Thought that "Synchrony Financial" rang a bell. Wickipedia: "prior to its 2014 initial public offering, which raised $2.88 billion, Synchrony operated as a subsidiary of GE Capital".

Synchrony Financial looks interesting and I would like to know more about. First impression is that it's interest rates are going to be high on specialty loans.
Any one have any information.
Looked at a Zero turn lawnmower the other day and it was company financed at 26% int.
per year for four years. I tried to buy with cash and not negotiable on price. Also a car lot offered the similar terms on a used car at 22% over the life of the loan.
It's a new dynamic make some money on the product and a killing on the finance charges.
Is cash good anymore???

"Dominance of an index by a single fund is prevented by equally weighting component funds each quarter."

THOMSON REUTERS LIPPER Index POLICIES

Please find the following links to our first-ever Zoom Webinars ... both sessions generated positive feedback and follow-up ... several questions in first session especially. As touted by chip, thought the process was easy, which bodes well for future sessions.
Please fast-forward past the funny looking host with spectacles at beginning! Will be sure to better align camera angle next time. The sound, intro charts, and live demos though came out well.
I've included link to our intro charts as well, which includes summary of concurrent chat session questions/comments.

• MFO Premium Search Tools Webinar Recording - Wednesday, 16 August 2017, 3 pm Eastern
  
• MFO Premium Search Tools Webinar Recording - Wednesday, 16 August 2017, 8 pm Eastern
  
• Intro Charts

Thank you all for attending and your continued support!
As David discussed in this month's commentary, gentle reminder that we will be providing a live, interactive walk through of the MFO Premium screeners and analytics.
Throughout our intention will be to highlight unique insights those tools provide individual investors and financial advisers … and the attendant benefits to themselves and their clients.
Plan on about 1 hour. There are two sessions scheduled for this coming Wednesday, one at 3 pm eastern, and one at 8 pm eastern.
If you have not already received a registration confirmation, you can register directly via the links below:

• MFO Premium Search Tools Webinar - Wednesday, 16 August 2017, 3 pm Eastern
  
• MFO Premium Search Tools Webinar - Wednesday, 16 August 2017, 8 pm Eastern

Hi Guys,
If the market wizards are depending on the investing public to make wise decisions they will be sadly disappointed. Our crystal ball is not just cloudy, it is cracked. Test data demonstrates time and time again that it is not that we suffer from a lack of knowledge, but that we misinterpret what we know, or, even more troubling, what we think we know is just not so.
Here is a Link that presents some data and discusses our knowledge/interpretation shortfalls:
http://www.newsweek.com/how-ignorant-are-americans-66053
In a closing paragraph, the author concludes that " We suffer from a lack of information rather than a lack of ability.” I disagree. I believe we have plenty of information but fall short in our ability to properly interpret that huge information base.
A very long time ago I served in the US Army. At one stage in my military career I administered, scored, and discussed results with the troops taking these tests. In all aspects, the outcomes were disappointing. We think we know more than we actually do.
The good news is that I believe we often recognize our shortcomings and adjust accordingly. I suspect that is why, in the investment world, we overwhelmingly default to Index products. Unlike those on MFO, many folks don't check the financial marketplace on a regular basis. They are satisfied with near market returns minus some modest fees.
In several,ways, these folks are smarter and more efficient than those who choose to invest time and effort in this challenging task. The outputs of that daunting task have not proven to substantially reward its practionaires with outsized profits. It is not that we lack information, and not that we lack ability. It is that we are trying to predict the unpredictable.
Best Regards

FYI: The financial whizzes cocooned in the serene offices of the Sequoia Fund atop one of New York’s iconic office buildings seem far removed from the noise of the city far below.
But the 47-year-old mutual fund known as much for its ties to billionaire Warren Buffett as for its uncanny stock picks that created massive wealth for clients — retirement funds, pension funds, university endowments and regular-Joe investors — has had to descend from its lofty perch in the past two years and rescue its good name.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/capitalbusiness/an-epic-winning-streak-on-wall-street--then-one-ugly-loss/2017/08/11/137fc2dc-7637-11e7-8839-ec48ec4cae25_story.html
M* Snapshot SEQUX:
http://www.morningstar.com/funds/xnas/sequx/quote.html
Lipper Snapshot SEQUX:
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/fund/sequx
SEQUX Is Ranked #245 In The (LCG) Fund Category By U.S. News & World Report:
https://money.usnews.com/funds/mutual-funds/large-growth/sequoia-fund/sequx

Thank you. There was some text that had to be left out for space reasons. One thing was how there is a fee model I think that is more objective than either commission-based or fee-based advice. That is a retainer fee in which the client pays the financial planner a flat rate--a flat fee of x dollars for a specific service such as a financial plan or an annual/quarterly review. This separates the adviser's fees from the portfolio entirely so there are no commissions and no asset based fees. It is similar to a fee you might pay for instance to see an accountant and have them do your taxes. The issue with this is one of popularity as clients sometimes have sticker shock having to write a check to their adviser rather than letting the fees be automatically deducted from their account's assets. They may actually pay more with the asset based fee, but not looking at the fee somehow makes it easier for them to swallow. It's more transparent however to pay the flat fee and can lead to more comprehensive/holistic financial advice as opposed to just portfolio-centric investment advice.

@VF
>> This must be a good one.
It is a good outfit, but, as msf pointed out, excessively expensive.
Some more checking resources:
https://www.thebalance.com/financial-advistors-credentials-2388438
http://www.campaignforinvestors.org/have-other-investors-filed-complaints-against-my-financial-advisor/
From quick googling, so perhaps you are aware.
I do not use Edelman myself, never have, and have no other connection; just a radio listener.
@Maurice
You would have to listen to the show several times to get the nuance of what RE is saying, the soft sell, the offering of impartial advice, the disinterestedness. You 'hard time' is understandable.

Hi Fundalarm,
I completely agree with everything that you said in your excellent post. I not only concur with the general thrust of your comments, but with every single claim. Your profession does provide a useful and meaningful service to many investors.
When I started to invest in circa 1960, I knew very little of market mechanisms, realized my many shortcomings, and employed a financial advisor. He not only provided a needed service, he was also a superior teacher.
After a few years I gained sufficient knowledge and confidence to do my own investment sorting and decision making. I still apply many of the lessons and bits of wisdom that he taught me. In no way do I regret that learning experience. That advisor definitely earned his pay.
I fully understand your cautionary comment that closed your post. There are a few MFO members who harbor deep personal grudges for unspecified and unreasonable reasons. Pity these poor souls! Their comments are easily discounted and discarded.
Best Wishes for your continued success in helping hapless investors. They do exist, even on this fine website.

I am an FA with mostly fiduciary practice. one needs to understand that not everyone is as sophisticated as some contributors to this forum. I see PhD's and MD's who sit in concentrated positions of their company's stock or have other broker relationships that fill them with annuities and mutual fund C-shares. so you might want to demolish the industry all you want, but many find real value in financial planning and guidance and are willing to pay the extra 50 bps (over robo-advisors) for a 1% fee that includes not just money management, but also tax evaluation, withdrawal recommendations, and an impartial advice on all other financial issues -- trusts, adequacy of insurance, home borrowing, etc.
please do not be vile in your responses, even if you don't believe in the industry.
respectfully, fa

Hi msf,
Thanks for your detailed review of my earlier postings. I surely do not remember them. I do like the DALBAR summaries. They do useful work.

You have completely missed the point and are on autopilot in generic self-defense mode:
See, e.g. Prof. Snowball's comments in the 2015 link, or this 2017 analysis by Wade Pfau: "Investors may behave badly. But the DALBAR study does not demonstrate this empirically. Its calculations are wrong and the financial services profession should stop using it as a way to market the value of financial advice."

Hi msf,
Thanks for your detailed review of my earlier postings. I surely do not remember them. I do like the DALBAR summaries. They do useful work.
Like most investment decisions, the usefulness of a financial advisor depends on the individual investors who might positively deploy their services. No single size fits all Investors. Some of us need them, but many others do not. And those assessments themselves are subject to huge errors. A carefully documented scorecard helps to resolve those poor self assessments.
Thanks once again.
Best Wshes

Here is a Link that discusses " a dirty little secret " about investment advisors that is not very secret whatsoever:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertberger/2016/12/19/the-dirty-little-secret-investment-advisors-dont-want-you-to-know/#afaf3bc6f966

Each year you post conclusions from Dalbar's QAIB study, e.g.: 2011, 2012 (where you acknowledged that "perhaps hiring a financial advisor would provide some needed relief"), 2013, 2015 (okay, Ted posted this one), 2016 (where you wrote that "Given the huge disparity between market Indices and individual investor actual performance, a case can be made for consulting a financial planner.")
I'm no enthusiast of the Dalbar reports. See, e.g. Prof. Snowball's comments in the 2015 link, or this 2017 analysis by Wade Pfau: "Investors may behave badly. But the DALBAR study does not demonstrate this empirically. Its calculations are wrong and the financial services profession should stop using it as a way to market the value of financial advice."
But Dalbar is where you've chosen to hang your hat. In doing so, you have you acknowledged that a 1% advisor fee can generate net positive results for average investors (directly contradicting Forbes' "dirty little secret").
Regardless of your comments about the Dalbar conclusions, that conclusion easy to extract directly from the Dalbar data (to the extent that one trusts Dalbar's methodology). The 2016 version (the latest version that seems to be available "for free") states that "Voluntary investor behavior underperformance" amounts to 1.50%. That is more than enough to overcome a 1.00% fee paid to an advisor who helps an investor correct this bad behavior.
Even Vanguard has published a series of papers stating that "Paying a fee for advice and guidance to a professional who uses the framework described here can add meaningful value compared to the average investor experience." That's from the 2016 version of Vanguard Advisor’s Alpha®
If the whole paper's too long to read, here's a Marketwatch column ("Vanguard: When advisers add value") from 2013 discussing the Vanguard report.

If your friend is most interested in getting his financial house in order and piece of mind that results from that but not being saddled with continuous payments to an adviser, a fee only adviser might be a good option. He/she can continue that advisory connection as needed.
The National Association of Personal Financial Advisors
https://www.napfa.org/

msf gave very good advice. The ADV Part 2 will provide information on whether the company and individual receives commissions. Sometimes the RIA or planning company can say they do not receive commissions, but there may be one or two other subsidiaries owned by the main company or one of the company owners, and those companies may sell insurance and annuities, or to operate their own brokerage firm. It is very important the ADV document contain language indicating the company is a "fee-only" firm. The document will also detail what services the firm offers, what custodian they use (Schwab, TD, Fidelity, etc.), what their fees are (are they negotiable?). There must be a brief section that outlines any way the company is compensated for selling products. Look for "Neither (name of the RIA) nor its advisors accept compensation from the sale of securities or other investment or insurance products." The document will also have a section that must list any disciplinary actions to which the company has been a subject. Look for a section on industry activities and affiliations, and confirm the company is not affiliated with any broker-dealer, bank, or insurance company. Look for the company's Code of Ethics to see if it accepts fiduciary responsibilities. This is the biggie.
Your friend should work with a firm that treats him/her as an individual, not just one of thousands of clients. There are many ways to do an initial look by googling "fee-only financial planning", "fiduciary planning", "registered investment adviser" (note the spelling of "adviser"...that's how the government spells it). The company's web site should have direct links to its ADV, Code of Ethics, and any Disclosures it deems important. This is a lot to do, but we are talking about YOUR money.

So a friend wants to put his money with a financial advisor who wants to charge 1% for the privilege.
First, let me make it clear, and it shouldn't be so hard to believe, I'm not asking for myself saying "a friend...". I am actually trying to help out a friend in spite of himself.
So is there some place I can go and plugin the name of the advisor company and then advisor and figure out if these guys are legit? I'm thinking there must be some website like that.

@lssegal The problem I have with your "I'm not a scientist" statement is it sounds too familiar:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I%27m_not_a_scientist
https://nytimes.com/2014/10/31/us/why-republicans-keep-telling-everyone-theyre-not-scientists.html
businessinsider.com/stephen-colbert-on-im-not-a-scientist-2014-11
People on this board are not mutual fund managers or financial academics yet they talk about mutual funds and financial studies all the time.

@lssegal The climate doesn't care about anyone's politics:
https://nytimes.com/2017/08/07/climate/climate-change-drastic-warming-trump.html
The changes wrought by carbon emissions will affect every sector of the economy and all of life on earth, but especially the energy sector, the utility sector and yes, financial services, particularly insurers who already realize no matter what our president or his new EPA director claim that it is a dire threat to their businesses' risk modeling. Climate change is mutual fund related, and will affect financial market returns. Frankly, it is everything related. Even the military, historically the most politically conservative government entity, recognizes the threat climate change poses to national security: military.com/daily-news/2017/06/02/trump-may-doubt-climate-change-pentagon-sees-it-looming-threat.html
Since the threat is so dire, discussion of it belongs on an investing website. It is most certainly a long-term risk to the financial markets, so much so that the CEO of the world's largest money manager, BlackRock's Larry Fink, considers addressing it one of his priorities: https://fnlondon.com/articles/goldman-and-blackrock-chiefs-lead-finances-revolt-on-trumps-climate-call-20170602
You may disagree with the tactics used by the EDF, but historically government and corporate leaders haven't addressed long-term issues like climate change effectively because they are compensated by short-term results. So cooperation may not be as effective as holding their feet to the fire via lawsuits. In any case the notion that such matters aren't worthy of discussion on an investment site is absurd. It will affect everyone's investments, even short-term via regulation globally or the lack thereof locally.

FYI: Did you notice that your toe doesn’t hurt because you didn’t stub it today?
We tend to pay the closest attention to things when they’re going badly, and the same is true of the stock market. When stocks crashed during the financial crisis in 2008, phone lines for financial advisers and 401(k) providers were jammed with panicky investors. Now stocks are at record highs, and the market is tranquil. It’s easy to feel comfortable leaving your account on autopilot.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/08/03/401k-accounts-booming-what-should-investors-do/