I see people every day that make absolutely horrible financial decisions and using an adviser would at least get them to stop making horrible decisions, even if the new decisions they make are not the absolute best.hawk, You're merely echoing what Dalbar themselves discovered, that advised money typically did better than self-directed money. But read the report and look carefully at the numbers. The difference is very slight, not even half the improvement one would expect, nor one tenth of what those advisees need. In other words, self-directed or advised, both groups --on average-- failed to achieve their benchmarks. All introducing an advisers into their decision-making did was allow chronic losers to have someone to blame for their own stupidity. Yeah. "In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king." But having two eyes and using them effectively is preferable. Not "perfect', but certainly preferable. Again, step back and look at the "ecology" of investing. Wall Street doesn't want informed, effective investors, nor do the public schools, nor, really, does the SEC, nor the mutual fund companies. So what you see is by intent. The foxes and wolves like things just as they are, with plenty of stupid investors from whom to pluck fees. Charlie
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra