# Mutual Fund Help



## apna000 (May 11, 2010)

Hi, 

I'm 58 years old and am thinking of moving my money out of the current mutual funds I have them in, with CI, since they have a MER of 3.12%. I was naive about investing and just went with what the advisor told me. I have now done some research and have noticed that this MER is way to high, and that is the reason that my RRSP's have been around the same balance (~50,000). 

I am now thinking of changing my funds to 80/20 split between bonds and equities using a S&P/TSX ETF funds (MER: 0.5%) and a Canadian Bond Index (from RBC, with MER: 1%). I would like to start drawing the money from my RRSP at the age of 65, so in 7 years. What do you guys think about this investing strategy.


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

Going from high MER to low MER is usually a good idea. However, I suspect that you may need the help of a good financial advisor. I'm not sure you've thought through whether someone 7 years from retirement should keep 80% in stocks.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Not commenting on the investing strategy, per se; but letting you know that depending on how long you've had your money in those funds, there may be a fee (called the "deferred sales commission") to get them out. 

Before you follow through on any plans to get out of those funds, you should check whether there is a cost. 

We can tell you how to check, and what the next steps could be (for example: "if the cost is $y, should I just leave my money in those funds until the DSCs are gone? When should I cut my losses and just pull the money out?" etc.)


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Also if you have a DB pension, then your investment allocation will be a function of your need for short-term funds.


----------



## Square Root (Jan 30, 2010)

I think it may be 80% bonds. Seems to me that it was a financial advisor (good or otherwise) that got him into this position in the first place. Your plan sounds better than the status quo. I hope your RSP isn't the only component of your retirement plan.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

kcowan said:


> Also if you have a DB pension, then your investment allocation will be a function of your need for short-term funds.


Depends on the proportion of spending needs that are met by the pension.


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

Here is a link to an article concerning the best and the worst of the bank no-load funds:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/08/04/the-best-and-the-worst-of-the-bank-no-load-mutual-funds/

Whenever I read of some advisor who has put their client into managed mutual funds with an average MER over 2 or 2.5 percent, it makes my blood boil. These so-called 'professional' advisors are recommending such funds with, at the very least, a conflict of interest or straight out full self-interest.

Here is an example of how advisors can do very well by collecting trailer fees from their clients whether or not the client is making any money:

On an average MER of 1.6, the advisor would collect .5% per year which works out to $450 per year on an $87,000 portfolio.

I use this example because I just came across it elsewhere.

If you have enough clients, you can make a tidy living for you and your family just from the fees that are being charged and there is a huge financial services industry out there making money off of other people's money whether their clients are winning or losing.

With lower returns expected going forward, fees matter more than ever.

Two solutions that I have come across is to own a diversified portfolio of dividend paying stocks from solid companies with a history of increasing those dividends or by holding some form of 'Easy Chair' portfolio as found at the website www.canadiancouchpotato.com under the model portfolios tab.

Generally speaking, high fund fees are obscene in my view. 

Make sure that you understand the long term impact of these fees on your portfolio results.

By the way, did you ever notice how little time advisors spend discussing fees and their impact? Gee, I wonder why!!


----------



## apna000 (May 11, 2010)

I was talking about 80% in bonds and 20% in stocks. I don't want to take to much risk right now since I am only 7 years away from withdrawing this money. 

I do have other investments (i.e. real estate) which also be used to fund my retirement. 

Yes it is a total piss off when these advisors don't tell us about all of these fees. I will be able to pull my money out of the current funds on December. 31, 2010 without any type of penalty or fee. So I'm just doing some research to figure out where to invest the money next.

I might also allocate 10% of my bonds to foreign bonds, to try to make a little bit extra return. What you guys thinks?


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

I dunno. I'm almost wondering if you could move this money into 3 and 5 year GIC's, after Dec 2010. That would be the ultimate in safety since the markets are basically crap and have been for the past 10 years, with no obvious signs of improvements. IMO the majority of growth has already occured, so you may want to move towards something safe at this point. Just my opinion, which I realize some will disagree with.


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

How can you say that the markets are "crap" when the DOW and S&P were down more than 4 percent in August and the Nasdaq was down 6 percent for the month!!??

Not only that, but the period between Labour Day and Halloween is historically the worst time of year for stocks.

Hang on for a bumpy ride!!!


----------



## OntFA (May 19, 2009)

Belguy said:


> Whenever I read of some advisor who has put their client into managed mutual funds with an average MER over 2 or 2.5 percent, it makes my blood boil.


Yes indeed. Much better to go to an advisor to pick some cheap index funds for you and charge you 1.5% annually for that handy work. 



Belguy said:


> These so-called 'professional' advisors are recommending such funds with, at the very least, a conflict of interest or straight out full self-interest.


If you call earning a living a conflict of interest than I suppose I'm guilty too. You cannot judge a conflict by simply looking at the end product. If you don't have the full picture - i.e. all of the work done and time spent by the advisor and services requested by the client - you cannot intelligently comment on anybody's situation.



Belguy said:


> Here is an example of how advisors can do very well by collecting trailer fees from their clients whether or not the client is making any money:
> 
> On an average MER of 1.6, the advisor would collect .5% per year which works out to $450 per year on an $87,000 portfolio.


And what do you think $450 is going to buy you? That's not a lot of money dude. It's maybe enough for one meeting annually. Sure, let's say it's 60-90 minutes of meetings but there is prep time, phone calls, e-mails, postage (for mailings) and other incidentals. And since I'm in business, there should be some profit, otherwise I won't be around very long to help my clients.

There are more sensational examples to make your point. With your scenario, I'd need 200 clients just to gross $90k annually. Once I pay my costs, there isn't much left for me to make all of this worthwhile. 

The fund companies are the ones with all of the money and it's the reason why I do try to keep fees as low as I can for my clients.



Belguy said:


> With lower returns expected going forward, fees matter more than ever.


Absolutely.



Belguy said:


> Two solutions that I have come across is to own a diversified portfolio of dividend paying stocks from solid companies with a history of increasing those dividends or by holding some form of 'Easy Chair' portfolio as found at the website www.canadiancouchpotato.com under the model portfolios tab.


Good idea but easier said than done. For instance, there is the discipline required to carry out this strategy. Then there is the insight and knowledge required to distinguish between "solid" companies and those that are not so solid. Example: not so long ago, Manulife would have been held out as a solid company. Not so much any more.



Belguy said:


> By the way, did you ever notice how little time advisors spend discussing fees and their impact? Gee, I wonder why!!


I certainly spend the time to disclose fees in writing for my clients. I want them to know what they pay and understand that I'm providing a valuable service. You should certainly expect some frank discussion on fees from your advisor.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

OntFA, your points are great. It is late, and I don't have any clear thoughts to add, but having been on the advisor side of the fence the acrimony towards advisors in general sometimes gets tiresome.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

And such acrimony accomplishes nothng! Many people statistically need advisors and willingly pay their fees even though they understand the costs. They are only an anethma to some DIY investors.


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

When all is said and done, investors need to know exactly what fees they are paying and the long term impact on their portfolio returns.

The main point which I am trying to make is that fees very much matter and that some investors do not pay enough attention to them.

The other point is that an advisor can continue to make money off of their clients' money even while those clients are losing on their investments which is nice work if you can get it!! 

If either of these points can be refuted, please have at me!!

Put up your dukes!!!!


----------



## OntFA (May 19, 2009)

MoneyGal said:


> OntFA, your points are great. It is late, and I don't have any clear thoughts to add, but having been on the advisor side of the fence the acrimony towards advisors in general sometimes gets tiresome.


Thank you. The harsch criticisms bug me too, since I am one of "them".



Belguy said:


> If either of these points can be refuted, please have at me!!
> 
> Put up your dukes!!!!


Okay, here goes...




Belguy said:


> When all is said and done, investors need to know exactly what fees they are paying and the long term impact on their portfolio returns.
> 
> The main point which I am trying to make is that fees very much matter and that some investors do not pay enough attention to them.


A good point and one that I agree with. What investors don't see and have trouble accepting is the cost they incur when left on their own. The trading costs of making changes; the opportunity costs of making changes; and the cost of poor construction and selection of investments in the first place. For individuals that need advice (whether they want it or not), these things add up to a multiple of the fees that the average client pays.



Belguy said:


> The other point is that an advisor can continue to make money off of their clients' money even while those clients are losing on their investments which is nice work if you can get it!!


Sure, all of us advisors keep earning money when clients lose money. But how long do you think we'll realistically keep those clients if that continues - whether it's the market's 'fault' or the advisor's 'fault' or some combo? The more dangerous aspect is the advisor preying on disappointed clients by making big promises that plays on clients' fear of not earning enough. I'll admit that some of these advisors might actually be able to deliver on such promises but I haven't seen them yet.


----------



## stretchermonkey (Nov 23, 2009)

OnFA,

Yeah, I would say all financial advisers are guilty of a conflict of interest - it is built right into the business model and pretty well unavoidable*.

*The wise ones are the people who take the time to justify why they are picking higher rate MERs, or offer a detailed explanation of three ratio's and have the customer decide what is appropriate.

Anyone who sells a product that kicks back a commission on the sale of a product to the middleman is. The temptation is clear, the higher the MER the higher the kickback even if it is to the detriment of the buyer. Simple.

The internet trading platforms, the blogs, forums and books mean more and more people are taking their business back from FA's and doing it for themselves. The publicity in the media and articles extruding the virtues of a couch potato, index funds, Sweetwise ads, the recent financial downturn have focused peoples' attention on their retirement saving and what is actually happening with them.

Is there a role for FA's - yes, I would say there is - when it comes to estate planning, high income earners, family trusts/ inheritance. But it is my impression the market share on joe public saving for their retirement is shrinking fast. As a 35 year old the majority of my friends are doing it for themselves.

I disagree with you on the amount of discipline needed to stick with the mix of dividend stocks and index tracking funds. - I find it quite simple, a little research, cross reference any advice read with other independent sources, make your picks based on your risk tolerance.

MG - you find the criticism of FA's tiresome, but without further explanation, I am unable to see your basis, I am guessing at a "Don't hate the player, hate the game" defence.... it seems the people are speaking and changing the game, taking their business home to their own computer and the players dont like it.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

I don't think anyone here will disagree with either of these points: fees do matter, and many commission-based advisors get paid no matter how their clients' accounts perform. I don't think that's what OntFA and I were objecting to.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

X-posted with you, SM. I'm not a player in the advice game and I truly don't care how many people manage their own money and how many work with advisors. 

If you read my posts, you will see that I am actually a huge advocate of financial literacy in general and I believe far MORE people should be steering their own financial ships than currently do.


----------



## stretchermonkey (Nov 23, 2009)

OnFA

"


OntFA said:


> Yes indeed. Much better to go to an advisor to pick some cheap index funds for you and charge you 1.5% annually for that handy work. "
> 
> Erm, I think he means do it yourself for < 0.35%
> 
> ...


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

stretchermonkey said:


> It seems natural to me that the biggest clients get the most attention, and the small accounts suffer from a lack of attention because they offer a significant smaller return compared to the amount of time it takes to deal with them.


This is a big reason why fee-for-service financial planning doesn't really work as a business model for most advisors and most clients. It is only natural that servicing a big account takes priority over servicing a smaller account. 

People who have smaller accounts are probably the best positioned to become DIYers for that reason - but the stakes can be higher for them if, as you've alluded to with your example, they don't have a DB pension and are relying on their funds to get them through retirement: the relative importance of their portfolio can dwarf its actual size from an advisor POV.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

I have to agree with OntFA and MG on this one. Financial advisors provide a wide variety of services and it's up to the consumer to decide which ones they need and which ones are worth paying for.

How is an advisor supposed to make any money if they put their clients in a product with no commissions? From what I hear it is very difficult to get clients to pay fees up front.

Also for smaller clients, paying a high commission is probably the best bargain for them. Even cheaper than DIY assuming they value their time.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

If only _someone _would write a _book _ targeted at all kinds of different people, about how you can create a great retirement income plan, whether you work with an advisor or not! 

Oh well, writing books doesn't make hardly any money at all, I suppose that's too good to hope for.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

MoneyGal said:


> If only _someone _would write a _book _ targeted at all kinds of different people, about how you can create a great retirement income plan, whether you work with an advisor or not!
> 
> Oh well, *writing books doesn't make hardly any money at all*, I suppose that's too good to hope for.


Nonsense. You can make money writing books. What you need to do is stop wasting your time on trivialities like pension planning, and start working on a Lindsay Lohan biography.


----------



## OntFA (May 19, 2009)

Four Pillars and MoneyGal - thank you for your responses. Not because I'm interested in winning any debates but because it's nice to see that I'm not the only one who thinks that every one of us advisors is a crook just after the next commission.



stretchermonkey said:


> This is where you are out to lunch... $450 is alot of money to most people. That is one expensive single yearly meeting for joe public who is say 50 -60 yrs old. On $55,000 a year and hoping his $87,000 will see him through his retirement. Especially if he has seen that retirement pot reduce by 33% on his statements in the last 2 years.


Okay, so this is what I was trying to avoid. This is not just $450 for a single meeting. It's $450 for 60-90 minutes of professional time (i.e. the annual meeting), the time required to prepare for the meeting, this client's 'share' of the time I spend doing research on products, visiting portfolio managers (when I have the opportunity), spending time on the phone/on e-mail answering 'routine' questions, etc., etc.

If I didn't budget the time to answer routine questions alone, I'd go broke. Sure, if it's one client asking the occasional question, no big deal. But it's 200 people asking occasional questions so I have to build that into my own financial projections when budgeting how much time I spend with clients and how much revenue I need to generate from a client to at least break even (let alone how much to make my desired profit). And I'm by no means a big producer or the wealthiest advisor I know.



stretchermonkey said:


> I would also be interest to know how much work goes into these clients after the portfolio is set up in the first year other than minor tweaking, (and I hold my hands up to not being up to speed on the fee break down) yet the same yearly costs and commissions appear to charged.


Again, this question is indicative of not knowing or not putting yourself in the advisor's shoes - not that you need to but it is what it is. Remember that unless the client invests on a DSC basis, I do a bunch of work up front and hope the client sticks around for 2-3 years so that I can actually get paid for the work done UP FRONT - i.e. before I earn a dime from the client. Otherwise, read the short list above for an indication of SOME of the time I spend related to client files.

Too many clients equate "changes" with "doing something" with their portfolios. Sometimes a lot of damn work goes into making ZERO changes to a portfolio. In other words, the process of monitoring and attempting to do ongoing due diligence on products and portfolios sometimes results in changes and sometimes not. But the ongoing work prior to making that decision is the same EVERY MONTH, QUARTER and YEAR.



stretchermonkey said:


> The amount of institutional funds still in Manulife show that the experts did not see that one coming either, yet you seem to insinuate that it was only home gamers left holding the ball on that one. This week on BNN on the guest fund "experts" was saying that they will hold their MFC for the long haul - as to off load it now is not an option.


I'm not just insinuating, I firmly stand by my opinion that MOST DIY investors that think they can successfully pick stocks are out to lunch. Forgive my bluntness but anything softer isn't getting through clearly. The issue with Manulife specifically has as much to do with transparency - or lack of the same - rather than skill of the stock analyst. But if most fund managers didn't see this coming, how is a little DIY supposed to do it? They can't but it's an even bigger risk for DIYs because they tend to hold much more concentrated positions than most funds or ETFs so they risk bigger losses if they assess wrong.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

This digression about the merits/demerits of financial advisors (an old debate) isn't helping the OP with his original question.


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

There are a number of model portfolios of index products at www.canadiancouchpotato.com

(1) Choose one that you like and that is appropriate to your circumstances.

(2) Set up a discount brokerage account with whichever one will give you the lowest trading fees. My bank brokerage charges me $4.95 per trade which is an negotiated rate (otherwise, I threatened to take my business elsewhere).

(3) Purchase the individual components of your portfolio

(4) Hold those investments through up markets and down and trade ONLY for periodic rebalancing purposes.

It isn't rocket science. You don't need the services of an 'expert'. The fees are dirt cheap which is of primary importance. Nobody is getting rich off of your money and you get to keep most of it yourself.

A friend of mine recently went to his friendly, neighbourhood bank branch to set up an RRSP. The bank advisor suggested a portfolio of only that bank's mutual funds--as if they were the best funds out there. There was no mention of ETF's, possibly because many advisors are not licenced to sell them, or even of index funds even though most index funds outperform most managed funds over time. This goes on all the time and it makes me boil. They are not representing their clients' best interests when they do this.

I have no quarrel with fee-only advisors if you want to use them to help you to set up your initial asset allocation and help you to select your individual index or dividend paying stock investments. Then YOU take responsibility for your own money and proceed with steps 2, 3, and 4 above. Keep your money and don't pay a large portion of it on fees that really add up over time--believe me!! 

Now, here comes the broad brush statement again--I do not wish to personally do business with any non fee-based advisor because I am too cheap and those fees, often amounting to thousands of dollars over time just bug me and I simply do not feel that they are worth paying.

When all is said and done, YOU might just as well end up driving the fancy car as paying towards your advisor's.

Keep it simple and cheap and trade only to rebalance and don't chase after hot investments de jour. An advisor can save you from yourself but you don't need one for that purpose if you maintain your own discipline.

And, as the nice folks at ING remind us, 'Save Your Money'.

And as they keep telling us (over and over and over again) on the Ally commercials, STOP PAYING ALL OF THOSE EGG MANAGEMENT FEES!!


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

i like the part about threatening the discount broker.

c'mon bel guy you've gotta either tell us the name of the bank or stop boasting how you held em up like a one-eyed banditto ...


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

My discount brokerage is CIBC Investors Services. They gave me the lower fee based on my family's total investments with them all of which I manage. Please don't expect me to disclose these total family investments.

Since I trade only for rebalancing purposes, my trading fees wouldn't likely top $50 per year anyway.

Warren Buffett once said that the average small investor traded far too often. He went on to say that the number of trades which you make in a lifetime should probably be counted on the fingers of your hands.

While this might be a slight exaggeration, it gets the point across.

All that you need is a portfolio of either 15 or so dividend paying stocks or very few broad-based ETF's such as found under the model portfolio tab at www.canadiancouchpotato.com

Don't trade to chase after hot performance and don't try to time the markets. 

Stay invested.

Oh yes, and keep your fees as 'little' as possible.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

some of moneygal's messages today re advisors are not making any sense to me at all.

MG when you were an advisor:

- you were a fee-only advisor, you stress. Since you were unhappy about the 17M client who caused "a whole lot of work for a whole lot of nothing," one wonders why you were not charging your regular fees based on time or MI or a combination of both.

- but in reality it turns out that your firm was compensated by trailer fees of 1%. In addition the client himself probably paid fees to yourselves that are not mentioned in your post. One might guesstimate said client was paying a fee of roughly 1.25-1.5% on this 17M account, incuding custodial fees to a 3rd party custodian. One might guesstimate that your firm was receiving these fees (less custodial fee) in addition to the above-mentioned trailer fee.

- your trailer fee alone of 1% works out to $170,000 per annum on 17M. I fail to understand why any advisor would refer to 170k as "a whole lot of nothing." It sounds like a great deal of money to me, in return for what was routine backoffice administration - the phasing out of the dsc funds - carried out by sub-professional staff. Nor do i see the strategy decision as being "a whole lot of work." There must have been numerous occasions when clients not only of your firm but also of other firms were slowly phased out of dsc funds in order to avoid a giant one-time fee hit. It's a standard, simple solution that would not have been complicated or costly to provide.

- you have stated previously that the firm at which you were an advisor had a $1 million client minimum. Yet these same millionnaires would reportedly sit in your office and "weep with relief" because they had finally found someone to help with their finances. Good grief. However did these clients manage to arrive at their million, or their millions, by themselves. Surely it was not by bursting into tears every time they had to make a teeny decision. 

these are curious details to use when justifying an advisor's life & times. Far from showing that an advisor is poorly remunerated in return for working unbelievably hard, these details, in fact, show the opposite.


----------



## Belguy (May 24, 2010)

I have heard that many very wealthy investors put their money primarily into index products--mainly ETF's.

Even they don't want to pay high fees. Concerning themselves about where their money goes probably paid a big part in making them rich in the first place.

Fees matter. Try to minimize them. That is one of the keys to successful investing.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

(Sigh) I always regret providing anecdotes.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

indeed i thought the actual situation would have been more complex than what was being indicated.

but i was replying to your actual words MG. You complained about an incident in which your firm had sacrificed "a whole lot of work for a whole lot of nothing."

language like that sounds angry and disrespectful towards the client. This client was bringing your firm $170,000 per annum in trailer fees. I consider this to be full, fair & adequate compensation, notwithstanding the fact that there were estates & complications in the account that required some executive attention to resolve. So far, i see nothing to complain about. If i were that client, i would not have stayed one minute with a firm that was seething with such a mean-minded attitude behind my back. As a client of marked high net worth, i would have looked onwards for a firm able & anxious to go to the ends of the earth to offer the highest quality services possible, all in a spirit of grace & goodwill.

for my own part, may i mention that the more irrational irritability i see displayed towards a client, the more contempt, and the more disdainful references to large annual fees of 170k as "a whole lot of nothing," the more repelled i am by such attitudes. They do not serve to attract potential clients to financial advisors.

turning now to your remark that you "... don't know where you get the idea that managing money involves 'teeny' decisions," you are misrepresenting what i wrote.

very clearly, i wrote about persons who had managed to accumulate, with a number of skilled & capable decisions, a million dollars or more prior to their arrival in your office. We are asked to believe that these persons, whose accomplishments were a matter of record, would arrive in your office & suddenly break down into childish weeping.

personally i find it difficult to believe that the superior problem-solving & decision-making skills of a working millionnaire would turn into mush when faced with an investment portfolio. That they would seek professional help is 100% believable. But weeping & blubbering upon arrival in an advisor's office is a bit of a stretch.

if you say so, i am happy to believe that some millionnaires did cry like babies in your office. I might not believe any old advisor, but i certainly do believe you without question. What i am wondering, though, is whether this might be a toronto phenomenon. Here in quebec, millionnaires do not cry in advisors' offices.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Humble. I apologize that I was not clear.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Crumb. I just re-read what I originally wrote. It is very badly phrased. It does look like I meant to say that $170K was "a whole lot of nothing." I really regret that phrasing - it was NOT what I meant to communicate.


----------



## MoneyGal (Apr 24, 2009)

Nothing to see here, move along.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

indeed i did think that you did not really, really mean to say that 170k was a "whole lot of nothing." This is not how MG feels or operates. See, i know you (in a way.) But hélas ! that is how the remark came out.

one must also consider that these are heady times. Giving birth to a book or a baby, nurturing the newborn, staying up all night, running around giving interviews & doing book signings - there's a colossal creative thrill going on, so the proud parent of a brand-new book can easily forget & blurt out something that isn't quite what she meant. (hint: stay real focused with the radio & newspaper reporters.)

re the ire. It's always easy for an outsider to remain super-distant & objective. So it's easy for me to say that exorbitant fees paid to previous advisors, unethical conduct by previous advisors, bad portfolios constructed by previous advisors - all these have nothing to do with the price of chicken. Chicken was going for 170k per annum for looking after 17M for a client, which was a full & fair price for chicken at the time. Even today.


----------



## OntFA (May 19, 2009)

MoneyGal said:


> 1% on $17M is too much for anyone to pay and we would not have charged that. Yes, that's what retail mutual funds pay as trails.


A minor point: if the funds were originally invested on a DSC basis (by the previous advisor), the trailer would be 0.5% on equity funds and 0.25% on bond and money market funds. That would apply to the extent that you were simply reorganizing the portfolio without triggering exit fees. If it had been invested for some time, leaving little or no exit fees by the time you were involved, then the 1% on stocks & 0.5% on bonds (0.25% on MMFs) would apply.

Back to one of my previous points, however, these trailer fees are only received by the new advisor (MG & company) IF the client sticks around after the work is done.

This thread has gone so far off the rails - for which I accept some blame - that I won't bother commenting further to debate issues that there seems to be deep-rooted disagreement on.


----------



## apna000 (May 11, 2010)

*Back to the Question at Hand*

Okay, lets forget about our personal opinions on fund managers and advisors. 

I want to put 20% in a ETF Fund and the other 80% in something safer. I was thinking of putting it in a bond ETF but since the interest rates are so low on them right now, do you think it would be better to put that 80% in a GIC until the prices of bonds fall and the yields increase. 

Any help would be appreciated.


----------

