@little5bee: The doctor is in the house ! I hope everyone who has been on the MFO Discussion Board for any length of time owns a health care fund. If they don't, they've lost a lot of money !
Regards,
Ted
The Principles Of Faith-Based Investing
Finny Kurvilla, Manager , Eventide Healthcare & Life Sciences
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/videos/2015-07-08/the-principles-behind-faith-based-investing

@Charles: "adviser may receive compensation from the fund company for selling its products. " Why do you think American Funds are #1.
Regards,
Ted

Some more factoids, from Felix Salmon (no longer at Reuters), re. the Puerto Rican situation:
http://fusion.net/story/159325/the-tragedy-of-puerto-rico-americas-very-own-greece/
@msf Yes, it looks like your initial assessment, differentiating lenders' exposures (currently, and recent past), still looks pretty solid.

Here's another pretty biting commentary on EJ from Motely Fool...
Can Your Edward Jones Financial Advisor Really Serve Your Best Interests?
But the worst of EJ remains here:
Edward Jones Saga

Latest commentary on 2Q results and discussion on upcoming funds.
Global Micro Cap will have a capacity of $25M. It sounds like it will close on its first day of business which will be by the end of year. Fund will focus on companies between $50M - $350M. Fund will be offered to existing GP fundholders first. Maybe they ought to implement a lottery system to purchase fund shares on its first day of trading :)
http://www.grandeurpeakglobal.com/documents/pdfs/grandeurpeakglobalfunds-comm-20150630.pdf

When I have been asked about various investment products or vendors, I always attempt to get these "folks" to do their own work/research, too.
Too many friends/relatives I have talked with over the years are too lazy; in spite of the fact that they were good enough to have saved monies to invest and that expressing to them that you worked hard for this money and this money should work hard for you going forward, they don't even want to ask some simple questions about how much of their invested monies with vendor "x" would be their NET return.
A recent example is brothers (beneficiaries) whose mother passed away and the account was evenly split into active accounts from this money for the brothers. None of the investment holdings were changed; the "advisor" only sent letters showing the investments and values once each month. The advisor never sent an introduction letter explaining his fees or methods for "deciding" what would be proper investment areas.
Four of the 5 brothers have kept their accounts in place. One asked for the account to be closed and the monies be moved into a credit union account to be used or invested as desired. I asked about the management fee and what discussion had taken place as to whether the investments for the remaining 4 brothers was suitable to and for them.
They, of course; didn't know. Apparently the advisor fee is 1% of total account value, transaction fees(?) and they're not sure how to decide about investment areas and remain at the "whim" of the advisor. Two of these folks are very "tight" with their spending habits (stuff on sale, coupons for grocery shopping, etc.), but won't take the time and the infomation offered via the internet to get an "idea" of what to do. Guessing their time is limited after clipping coupons.
Example two is for 2 young men (25-30 y.o.) I encountered a few years ago. They worked for an insurance company and were selling their products and approached me. They briefly explained this and that. I asked about a variable annuity (no life insurance frills, etc.) offering and whether they had a cost/fee schedule in plain wording. Well, no........but............ I explained (all I knew about from the top of my head) that I was aware of a variable annuity product from Fidelity that allowed for investments in 57 active managed mutual funds and that my cost would be the E.R. of the mutual fund, plus an annual fee of .25%. How do your similar products measure against this? Well, they were not able to provide any data of value. I am sure they wanted their foot inside my money door to "help" me with their products. But, for every one of me; there will be 99 others with few questions and these 2 salesmen likely will sell something to a few of them.
Lastly, one could hope for a "plain black on white", 1 page form of all expenses one will encounter doing business with person "x" for investment product "y".
One hopes that enough folks with needs and help in this area happen to have a decent person hold their hand through an investment process. I do not begrude anyone "making a living" with helping folks with their investments. It is indeed a special area of knowledge that too few folks have any clue.
I suspect many here field questions about investments, from friends and family.
I/we, at this house, are glad we are a tiny bit smart in this area; and have the "devil's advocate" questions at the ready. One can not expect the proper answer without the proper question.
Just my inflation adjusted 2 cents worth of jabber.
Catch

The only way I can see the figures in the article adding up is if these families own a huge amount of zeros. That's because it says the two families own a combined $10.8B in face amount, currently valued at $4.1B = $2.6B (Oppenheimer) + $1.5B (Franklin) (graphic).
That's under 40% of par value. My spot check on EMMA shows just a few interest bearing bonds trading at below 40% of par (around 35%). More typical was 50%-60% for the lowest grade bonds traded in the past week (confirming the article saying much of the debt is trading at 50-70% of par), with some in the 90%-100% range.
So they must be holding an awful lot of zeros. (Doesn't seem like a way that bond funds would spike current yield, though.)
The article says that "Calif.-based Franklin managed to cut its holdings by 35% to $3.4 billion from $5.2 billion [since June 2013]." It says that Oppenheimer stood pat at roughly $7.4B face value. (So Oppenheimer holds 70% face value of their combined $10.8B holdings. Franklin is at best a baby elephant in the room.)
Bloomberg seems to think differently, at least over the past 15 months (Feb 2014 to May 2015). It confirms that Franklin has been paring its holdings (as have most major holders), but Oppenheimer increased its holdings by about $1B (market value), i.e. 20%, over that period.
Bloomberg also reports that the market value of Oppenheimer's holdings as of May 2015 (vs. March 2015 for WSJ) is $5.5B (vs. WSJ figure of $2.6B). If you believe everyone's figures, then Oppenheimer has doubled down over the past two months.
Call it confirmation bias, but I'm inclined to believe Bloomberg. It confirms what I have been writing - there's a big difference between Oppenheimer and Franklin. Only one of them has been reckless.

FYI: According to the 2015 Advisor Brandscape report from Cogent Reports, across 10 leading brand attributes, the extent to which advisers trust an asset manager has the greatest impact on whether or not they will consider investing with that company in the future. Cogent Reports also found that the impact of trust exceeds that of more traditional purchase drivers such as perceptions of reliability, consistency of performance, or information and guidance.
“It’s clear from these findings that even some of the biggest asset managers still have their work cut out for them in building greater trust among RIAs,” said Meredith Lloyd Rice, senior research director and lead author at Market Strategies, in a news release.
Following are the 10 mutual funds advisers trust most.
Regards,
Ted
1. American Funds
2. Franklin Templeton
3. BlackRock Funds
4. Vanguard
5. Fidelity Investments/Advisor Funds
6. OppenheimerFunds
7. MFS Investment Management
8. T. Rowe Price
9. First Eagle
10. Dimensional Fund Advisors
From Cogent Webslite:
Across four of the five primary retail distribution channels, American Funds, Franklin Templeton and BlackRock are the most trusted brands. However, among RIAs only, American Funds remains in the top three, trailing Vanguard and DFA.
“It’s clear from these findings that even some of the biggest asset managers still have their work cut out for them in building greater trust among RIAs,” said Rice. “But with so much focus on this increasingly important channel, we expect nothing less than an all-out effort to win that trust.”

FYI: Apple Inc. should provide a boost to stocks this week.
Regards,
Ted
http://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2015/07/20/morning-moneybeat-apple-to-push-tech-earnings-into-positive-territory/tab/print/
Cuirent Futures: (Positive)
http://finviz.com/futures.ashx

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search) This is a follow-up article.
Hedge funds are known as heavy buyers of Puerto Rico bonds, but as the U.S. commonwealth works to restructure about $72 billion in debt, it is a pair of mutual-fund firms that may take the lead in negotiations.
OppenheimerFunds Inc. and Franklin Advisers Inc. together owned about $10.8 billion face amount of bonds, representing 15% of Puerto Rico’s debt as of March 31, according to The Wall Street Journal’s analysis of data from Morningstar Inc.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=mutual+funds+are+front+and+center+in+puerto+rico+talks+wsj

FYI: While we believe that markets are generally efficient, it would be shortsighted not to acknowledge the irrational behavior markets sometimes exhibit in the short term.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.etf.com/sections/etf-strategist-corner/3-questions-investors-worry-too-much-about?nopaging=1

While some have been selling their gold holdings old_skeet has been building a position in SGGDX while gold's price is back of $1250.00 an ounce; and, by my research this is below its all in cost to mine. Time will tell if building this position is prudent.

msf,
My EJ quote was not from you but Charles.
Most 1% advisers I know, from small ones in Wisconsin to big ones like Edelman, and maybe even Fido, do include (at least via initial questionnaire plus periodic review) planning for big purchases / expenditures / needs / child education / emergency savings yada.

Generally, believe that the days when financial advisers could get 1% for portfolio management of four or five mutual funds are rapidly fading.
c

Here, we're not only in complete agreement, but I may have been a step ahead (more critical) than you. I've told people for a long time that the typical one percent-ish fee strikes me as reasonable if it includes solid financial planning, considering all assets (not just AUM) and detailed needs (extended travel, major home repairs/renovation, college, BMW purchases, whatever).
1% for a few funds (or to put you in one of a half dozen "model portfolios")? Are you kidding?

revenue sharing taken from above; According to my 401-k it's returned to the investor to reduce fees. Also for those that itemize their taxes don't for get to add in adviser fees.
Have a good week, derf

What I wrote is pretty much a one-line summary of the CR study; I think that serves as substantiation.
Chuck acknowledges that the free advice you get is limited by asking: "Do you need more customized advice or additional help with your financial situation? A personalized investment plan that’s created and implemented for you by a team of professionals could be the answer. " Schwab Private Client service.
So there's more advice that you're not getting right now. But you do need to pay up for it. And give him $500K to invest. As you noted, Schwab offers a variety of these services (this one is a bit cheaper - 0.90% for equities, 0.70% for bonds).
The knock on Schwab's robo manager (Intelligent Portfolios) is that they're making their money off of the cash they allocate to your portfolio. Ted posted an article to that effect in this thread:
Schwab 'Robo-Adviser' Bets Big On Cash And 'Smart' Beta
Here's a column estimating Schwab's take (mostly from the cash allocation, but also from using their own investment products) at around 1% - about what you'd get charged for most of the services discussed in this thread.
https://www.hedgeable.com/blog/2015/02/schwab-intelligent-portfolios-review/
"Regrettably, this promising program has turned out to be a lot of smoke and mirrors."
You may be thinking that I'm leading up to saying that the "free" advice you're getting is neither free nor advice. I'm pretty close to that, but not quite there :-)
The name of the game with financial institutions is asset retention. If they can give you something of value (limited advice) at little cost to them, and get you to keep assets there, they win. The advice they're providing has value, apparently enough for your purposes. And they're not charging you, but writing it off as a cost of business (asset retention).
If it works for you, great. When you pay, at EJ or with Chuck, you should be expecting more. At least Chuck gives you a money back guarantee.

Good discussion everyone.
OK. I thought that front-loads were paid to financial planners, brokers, investment advisors as sales commissions.
So, in this case, I thought EJ would pocket the front load on the AF (or any other loaded) fund they sold to their clients.
If that is not the case, then I stand corrected and my fear in this case unrealized.
Generally, believe that the days when financial advisers could get 1% for portfolio management of four or five mutual funds are rapidly fading.
c

Got rid of a slug of GLD about 18 months ago that I inherited 30 months ago. Lost 20% in value in those intervening months, have made it up since then in various small cap stocks, but it wasn't easy. Recently also sold some gold coins; they kept going down in value. All the political instability which in previous periods kept the value up was not working this time around. Sometimes "this time is different" actually is true :)

Seems you can pay what you want to pay for advisers. From what I've heard, not substantiated, Edward Jones is one outfit that costs clients a lot more for their benefit, not yours.
My Schwab experience tells me CS has at least a half dozen different options for portfolio management. Most are around the 1% range. Some of what they offer is free such as the robo or the 'Perfect Portfolio' option at 0% advisory expenses. Yes, they put your money mostly into Schwab ETFs, but what do I care. I chose this option with part of my money plus a managed option in Windhaven with a .9% advisory charge. My local adviser has sat down with me 4 times since last August to advise and explain options, not sell. We have a local office here for Fidelity too, and I'm guessing they would not be much different then Schwab. But I'm happy with my CS decision.
msf said:

I'm not suggesting that the advice provided wasn't sound, just that free advice is generally limited in both scope and quality.

This comment is unsubstantiated and not my experience. My wife actually has here IRA with an independent adviser. She likes and trusts him so that part is great. But I can see he offers no more than my Charles Schwab adviser.

Right. VIG is fine. Just depends which vehicle one likes better.
As for the fee of .20% vs. .10%, from what I understand, the existence of "front running" by traders adds a hidden but very real cost to any index etf -- a cost of maybe .2% or more per annum. So truly, the old fashioned open end fund -- at .20% -- may be cheaper.
However, the actual results over the past 5 years show an annualized advantage to VIG of right around .1% exactly -- hmmmm.
another good alternative: SCHD.