Kenneth Weiss coined the term, but two factor authentication goes back at least as far as the mid 60s, when James Goodfellow patented the combined use of "what you know" (a PIN) and "what you have" (a physical object) to conduct secure financial transactions. Aka ATM machines.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/apr/29/who-invented-cash-machine-james-goodfellow-first-atm-pin

This token took the form of a plastic card with holes punched in it. The patent documents proposed a system incorporating a card reader and buttons mounted in an external wall of the bank, and stated: “When the customer wishes to withdraw a pack of banknotes from the system he simply inserts his punched card in the card reader of the system, and operates the set of 10 push-buttons in accordance with his personal identification number.” Aside from the cards with punched holes, that pretty much describes today’s ATM.

Arguably, even earlier examples (that use an alternative factor: "what you are") include charge cards (the card itself, and your signature as a prehistoric biometric) and passbook bank accounts (the passbook, and your signature or perhaps facial recognition by the banker).
Multifactor authentication has been grasped intuitively by people for many decades. It is interesting to think about how how readily it was discarded for the sake of electronic convenience (or for getting gasoline at the pump).
Here's an interesting site that will tell you what websites support what types of two factor authentication:
https://twofactorauth.org/

@Maurice
When I receive these, I discover as much as possible (curious) about the firm and the person. This includes a FINRA broker check. A few times over the years I have found negative data about a person; and of more interest is that some folks have switched jobs often.......not necessarily a bad sign, but interesting.
I imagine that the business cost of such events are anticipated to be overwhelmed from monies from new clients. The majority of these I receive are folks who have passed "x" number of insurance level exams (read annuity) without other attributes; although about 1/4 are indeed accredited financial planners.
Have not had a dinner.

Many thanks to bee and bk2000p.
It does seem that fed financial aid is impacted less (much less) if a parent owns rather than gparent. No other advantages that I can see except that I will be mercifully divested of 3 accounts to oversee

Looks like the devil is in the details:

529 account penalty and financial aid
Families, however, can encounter problems when grandparents withdraw the money to pay for college expenses. The 529 withdrawals must be reported on financial aid applications as the student's income. The financial aidformula assesses student income at a stiff 50 percent.
Here's an example: If the grandmother withdrew $20,000 from a 529, that money would be assessed at 50 percent. ($20,000 X 50 percent = $10,000.) The grandmother's withdrawal would reduce the grandchild's chances for need-based financial aid by up to $10,000.
Disabling a 529 financial aid time bomb
One way to disable this financial aid time bomb is for the grandparent to transfer the ownership of a 529 to a parent. Assets in a 529 account owned by the parent are only assessed at 5.64 percent for financial aid purposes. In the case of a $20,000 withdrawal, a potential financial aid award would only shrink by a maximum of $1,128.
Grandparents can avoid any hit to financial aid awards by timing their 529 withdrawals. Ideally a grandparent will wait until after the parents have filed for financial aid for the last time -- in the winter or early spring of the college student's junior year. This would be the last financial aid form the parents file (covering the child's senior year), so the parents and child's finances after that filing would be irrelevant.

https://cbsnews.com/news/time-bomb-grandparents-529-college-contributions/
Similar Take with more details:
https://wsj.com/articles/when-grandparents-and-529-plans-for-college-savings-clash-1408747176
and,
https://money.usnews.com/money/personal-finance/mutual-funds/articles/2015/09/08/grandparents-dont-make-a-529-plan-mistake

I took a quick look at the M* info on POPFX. One question that I have is how large a cash position did the fund have from inception in 2007 and through 2008, the period for which performance appears so good compared to peers? While it may be stating the obvious, only long-term investors have been rewarded for the risk-averse investing of the managers. Finally, I was struck by the high percentage (53%) of holdings in Financial Services (including a position in TRP and in White Mountains, both companies where managers previously worked) and by the low allocation (10%) to Technology. Mid-Cap Blend is the inevitable bogey, but this fund also has both Giant and Micro stocks. The fund itself uses both the Russell 2000 Total Return and the Russell Mid-Cap Total Return indices for comparison. I grew up not far from the fund's headquarters, so I hear these managers' New-England accents and I am very familiar with the Connecticut scenes depicted on their web site. They are quite apologetic in the annual report about missing out on 2017's rally.

I'm with @PRESSmUP here. While an independent FP may accurately state that there's no obligation if one attends, that disclaimer pertains to becoming a client. There is an obligation, whether legal or moral, to be attentive and to consider what is being presented. That's the quid pro quo. If you're more interested in checking out the restaurant than in the presentation, then IMHO you're not holding up your end of the bargain.
Like PRESmUP, I'll attend the infrequent (and getting more infrequent by the year) events sponsored by financial institutions where I invest significant assets. What they are getting from me is my continued business, which I could take elsewhere.
Finally, I do not feel that the occasional ethical lapse renders one a bad person. The first is about individual actions, the other about the intrinsic nature of a person. Relax, enjoy the chicken if you must :-)

I raised this topic before. It may have been quite some time ago. Perhaps as long ago as the FundAlarm days.
As many of you probably do, I get periodic invites in the mailbox from financial planners. The invite stipulates that the financial planner is having an informational lunch or dinner, and I am invited, if I RSVP in time. No obligations are required. My belief is that, as a Do-It-Yourself'er (DIY) investor, I don't have a need for a financial planner. Or perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps I should attend and will find the services to be of value. And if I do go, is it ethical in this circumstance to attend more than one? How many lunches are reasonable?
If my memory serves me correctly, it was the discussion board's posters, who are financial planners, that thought it was unethical of me to attend, unless I am open to giving serious weight to consider the services of such planners. To their credit, I never did respond back with an RSVP to attend. Their basic objection was that the cost of the lunch comes out of the pocket of the financial planner, and not from the firm that they are employed by.
Usually the invitation is on expensive stationary and is delivered by USPS. Today I received the following email from my credit union.

Register Today! Retirement Planning Lunch & Learn
Join us on [date deleted] for this FREE Retirement Planning Lunch & Learn at the [location deleted]! [Name deleted], Financial Advisor and Registered Principal at [firm name deleted], will discuss critical factors in planning your retirement years, including:
What are my biggest retirement risks?
Will I ever be able to retire?
Will my money last through retirement?
Is it okay to carry some debt into retirement?
Where can I get help?
This seminar is free of charge and lunch will be provided. Seating is limited and advanced reservations are REQUIRED so reserve your place today!

So am I a bad person if I RSVP, because I'm curious. I'll disclose to you that I might be as curious about the restaurant as I am about the informational topic. If okay, how many of these can I attend before I cross a red line in the sand that makes me the moral equivalent of a dictator in the Middle East, not to be named?

Infinite. Attend as many as you want, no problem. They're effectively trying to buy your business. That, to me, is more unethical than attending with little intention of picking up their services.

I regularly get invited to a local expensive restaurant for a free seminar of financial planning. Since there is no free lunch so to speak, I passed on a number of occasion. Even one of coworker who changed career and became a financial planner, I went just for his support.
However, we did went to a dinner invite for a time share condo, and they really tried hard to convince us what a great deal these products are. We decided to pay as we go to any hotel of our choice and time period we wish.

There are also "Special Opportunity" funds. I own one - BOPAX.
And I stopped thinking Royce was special the day I discovered they are owned by Please break-a-leg-no-I-mean-really Mason. The cynic in me will never believe Royce operates independently. And the fact they used to keep creating funds in a crowded small cap market annoyed my no end. Wonder if they thought if that was a such a good idea why they closed so many of them after the financial crisis.
They were adding "Value". They they were adding "Value Plus". All a big Minus for me.

FYI: Investment adviser Financial Engines Inc (FNGN.O) said on Monday it would be bought by U.S. buyout firm Hellman & Friedman for about $3.02 billion in cash.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-financial-m-a-hellman-friedman/hellman-friedman-to-buy-financial-engines-for-3-02-billion-idUSKBN1I11CR
Financial Engines Website:
https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=NiPnWvn6JYTOjwThlLGYDA&q=financial+engines&oq=financial&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.35i39k1l2j0i67k1l3j0j0i67k1j0j0i67k1l2.2174.4780.0.8166.10.9.0.0.0.0.82.648.9.9.0..2..0...1.1.64.psy-ab..1.9.648.0..0i131k1j0i131i67k1j0i20i264k1.0.3Rr3it7Jdow

I think that you folks must all be way out of line, because Trump's Mick Mulvaney, current head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, just announced that there's no need to maintain a public record of complaints regarding bankers. Maybe Maurice can weigh in on this one.

Yeah I read that. Now Wells is really going Go Far with their naughtiness.

http://www.morganstanley.com/im/en-us/financial-advisor/insights/investment-insights/global-opportunity-behind-the-scenes-with-kristian-heugh.html
Um, yes I'm now in.

I think that you folks must all be way out of line, because Trump's Mick Mulvaney, current head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, just announced that there's no need to maintain a public record of complaints regarding bankers. Maybe Maurice can weigh in on this one.

All I'm saying is that one can't infer that bank loans are harder to price than treasuries from the fact that the former are classified as level 2. Certainly pricing them is more difficult, just as investment grade corporates are harder to price than Treasuries. But you won't get that from their pricing level. Right conclusion, wrong evidence.
Quoting from the Vanguard report: "Various inputs may be used to determine the value of the fund’s investments. These inputs are summarized in three broad levels for financial statement purposes. The inputs or methodologies used to value securities are not necessarily an indication of the risk associated with investing in those securities."
You say you don't like Vanguard; you say it's too conservative. Have I got a deal for you :-)
How about Fidelity? The annual report for its Limited Term Government Fund classifies all its holdings (again excluding cash equivalents) as level 2, including both US and foreign government and government agency obligations, US government agency mortgage securities, CMOs, commercial mortgage securities, and purchased "swaptions".
Or let's get wild and crazy, and check out PIMCO. In PIMIX's semiannual report we finally find some level 1 bonds. But they're not treasuries - all the US government obligations and treasuries are level 2.
0.01% of banking and finance bonds are level 1, while 11% are level 3, showing that sometimes bank loans are rated at level 3. (All the financial stocks held by the fund are also rated level 3.)
0.3% of corporate industrial bonds are level 1, while 0.14% are level 3.
There are a variety of other categories of bonds and stocks with some rated level 3.
JP Morgan gives a clue as to why all these bonds show up as level 2 or lower:
"J.P. Morgan has reserved the definition of ‘quoted prices in active markets’ to strictly be applied to exchange trade equity and derivative securities. Fixed income prices provided by a vendor or broker/dealer are classified as a Level 2. This decision is based on our analysis which found that most fixed income securities are priced using an evaluated price provided by an independent pricing vendor or broker/dealer."

@Hank - This board is used to talk about investments, bounce ideas around and discuss investment topics. People talk about their own investments on a daily basis. I don't need a financial advisor as I've been successful at investing on my own for 25 years. Maybe you missed the part where I wrote, "I'm going to do some further research based on your links as well as some digging on my own." If you don't like the thread, move on.

David’s MFO disclaimer:
“Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.”
I’m not sure how many times this ground needs to be plowed. If you are in need of investment advice seek out a trained, certified financial advisor / planner - preferably one with a shingle hanging out in front with his / her name on it.

Thanks for the review link @msf. An example of members helping other members avoid financial missteps. That's why I started this thread to hopefully not only help myself make an informed decision, but others as well.
Beam won't be getting any of our cash anytime soon either. Still not sure how they plan to make any money? Where's the money coming from to pay the interest rates they are offering?

Very strange set of financial facts.
How does someone who makes under $800/ month on SS even qualify for a $900K mortgage?
Then we're told that making a profit of $220k on the sale of a home is "the biggest mistake" this women has ever made...crocodile tears. This women's story provides little comfort to those millions of "home-loaners" who actually went bankrupt verses this women's real estate success story.
Finally, she (or the author) is so financially illiterate to consider putting her entire net worth into an annuity product that provide no protection against inflation not to mention the one-time expenses that besiege a retiree as we age (mainly healthcare related) and agency risk with the annuity insurer.
The article should be a wake up call to many pre-retirees who often do not have the enough present income to pay basic living expenses, nor a $500K nest egg.
Sadly, his broad needs to get a good paying job... something she should have learned in her twenties.