Should you invest with a kid?

I recently read a fairly disturbing article in American Way Magazine entitled "The Kid."

It's about a 21 year old college student running an investment club called the "Shark Fund."

The disturbing part is that he is investing his fellow student's money and producing
 
"an eye-popping 341 percent return since its inception." 

(the author makes no suggestion that perhaps there is some serious risk attached to such a strategy) Am I suggesting that because he's young, his efforts have no merit?
 
Certainly not.  This tidbit, however, gives me serious pause:
 
One of the highlights of Suleiman’s life: meeting (Jim) Cramer at a taping of the show at the CNBC studios in Englewood Cliffs, N.J. 
“Here’s a legend with a $100 million contract with CNBC, who doesn’t need to give me the time of day, and he’s taking the time to talk to me about stocks,”  
Suleiman says, still amazed. “He told me, ‘Keep going, kid, and don’t give up, because you’ve got something special.’ That moment really stuck with me.”

 
Seriously?  Is he the only person in America who hasn't seen this video?
 
And the sadly misinformed author of the article says this:
 
He has passed the milestone of a 300 percent fund gain, a tripling of cash that would have even market legends like Legg Mason’s Bill Miller — famous for beating the stock- market average for 15 straight years — green with envy.
 
In actuality, It's not taking much these days to make Bill Miller envious.  As reported in the Wall Street Journal,
 
"A year ago, his Value Trust fund had $16.5 billion under management. Now, after losses and redemptions, it has assets of $4.3 billion,  
according to Morningstar Inc. Value Trust's investors have lost 58% of their money over the past year, 20 percentage points worse than the decline 
on the Standard & Poor's 500 stock index.  These losses have wiped away Value Trust's years of market-beating performance.  
The fund is now among the worst-performing in its class for the last one-, three-, five- and 10-year periods, according to Morningstar."

There is also no record of him or his company having registered as an investment adviser with either the SEC or any state.

 That means that if he loses all of his classmate's money through dangerous, reckless, and inappropriate investments, they have no recourse.  

He also cannot legally charge a fee until he does register.  I wonder if he knows that?

 He does have a website, though, that gives the impression that he's looking for more investors...

The article does offer one sage piece of advice:
 
 “Be very careful,” advises Jim Rogers, co-founder (with George Soros) of the legendary Quantum Fund ...  
“There’s nothing more dangerous than big successes in the market when one first begins.”
 
Good advice.
 
"The man who thinks he knows something does not yet know as he ought to know."
-- 1 Corinthians 8:2

Filed under  //

Comments [0]

Is your adviser a Russian spy?

As if investors need anything else to worry about these days, news recently surfaced that one of the ten recently deported Russian spies was a financial adviser.

"Indeed, for the past 13 years, Ms. Murphy, whose real name is Lydia Guryev, worked as an adviser at Morea Financial Services Inc. in New York, where she reportedly earned an annual salary of $135,000. She was also a certified financial planner and a member of the New York chapter of the Financial Planning Association."

I guess it shouldn't be too surprising that the financial industry attracts more than its share of greed and corruption.

Read the whole story

"People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction."

-- 1 Timothy 6:9

Filed under  //

Comments [0]

Will the real Paul Farrell please stand up?

In his most recent installment of doom and gloom financial pornography, Paul Farrell writes:

Warning:  Crash dead ahead.  Sell.  Get Liquid.  Now.

Fascinating.

Particularly when you consider these excerpts from his book, The Lazy Person's Guide to Investing:

"The only solution is to be in the market all the time and stop jumping in and out." 

"Never try to time the market; it's too much of a gamble." 

"The market is totally random, irrational, and unpredictable." 

"Greed triggers a buying frenzy at the top of a cycle. Fear creates a selling panic at the bottom. Investors lose both ways."

and the kicker.... wait for it....

"The more I know, the more I know I just don't know, and neither does anyone else."

Another book by Paul Farrell:

The New Money A$trology Success Formulas

 

 

Filed under  //

Comments [0]

But what if something happens to you?

I occasionally get the question: "but what if something happens to you?"

Meaning, if I die or become incapacitated, where will my clients turn for help?

This question is often planted by brokers to imply that because they are employed by a big firm, their clients have a built-in succession plan (brokerage firms stand ready with a replacement, but a "court-appointed" broker typically isn't the type that is sought after).

So, here's the answer:  If I die or become incapacitated, you'll have to find a new financial planner.  Just like if your doctor dies, you'll have to find a new doctor.  Or, if your attorney dies, you'll have to find a new attorney.

A better question to ask yourself is:  "if my broker bails to another firm, do I want to be in the middle of a signing bonus quarrel while each party's attorneys squabble over who I belong to?"

If you are my client, you don't belong to me.  You've trusted me with the privilege of working hard on your behalf.  You are free to leave any time and I hope that the quality of my work acknowledges that I don't take you for granted.

Alas, if you must have a backup plan, here it is:


"Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful."
-- 1 Corinthians 4:2

For more on the "big v. solo" issue, read these related posts:
Small is the new big.  Solo is the new small and The power of one.

Filed under  //

Comments [0]

Why the broker fiduciary battle ultimately won't matter

A quiet battle has been going on recently regarding the "broker exemption" to the rule requiring investment advisers to adhere to a fiduciary standard of care with their clients.

The Investment adviser act, a more than sixty-year old piece of legislation, requires registered investment advisers to give advice that is "solely in the best interest of their clients."

Broker-dealer firms are exempted from this requirement and are instead subject to a "suitability" standard of care (ie, unless an investment is ultimately deemed "unsuitable," the broker has fulfilled his legal role, even if, for example, the investment lines his pockets more than another, perhaps, more suitable investment).  

A grassroots effort has emerged within several of the financial planning community's trade organizations to lobby legislation that would "level the playing field," eliminating the broker exemption and requiring all financial practitioners to adhere to a fiduciary standard.  If I haven't just lost you to a fit of narcolepsy, you can read more in this article.

While I support and applaud the effort, l don't believe legislation is required to bring about the desired change to the industry.

Why?

Because the change is happening now and is inevitable, with or without legislation.  The solution is not a fiduciary standard of care.  Who defines what is "solely in the best interest of a client" anyway?

If you asked ten different financial practitioners, you would probably get ten different answers, in the same way that ten different cardiac specialists might diagnose and treat a heart patient's condition in ten different ways.

The real issue is that financial institutions manufacture, distribute, and recommend investment products to the public in an environment of "information asymmetry."  This is not unlike the day long ago when many doctors both wrote and filled prescriptions.

A fiduciary standard won't change the fact that a gross conflict of interest exists when an entity serves as both the producer and recommender/endorser of a product, particularly when that product is one that is complicated and misunderstood by most lay people.

But here's the good news:
  • An alternative exists, namely independent, fee-only investment advisers operating solely in the realm of financial advice, away from the product manufacturing side of the industry.
  • There is an increasing supply of advisers who operate this way as more and more practitioners become disgusted with the industry and start their own practices.
  • There is an increasing demand for these advisers as consumers look for and find the alternative that serves solely their interests.
  • The internet allows both parties to leverage technology and spread the word "virally," causing the new financial order to spread quickly.
Now the bad news:

If you are a financial institution, you need to quickly decide whether you want to be the doctor (advice-giver), the pharmaceutical company (product manufacturer), or the pharmacist (distributor) in this equation and act accordingly (and quickly).  Because the day that you can egregiously "serve" the public in more than one of these roles is disappearing fast.

Filed under  //

Comments [0]