Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

RandySF

(70,954 posts)
Fri Feb 6, 2015, 03:37 PM Feb 2015

Who needs a traditional brokerage firm anymore?

Planning up for retirement? Groups like Vanguard and T. Rowe Price make it simple to set up IRA's. Playing the stock market? There are many do-it-yourself sights with low, flat fees and tools to do your own research. My elderly dad goes the traditional border who, while a nice guy I can trust, charges a 7% commission. Now, my dad is old-school who still checks his investments in the newspaper. And of course the 1-percenters need help managing so many assets. But the rest of us? We should be able to do it on our own.

9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Who needs a traditional brokerage firm anymore? (Original Post) RandySF Feb 2015 OP
7% is simply foolish. GeorgeGist Feb 2015 #1
People who are either unwilling or unable to properly manage a portfolio any more complex... A HERETIC I AM Feb 2015 #2
7% per trade. RandySF Feb 2015 #3
7% per trade? Wow. I've never heard of anything that high. nt Common Sense Party Mar 2015 #7
I have a financial guy SheilaT Feb 2015 #4
I wouldn't trust someone who charged 7% progree Mar 2015 #5
I don't know how dad came about choosing this firm RandySF Mar 2015 #6
I like the Couch Potato approach. recycled60 Aug 2015 #8
My Take bucolic_frolic Sep 2015 #9

A HERETIC I AM

(24,599 posts)
2. People who are either unwilling or unable to properly manage a portfolio any more complex...
Sat Feb 7, 2015, 08:03 AM
Feb 2015

than a few Mutual Funds and some shares of stock.

The fact is, the vast majority of Americans are woefully unprepared for what you suggest and they either don't have the time or they don't give a shit, not to mention couldn't tell you the difference between a blended fund, a balanced fund, a growth fund or a Christmas fund.


And FWIW, your "charges a 7% commission" statement is, if I may say, ambiguous. 7% of what? Assets under management? Of gains? Per stock transaction?

In some trades, 7% is perfectly reasonable. In other situations, it is highway robbery.

It's all relative.

 

SheilaT

(23,156 posts)
4. I have a financial guy
Sun Feb 8, 2015, 04:13 PM
Feb 2015

who used to be with one of the Big Name first, and about three years ago joined a small partnership. He knows about financial things that I haven't a clue about. I am making more money from my investments now, and the tax filing is vastly simpler. Most people who think they can do all their trading by themselves don't do all that well in the market for lots of reasons. One is that they trade more often than they should. The other thing to understand is that your small trades are going to be filled after those of the big guys.

However, if you're happy with what you are currently doing, stick with it.

progree

(11,463 posts)
5. I wouldn't trust someone who charged 7%
Wed Mar 4, 2015, 01:58 PM
Mar 2015

And if he's acting as a financial advisor too (and not just an order-taker), he's probably constantly recommending trading -- sell this, buy that, Kaching! Lots of churning - virtually a metaphysically certain recipe for serious underperformance for the portfolio, but will make this trusty nice guy wealthy -- assuming he has enough people ignorant enough to pay commissions like this.

Myself, I do no stock trading at all. I have just one stock which I inherited years ago. The rest of my financial investments are in (almost entirely index) mutual funds and ETFs. With Vanguard and Fidelity. In buy-and-hold mode with, over the years, incremental moves towards more diversity (moving towards more international and less U.S.).

Vanguard and places like that charge like $7 / trade online, or $25 by phone. For stocks and ETFs.

RandySF

(70,954 posts)
6. I don't know how dad came about choosing this firm
Wed Mar 4, 2015, 10:08 PM
Mar 2015

BUT his broker seems honest and, when it comes to what and/or sell, is actually more reserved (dad loves to play High Roller). But yeah, 7% is a bit steep when one is as self-directed as I am. BTW I get my ETF's through Scottrade.

bucolic_frolic

(47,312 posts)
9. My Take
Tue Sep 8, 2015, 05:19 PM
Sep 2015

after decades of floundering, is that all types of brokers have a place
in an investment portfolio.

Trade your own account? Sure, but watch those stops, and do lots of
reading of books on how to invest. There is no substitute.

Managed ETF and rebalance? Sure. It's a no brainer. Some are very reasonable,
1-2% annually or less.

Major mutual fund company? Yes, just don't expect advice. I always
try to invest when the market is in a down period. Crash is even better.
No matter how much they tout indexing, timing is important to the extent
that investing at the top is a killer.

Major brokerage? Yes, for complex investments, perhaps MLPs, or global
stocks, or annuity or tax planning. Make anyone who's charging
full commission - 7% I think I'm aware of what Main St. firm that is - make
them earn their fees. You want their best recommendations for the future Pricelines,
Amazons, Apples, and Proctor & Gambles of the world. Something you can put aside
for 30 years and have $2-4000 grow into vacation home equity.

Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Personal Finance and Investing»Who needs a traditional b...