murphy- you are quite right. Sometimes you have to pay more to get quality. I believe that in guns, cars, houses and "stuff" such as the art I collect.
However, if anybody tries to tell me that they can maintain neutrality or look out for my interests first when they sell me something that pays them an up-front amount and then an annual premium, Murph - I am in my 70s - and have heard this for over a half-century.
Anybody who has been around the block knows about conflict of interest.
Period.
It is total BS to argue that a FA who sells a retail mark some instrument that pays the FA a continuing stream is going to look out for the mark's interest. This is tooth-fairy stuff.
As someone who invests on behalf of his family and himself, I urge everyone to indeed "look at the benefit" and not only the cost. Indeed a $200 and a $10000 gun are not the same.
And a front-end fund that pays commission to the FA who flogs it to you and a Vanguard fund are not the same either. One is demonstrably better.
I stand by my statement that most FAs (excepting present company) are dishonest. Conflict of interest is dishonest and crooked. People who have conflicts of interest are crooks and eventually they get caught and they go to jail.
Just check the history of the BS annuities that these guys sell you compared to the ones that don't have these charges.
Most of these guys will refuse to tell you (and guarantee the truthfulness of their statements) what their track record is. You will be given all sorts of BS mumbo-jumbo about how it isn't possible to compare different investment strategies..blah blah.
The only honest FA is one who will work on a fee-for-services and not a commission basis. If you have been hooked by a commission FA, please just log into the Vanguard website and look over their literature. IT'S YOUR MONEY, NOT THEIRS
By the way, Michael Petrov, one of the honest FAs I know personally is also with Morgan Stanley. Maybe they put something into the water!!
