Choosing the “right” NAPFA advisor, and whether fees are fair, etc.?
Some sample prices for straightforward pay-for-hours-or-deliverables planners: I think I've seen some similar rates elsewhere, too. I'd feel like you might get something perfunctory and boilerplate for too much less than $1000 - how could the person afford to spend much time? - and I'd feel like lots more than $1000 for just a standard straightforward plan might be a ripoff. Basically you're paying $1000 for a day or two of work, you don't want just a couple hours of work, but you don't need a week of work either. Anyway, extracting the general guideline (since prices may vary regionally or over time), you could figure it takes a day or two to do a decent job on a basic complete financial plan without a lot of complexities in it. From there you can decide what's fair, adding or subtracting time if you need less than a complete plan or have complex issues. This is assuming you're paying for time and deliverables, which is not a given. The biggest factor in how much you pay is probably how they charge; a couple of the most common models, (There are other models but these are the ones I've seen most.) The difference between these two models is a lot of money over time. Hourly is going to be much cheaper, because it's a one-time cost instead of ongoing, and unrelated to what you have in assets. However, you won't get investment management, which can be valuable if you aren't the kind to stick to an investment plan or you want someone else to completely take care of it for you. The investment-management planners have the potential to make a lot more money (and are more likely to be in it for the money). Hourly planners don't really have as good a business from a business owner's perspective, but they are cheaper from a customer perspective, as long as you're happy to DIY a bit. One thing I like about hourly planners is that I don't really feel investments are the main place planners can add value, so it makes me nervous to have the compensation based on that. Insurance, estate planning, taxes, etc. are where it's harder for a layperson to know all the ins and outs and DIY. From what I've seen, the cheapest planners are the ones that you can get free or discounted from companies like USAA or Vanguard if you have an account with them. However, they will only recommend products from the company in question, so that's a downside, and you probably won't get to meet them in person. This question may be useful too: What exactly can a financial advisor do for me, and is it worth the money? The nature of this question (finding a financial adviser) can make it a conundrum. Those who have little financial experience are often in the greatest need of a financial adviser and at the same time are the least qualified to select one. I'm not putting you or anyone in particular in this category. And of course it's a sliding scale: In general the more capable you are of running your own finances the more prepared you are to answer this question. With that said, I would recommend backing up half a step. Consider advisers other than strictly fee-only advisers. Perhaps you have already considered this decision. But perhaps others reading this have not. My (Ameriprise) adviser charges a monthly (~$50) fee, but also gets percentage-based portions of certain investments. Based on a $150/hr rate that amounts to four hours per year. Does he spend four hours per year on my account? Well so far he does (~2 yrs). But that is determined primarily by how much interaction I choose to have with him. (I suppose I could spend more time asking him questions and less time on this forum. :P) I have never fully understood the gravitation towards fee-based advisers on principle. I guess the theory is they are not making biased decisions about your investments because they don't have as much of a stake in how well your investments to do. I don't necessarily see that as an advantage. It seems they would have less of an incentive to ensure the growth of your investments. Although if you're nearing retirement then growth isn't your biggest concern. Perhaps a fee-based adviser makes more sense in that scenario. Whatever pay structure your adviser uses, it would seem to make sense to consider a successful adviser with a good client base. This implies that the adviser knows what he/she is doing. (But it could also just be a sign that they are good at marketing themselves.) If your adviser has a good base of wealthy clients then choosing a strictly-fee based adviser would mitigate the risk of your adviser having less incentive to consider your portfolio vs that of more wealthy clients. To more directly answer your question I suggest asking several of your adviser candidates for advice on choosing an adviser. I suspect you will get some good advice as well as good insight on the integrity and honesty of the adviser. Usually your best bet for this sort of thing is to look for referrals from people you trust. If you have a lawyer or other trusted advisor, ask them.
Well, what I would do would be to read every journalist's article on the subject, every academic paper, and the appropriate chapters from the CFA curriculum. I'd write down everyone's name (authors and those mentioned) and then email call them for advice. I'd try to find out who those players are, what their specific philosophies are, and then find someone i thought was really smart, had an investment philosophy that I agreed with, wasn't a dick, and then I would call them.   By the way, Warren Buffett went to Columbia to learn specifically under Ben Graham. Prior to graduation, Buffett said he'd like to work at Graham Newman for free, such was the value of the education. Benjamin Graham told him (Warren), he wasn't worth that much.   You or I literally have nothing to offer these guys that they can't get somewhere else (smarts, hard work, etc) for better. I'd be humble, attentive, and humble (did I say that already). There's an intellectual honesty that comes with admitting you don't know anything (but are willing to learn) that is very much important.  That's what I would do. Did any of that help? Thanks for the huge insight. I am still a student doing an intern and this was given as my first task, more of trying to give the IA another perspective looking at these funds rather than picking. I was not given the investors preference in terms of return and risk tolerances so it was really open-ended.   However, thanks so much for the quick response. At least now I have a better idea of what I am going to deliver or at least try to show to the IA. In addition to a fee-only advisor, brought up by dg99, you could consider asking your questions on message boards such as Bogleheads.org. I have found the advice amazing, obviously conflict-free, and free. If liquidity and cost are your primary objectives, Vanguard is indeed a good bet.  They are the walmart of finance and the absolute best at minimizing fees and other expenses. Your main portfolio holding should be VTI, the total stock market fund.  Highly liquid and has the lowest fees out there at 0.05%.  You can augment this with a world-minus-US fund if you want.  No need to buy sector or specific geography funds when you can get the whole market for less. Add some bond funds and alternative investments (but not too much) if you want to be fully diversified. I've addressed some of the problems with the new fiduciary rule in other threads, but basically no one is arguing that advisors shouldn't be fiduciaries. Of course they should, and the vast majority do. What this rule effectively does is simply alter the way that advisors are compensated on retirement assets such as 401(k)'s, by forcing them to hold these assets in RIA accounts. This is not necessarily in the best interest of the client. (Yes I am aware of the Best Interest Contract Exemption, or BICE.) Perhaps more importantly, these types of regulations should be handled by one of the already existing regulator bodies, the SEC or FINRA. To bring in the DOL as a third regulatory body is a bit redundant to say the least.  I think a far easier solution (in concept, at least) is that any FINRA registered advisor (which is basically all advisors aside from pure insurance agents) should be held to the Fiduciary standard and not simply the Suitability standard I don't know what you mean by 'major'. Do you mean the fund company is a Fidelity or Vanguard, or that the fund is broad, as in an s&P fund?  The problem starts with a question of what your goals are. If you already know the recommended mix for your age/risk, as you stated, you should consider minimizing the expenses, and staying DIY. I am further along, and with 12 year's income saved, a 1% hit would be 12% of a year's pay, I'd be working 1-1/2 months to pay the planner?  In effect, you are betting that a planner will beat whatever metric you consider valid by at least that 1% fee, else you can just do it yourself and be that far ahead of the game.  I've accepted the fact that I won't beat the average (as measured by the S&P) over time, but I'll beat the average investor. By staying in low cost funds (my 401(k) S&P fund charges .05% annual expense) I'll be ahead of the investors paying planner fees, and mutual fund fees on top of that. You don't need to be a CFP to manage your money, but it would help you understand the absurdity of the system. Yes, maybe for themselves, but for you that depends on quite a number of things. But not all advisors are scum, but accept the fact that you are their cash cow and you are there for their takings. Some advisors are true to their professions and advise ethically, trying to get the best for their clients. So search for a good advisor rather than a cheap one. And regarding the mortgage you are talking about, the mortgage provider and the mortgage taker don't deal directly, but use their solicitors. Every party wants the least of legal hassles for their transactions and get the best legal help. The financial advisor maybe both rolled into one or he has legal practitioners in his firm who would do the legal job after he takes care of the financial matters. Seems a cost effective workshop. Zero. Zero is reasonable. That's what Schwab offers with a low minimum to open the IRA.  The fact is, you'll have expenses for the investments, whether a commission on stock purchase or ongoing expense of a fund or ETF. But, in my opinion, .25% is criminal. An S&P fund or ETF will have a sub-.10% expense. To spend .25% before any other fees are added is just wrong. I can't speak about the UK, but here in the US, 1% is on the cheap side for professional management.  For example Fidelity will watch your portfolio for that very amount.  I doubt you could claim that they took advantage of her for charging that kind of fee. Given that this is grandma's money, no consultation with the family is necessary. Perhaps she did have dementia at the time of investment, but she was not diagnosed at the time.  If a short time has past between the investment and the diagnosis, I would contact the investment company with the facts.  I would ask (very nicely) that they refund the fee, however, I doubt they under obligation to do so. While I do encourage you to seek legal council, there does not seem to be much of substance to your claim.  The fees are very ordinary or even cheap, and no diagnosis precluded decision making at the time of investment. "No, I do not.  The advice is to take advice :-) but it is not required.  Several ""low cost"" SIPPs allow an ""Execution Only"" transfer from some pensions (generally not occupational or defined benefits schemes [where transfers are generally a bad idea anyway] but FAVCs such as mine are ok). Best Invest is one such, and the fees are indeed relatively low. As far as anyone knows, the government's plans for changes to rules on using pension funds would still apply even once I've transferred my pension pot and begun to withdraw funds (provided I don't commit myself to an annuity or other irrevocable investment). I am not a financial adviser, nor employed or otherwise connected with Best Invest, and I'm not endorsing their SIPP schemes, just giving them as an example of what can be done. [Added after I carried out my plan] I found the process very straightforward; I needed to apply for a pension fund with my new provider and fill in a transfer form, which set up the scheme and transferred the funds with no expense required.  Once the money arrived in my pension account I filled in another form to take the lump sum and set up regular withdrawals from the fund. I had my lump sum within a couple of months of initiating the transfer.  I'm very happy I did not take independent advice because it would have been very poor value for money.  During my researches I was approached eagerly by one firm promising to get me my money quick and claiming to be an independent financial advisor.  Luckily I mistrusted the service they offered." If you don't know how to evaluate funds and are looking for someone to help you make good investment decisions, then you want a financial advisor.  My suggestion is to look for one that 1) doesn't try to sell you insurance first (since insurance is an expense, not an investment), 2) can explain to you the the relationship between risk and return (and what mix is right for you) and 3) recommends funds that have good demonstrated returns after fees have been removed. If you plan to pick your own funds and just want a transaction broker, go with one of the free/cheap online discount brokers.  Many let you invest in hundreds of different funds, so look for brokers with the cheapest fees. As these all seem to be US Equity, just getting one broad based US Equity index might offer similar diversification at lower cost. Over 5 years, 20 basis points in fees will only make about 1% difference. However, for longer periods (retirement saving), it is worth it to aim for the lowest fees. For further diversification, you might want to consider other asset classes, such as foreign equity, fixed income, etc. Frankly, the article is mostly right, but I disagree with his specific recommendation.  Why use one of these software services at all?  Put your money into a retirement (or other) account and invest it in index funds.  Beating index funds over the long run is pretty difficult, and if anyone's going to do it, it won't be someone that treats it like a hobby, regardless of whether you pick stocks yourself or let some software do it for you.  I personally think the big value-add from investment advisers only comes in the form of tax and regulation advice.  Knowing what kind of tax-exempt accounts exist and what the rules for them are is useful, and often non-trivial to fully grasp and plan for.  Also, the investment advisers I've talked to seemed to be pretty knowledgeable about that sort of thing, whereas their understanding of investment concepts like risk/reward tradeoffs, statistics, and portfolio optimization is generally weak. Are there particular, established businesses that provide these   services? Yes! There are many fee-based financial advisors that provide such services. These might help:  http://www.ricedelman.com/galleries/default-file/how-to-choose-financial-advisor.pdf http://www.ricedelman.com/cs/education/article?articleId=990#.Us7cyPRDt1Y I'd advise you to look for an advisor who is a NAPFA-Registered Financial Advisor.  If you visit the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors (NAPFA) website (http://www.napfa.org) and understand why they are different, I think you'll agree that the NAPFA-Registered Financial Advisor is the highest standard of excellence you will find in a financial planner.