Thanks George. That was really a general disclaimer directed at Cathy F and others who may not know my identity/background. I didn't take any of your posts as being directed specifically at me in any way.ghariton wrote:I know, Dan, and I appreciate your posts very much. I believe that what you post here is not swlf-interested, but rather in an intention to be helpful. In no way am I impugning you or your motives, and I apologize if my post comes across that way.DanH wrote:I am not a disinterested party in such discussions but I don't participate here to find clients.
I pretty much agree with everything else you wrote in your reply. As for contingency fees for lawyers, I think we have one of the more successful such lawyers right here in little old Windsor.
Good point re: time learning about investing takes away from more productive professional time. I spoke with a bright young pharmacist here last year. She was already investing in TD e-funds via DCA and was actually keeping it all pretty simple (i.e. using four funds) - though dabbled in a few stocks but with just a bit of play money. She'd originally called me looking for advice and I could have convinced her that she needed my help. But she seemed to have a good head on her shoulders and had spent some time educating herself. And was doing most of the right things so I told her to just keep doing what she's doing; don't go nuts with the individual stocks; and at some point it might be worth paying for broader financial planning advice.Shakespeare wrote:Most of the professional-practice people would be better to put the effort into their practice rather than learning DIY, particularly the younger ones.
We'll see what happens once her portfolio hits six figures. Even though, in theory, nothing should change; the dynamic changes because the larger dollars makes for bigger stakes - and more serious consequences should any errors be made.