Hi Dale, That seems to be a very important questions these days. The reason it is "important", in my opinion, is because of Marketing. Two things to remember: 1) You get what you pay for. 2) People do what they are compensated to do. The primary reason
...(more)
Hi Dale, That seems to be a very important questions these days. The reason it is "important", in my opinion, is because of Marketing. Two things to remember: 1) You get what you pay for. 2) People do what they are compensated to do. The primary reason for the emphasis on "low fees" is that "low fee fund providers" make money when people choose to buy their fund over another. These low fee funds do not pay commissions to the licenses broker(who is expected to advise you) therefore you are not getting guidance because you aren't paying for it. This is fine for highly educated, experienced investors. There is no need in paying for what you do not need. On the other hand, maybe you do. I am in favor of using low cost investment and hiring an advisor that works for you on a transparent, tangible-fee basis. How much is too much? You decide based on what your needs are. Do not be fooled into thinking low cost is better just because the people that sell "low fee" investment tell you they are better. Concentrate on "good value versus bad value" not "cheap versus expensive". Using a Fee-based advisor allows you to know and control exactly what you are paying for based on what your needs are. If your situation requires a lot resources, you will pay more(I charge 2% annually, but use stocks and low expense ETF's and do not charge commissions). If you require less, you should pay less(I do not charge a fee to simply hold assets). To summarize, there are threedesirable components of asset management: Performance, Service, and Low Cost. You can only pick two and have them consistantly delivered. "Low Fees" are not everything.
hide