argued that it is easier now - greater information, TSFA's, etf's, lower fees.


You're right, I think those fundamentals are the same.



> Also, I wonder about the inheritance the millennial demographic is supposed to see. You can't plan for it until it has occurred, and not everyone will see it, but as a group there is apparently a whack of money coming down the pipe, _"Millennials are set to inherit more than $30 trillion from their baby boomer parents."_ Hmmm, isn't that a group you'd like to have in your robo-clutches as the windfall rolls in?


That's a good point, I had not considered the impact of inheritances.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

James,
We're both probably guilty of generalizing based on our individual experience. 
Lots of analysis out there, two interesting reports are linked below that show how diverse the 'millenial' group really is (many subgroups created when being analyzed).

Clearly, regardless of generation, each of us is an individual whose financial plan has to account for that. 

My sense is that we may be swinging away from DIY (whether fixing a bathroom sink or investing). People seem more willing to spend money for financial services again. I see this in my own family to some extent. They are being sold on the 'inexpensive' new services. As a result, they will have less of their own money and the financial services industry will continue to be enriched.

http://www.environicsanalytics.ca/docs/default-source/eauc2015-presentations/dougnorris-afternoonplenary.pdf?sfvrsn=6%20

http://www.rbc.com/economics/economic-reports/pdf/other-reports/Millennials-October%202016.pdf


----------

