Beware - Horror stories

4 Posts in this category
Posted By: CFP&WM On: Aug 7th, 2009 In: Beware - Horror stories My soap box Comments: 0

High Rate CD Offer with Strings Attached

I recently had a newspaper clipping mailed to me by a client.  It was an advertisement for a high yielding CD, safe, FDIC insured, etc. After reviewing the “fine print,” we found that it was an introductory offer of 5% for 3 months and no mention of the rates after that.  There was a $10,000 maximum limit as well.  We also found that you could only get a CD after a financial meeting with one of this annuity company’s sales associates!

After calculating the costs to the company, we found that it was cheaper for them to pay this interest short-term than to pay for a dinner presentation, workshop, and marketing services.  It was just another way of paying to get clients in front of their sales associates.  The concept is similar to the free vacation/time share selling.

Be aware of any offer that has strings attached like this one.  Sometimes that dangling carrot is there for a reason and it is not for your benefit.  It could land you in a less than favorable situation that is difficult to get out of.

Posted By: CFP&WM On: Jun 24th, 2009 In: Beware - Horror stories General info Investing My soap box Comments: 0

Reasons to Avoid Financial Advice At a Bank

In the good old days a bank was a bank. It was where you deposited your paycheck, had a savings account and got a car loan. Laws were changed (due to heavy lobbying by the banks) to allow them to sell investment and insurance.

Most banks now have a subsidiary company/partner that is a Broker Dealer (BD) and the financial advisors at the branches are employees of the BD.

Here are some reasons why it may not be in your best interest to buy investments from a bank.

1. All financial advisors in the banks have a legal loyalty to their employer not the client. They do not have a responsibility to disclose conflicts of interest, or to do what is in the client’s best interest. The only two requirements are to “know your customer” and provide products that “are suitable”. Suitable does not mean what is “best” long for the client but could be what is best for the bank.

2. Banks are publicly traded companies who answer to Wall Street. The Board of directors and CEO’s are charged with increasing stock value for the shareholders. The Board sets policy, which affects the products that can be offered for sale and what not to sell. Would it surprise you that they are more likely to approve high commission products and encourage sales?

3. Banks are under tremendous pressure to fatten up the bottom line. Increasing profits from the sale of investments and insurance is a quick way to do that in this low interest rate environment and that many banks must begin the repayment of the federal bailout money with interest. There is a lot of pressure to increase income. This can lead to the sale of products with higher commissions as well as inappropriate sales which is may not to be beneficial to the customer

4. Allowing investments to be sold in a bank has resulted in confusion for many clients. One client reported going to her bank to acquire a CD. When she expressed disappointment at the low rate she was directed to a financial adviser who sold her an Equity Index Annuity, which provided the bank and a representative with the commission of up to 7%. The client was not aware that she could not get all her money back without penalty for 10 years. The lady was 83 at the time.

5. There is a higher average turnover of financial advisers in banks then elsewhere. This can result in dealing with less experienced salespeople or those that have not been successful elsewhere.

6. The integrity and ethics of some banks can be questioned.

a. Wells Fargo was recently sued by the State of California for selling investments to clients as being safe when there was risk and failing to disclose the inherent risk. Other banks did the same thing but at least provided some form of restitution.

b. Bank of America was sued for involvement in a Ponzi scheme.

c. Bank of America sued for not disclosing the true facts related to the purchase of Merrill Lynch that resulted in the Government granting BoA 20 Billion and later to guarantee another 90+ billion.

d. Several banks recently went bankrupt due to poor management with the changes in the economy.

e. U.S. government’s stress tests results revealed that nine out of the 19 banks tested do not need additional capital including; B of A. wells Fargo and Citicorp

In reality, many of the same situations exist when dealing with for-profit corporations such as Morgan Stanley, Edward Jones, Smith Barney and other of broker-dealers.

A better option would be to use the services of a Registered Investment Advisor (RIA) who does not sell product. RIA’s have a legal fiduciary duty to disclose potential conflict of interest and to keep the clients interest foremost at all times. When there are no sales of product and no commission, there is no worry.

Posted By: CFP&WM On: May 22nd, 2009 In: Beware - Horror stories General info My soap box Comments: 0

Suze Orman: The Good, the Bad, But the Never Ugly

Okay, so I modified the title of a Clint Eastwood movie, but it sort of fits.

Her books are top sellers, she is often on TV, she markets “kits” to help, and she is seemingly everywhere so we all know that she is an attractive lady (certainly never ugly). 

Everyone knows Suze Orman but many do not know her background. She went from being a waitress in Berkeley (1973), to becoming an account executive (stock broker) at Merrill Lynch. She then moved to Prudential Bache Securities in1983 and in 1987 opened her own company Suze Orman Financial Group. She stepped down in 1997 as head of her firm to work on her books, appearances and other products.

“The Good” about Suze is that she raises the public’s perception as to the importance of making good financial decisions such as, not overspending, proper use of credit, having a good credit score, mitigating risk properly, having your affairs in order, investing for the future and on and on.

“The Bad” about Suzie is that she is still a sales person. Rather than “selling” stocks and bonds (when she was an employee of a broker dealer) it is now books and kits. (Go to http://www.suzeorman.com/and take a look there is seemingly something for everyone.) The issue I have is that her “one-size fits all” approach does not fit all and could in fact hurt some folks.

On her website, Suze said “If you are at least 20 years away from retirement, I think having 80% or more of your money in stocks makes sense. If you are within 10 years of retirement, you might want to keep 30% in stocks with the rest in bonds.” I am sorry, but that is just plain WRONG! One’s asset allocation should be based on your risk tolerance, your risk capacity and your goals (which include the time frame). This one size approach will negatively impact many people.

In her “Wills and Trusts Kit” where she says the kit contains “all the estate planning documents you need”. “It’s like having your own financial planner and personal trust attorney at your finger tips” Neither of these statements is true. It’s the kind of language that salespeople use to hype their product and for those that are buying the kit I’m sure it sounds good.

In the kit, she states that the information provided is of general nature and for specific advice see your attorney. Yet the CD allows the buyer to produce legal documents, which to me is very specific.  The instructions also say to take the forms that are produced to your attorney for review. Yeah, like that’s going to happen.

By the way on the “test” forms that were produced for me, the notary block on each document were incorrect for California and it would be illegal for a notary to notarize such a document.

On balance, the good of increasing the public’s awareness to the importance of financial planning over whelms the bad associated with her “one-size fits all” sales approach and she is pleasant to look at.

Posted By: CFP&WM On: May 20th, 2009 In: Beware - Horror stories Cash-flow budgeting My soap box Taxes Comments: 0

Biggest Ponzi Scheme Ever

For 39 of the past 40 years the US government was allowed deficit spending. Our federal government is providing us with more services than we are paying for. The difference (the deficit) is made up by the US selling more Government Bonds that will be paid in the future by later tax payers.

By definition A Ponzi scheme is an operation that pays returns to current investors (tax payers) from the money paid by subsequent investors (our kids and grandkids). It usually offers returns that other investments cannot guarantee (living above our means).

 The 2008 deficit was:

  • $12 Trillion current liabilities
  • $ 7 Trillion unfunded Social Security obligations
  • $34 Trillion unfunded Medicare obligations
  • $ 1 Trillion miscellaneous (federal insurance, loan guarantees, leases)

$53 trillion is what the Federal Government currently owes and translates to:

  • $184,000 per person living in the US
  • $435,000 per full-time worker
  • $483,000 per household

Just for perspective a trillion is 1,000,000,000,000 or one million million

To get a better perspective go to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_TjBNjc9Bo

Or rent the CD “I.O.U.S.A”

It is all very sobering!

Mike Chamberlain