Hi again sushipup, Unless you have zero interest in dealing with investment issues, I have told a number of folks over the years that learning about how money works is an interesting hobby ... and it pays well. When well over 75% of the funds managed by mutual fund managers don't outperform the sector(s) of the markets in which they operate, it seems to me that those who sell them should have something of an uphill climb to justify people putting a substantial portion of their assets into them. Part of the reason relates to their fees - in the U.S., usually 1.5% or higher annually, and here in Canada 2.5% or higher, annually. When the markets have average growth of around 8%, your costs are above 16% of your gain ... and ours (better?) higher than 25% ... and if there are several rather flat years ... the mutual fund managers still get their pre-determined rates. How about learning about how the markets work and, possibly over a period, investing in some individual, quality stocks? If one doesn't need them to provide income, some people choose to have dividends reinvested, which takes place without brokerage commissions and often no fee, and some companies offer a small discount on the price when dividends are reinvested. I bought shares in a Canadian bank 47 years ago, with share price having grown, shrunk (once to under 40% of what they'd been less than a year earlier), and moved sideways over the years, and now could be sold for between 20 and 25 times what I paid. The dividend was about 10 - 12 cents per share when purchased, has grown over the years, but stayed static at $3.48 for four years after they were involved in the U.S. financial fiasco about 6 years ago, but recently were raised to $4.00. Some years ago I began telling folks, "No one cares as much about your money as you," and later, after some reflection, added, " ... with the possible exception of some folks who'd like to transfer some of your money from your pocket into theirs". If you don't boss your money - quite likely it'll boss you. And your bossing is mainly now ... but if you don't do it well, its bossing of you takes place ... later. Good wishes for making good choices regarding the wise use of your income and assets. ole joyful

Many "financial planners" were, in the past, required to have a simple training course that was taken by people who were planning to sell mutual funds. Pretty rudimentary. In those days, people who had taken the course that stockbrokers take were much more knowledgeable, and many people calling themselves "financial planners" later took a six-component course leading to be a Chartered Financial Planner (later changed, and now the designation is "Certified Financial Planner"). In recent years regulations have been tightened a good deal. However, with the amount of money to which you refer, it's important to have an accountant advise, as they have thorough knowledge of the laws, and in cases such as yours, making any mis-steps can be costly. And accountants are required to keep up-to-date as new rules come out. As you know, the tax rules change frequently. Many accountants are quite conservative, and may suggest investing systems that persons willing to deal with some level of risk would find more safe that they could handle. In our area, if one invests in assets where the amount of the principal can't grow, one loses. All of the return that such principal develops is developed currently. The tax man wants to talk to each of us annually relative to our current income - and in Canada, some types of investment income is taxed at a much lower rate than others (mainly the kind that most folks use). If one earns about 4.5%, and is taxed at 33%, that takes the amount of after-tax money left in hand at 3%. And if the size of your principal can't grow - you need to add some current earnings to it annually in order to keep your purchasing power intact. If you'd given the bank $10,000.00 15 years ago in a 5-year guaranteed certificate, and renewed it twice ... ... when you invested it, the $10,000. would have bought a decent car. Not now, 15 years later. The government quotes figures for inflation, i.e. growth in consumer price index ... ... but most of us don't believe them, as our experience is that prices that we pay are rising faster then the recent 2 - 2.5% that they tell about. Here in Canada, for example, people have been telling us lately that the index doesn't include energy cost!!! Check out your various courses available carefully with a fully qualified person - in your Mom's state and yours. Not in the state of confusion, though, we hope. Moreover, if interest rates rise, as many expect them to do, especially in the U.S., carrying their huge government plus individual debt, plus government going deeper into debt each year (under a conservative regime, no less!) another problem arises for bond holders. If they hold them to maturity, they'll receive the full face amount, but if they want to sell them prior to maturity, the price offered by a potential purchaser will be much lower, for s/he can buy a current issue paying much higher rate of interest. My bias is in favour of high quality stocks for the major part of one's portfolio, even for an old fart like me, past 756 - drat this keyboard ... that figure was supposed to be 75: I ain't in the running against Methuselah! For reasons that I won't go into here, but will tell you if you email me. Good wishes for your Mom's choosing to deal with her assets in a way that won't back-fire later on either her or you her offspring. ole joyful

>> I think that there are CFPs out there who charge by the hour to do a plan and make recommendations, and who do not sell investments or insurance of any kind. That is what I would look for. Not to say that there aren't good, ethical brokers out there who will put your interests up there with theirs. I just haven't encountered one myself! There are certainly CFPs who charge by the hour. However, all CFPs have broker licenses. And there is nothing wrong with affiliating oneself with a brokerage, any more than you need be nervous about taking your car to a factory-authorized dealership rather than an independent garage. There are good and bad in both sectors. You need to remember there is a substantial legal difference between "investment advising" and "financial (estate) planning." It sounds like many of you folks posting have used "investment advisors". They have NO fiduciary responsibility to you. None. Nada. Zip. They are NOT legally obligated to put your personal interests FIRST. I cannot emphasize this enough. It is a critical, crucial, legal difference. A CFP must, by law, put your personal interests first. And yes, there is little profit for them in doing so unless you have a portfolio of assets to manage. Do you grudge them a living, any more than your doctor or carpenter or mechanic or gardener? When I worked at the independent CFP's office, there were many people who came for their first introductory no-cost meeting. Most of them were not suitable clients, for varying reasons. It might be something as simple as a personality clash (such as the couple who came in and spent two hours contradicting one another with every answer), or as basic as a differing risk assessment (clients who wanted options, offshore leases, or anything risky were politely declined). But surprisingly often, it was because people couldn't adequately define their goals, yet thought they could still somehow afford everything they wanted without saving sufficiently for it. They got offended when they were told they couldn't retire early, travel around the world, fund four children for college and graduate school, and pay off their mortgage in five years, on their current debt-to-assets ratio. Now, I am certainly not saying anybody involved with this current discussion is like that. What I am trying to explain is that any advisor, whether a CFP or not, cannot make you something out of nothing. What a CFP can do is help you define your goals, and determine if they are achievable. This involves MORE than diversifying your portfolio. A lot goes into your complete financial picture, and everyone's situation is a little bit different, because their goals and risk-taking factors are individual. Life being as changeable as it is, it can be handy to have someone there with the professional knowledge to help you and your family analyze and cope with changes to your financial/legal situation as the years progress. Many couples have differing views about money and any good CFP will tell you they spend a lot of time "counseling" couples so that everybody stays "on the same page" together. You don't have to have a CFP, and many of us can't afford one. But for those who can afford it, a CFP can be an invaluable resource. And I say that, even though I handle all the investments in our family and have done a very good job of it. There is a world of difference between an amateur and a professional - this is even more true of finance and investing than it is of most areas.

i agree with you conceptually about only investing in thing you believe in, or rather in things you can stomach as most investments and industries have a downside if you look hard enough. eventually you get to exploited workers and poisoned rivers and solid waste. i personally struggled with the payday investment i made. the return was high, but i did not want to be associated with it. i said no for about 6 months. over that six months i learned how they (where my money is now) did business. after i understood it i had a hard time thinking of it any differently than a bank. they both loan money based on ones ability to earn money and pay it back. the only difference is the duration and the size of the loan. a bank allows me to spend money i don't have on a credit card and then charges me 13-18% until i pay them back while they themselves are leveraged 10 to 1 on those dollars loaned. the payday place will only loan me money that will be covered in my NEXT paycheck and charge me a flat fee of $5 or $10 while they themselves have a dollar for every dollar they loan out. when i look at it like that i really had no problem with the payday place, but started to have them with the banks. the payday places are not dragging the economy down because of their recklessness. they are also not enslaving an entire generation by offering them credit they cannot pay back. there are people who use them recklessly, and it is real easy to point them out because they are the fringe. it is a little harder to point out the middle class suburbanite who is a slave to their credit card and bank because they get up and go to work each day and keep a nice yard but are living on credit. both industries lend money and both are technically guilty of charging people who don't have money. they are in business to make money, not give it away. in the end neither is good nor bad just as fire is neither good nor bad. the good or bad all depends on who uses it and how they use it. the payday places service a far less afluent and unsophisticated clientele and therefore gives them very little wiggle room to abuse the system. if they want to stay one paycheck behind for the rest of their lives, that is about all they can do. the bank will let me get decades behind because they assume i am responsible and won't let it come to that but do little to stop me and recently have even encouraged me to do so. in my mind it is a match compared to the bonfire. both can be abused, but the potential abuse of a credit card is far greater. but there may be other payday places that have different policies than where i invested. mind you i don't have equity in the payday place�"they borrowed money from me to lend. in short my money is on deposit to be lent out just as if i put it in a savings account for the bank to lend out on a credit card loan. the main difference is my rate of return is almost 10 times higher but not FDIC insured. the only thing i do struggle with is the 10% they charge for cashing checks. this is outrageous in my opinion. i can't understand why anybody would do that unless they were unable to cash it elsewhere and i won't speculate as to why. but in the end they have their reason and are paying a premium for it. and with that i leave it. cigarettes are another issue and i am totally with you. i feel the same way about other products as well most are not as overtly damaging, but their products do carry liability and they push them with abandon to those who are hurt by them. not just talking guns and alcohol. a few minutes watching saturday morning cartoons was an eyeopener to the type of products marketed to kids. slap a mcdonald's logo on a bucket of mud and i think my kids would want to eat it. a friend of mine who is militant about his hate for phillip-morris and smoking in general (i think he lost a parent to lung cancer) holds half his portfolio in tobacco stocks. he justification was that it "those people" are going to annoy him with their smoke and take his taxes in healthcare, they are going to pay him for it. an interesting take on moral investing practices, but for him it makes sense. i respect your desire to not follow my practice of investing in payday lending. we not only have to undderstand our investments, but repect if not love them. i do not love payday lending, and to be honest would rather be elsewhere, but for the time being it is a good place and i am no so morally apposed to money lending as to not take the opportunity. i do however own no bank stocks for obvious reasons, i think their model is risky. i also think they are on the more unethical side of business. they have laws and loopholes that allow them to do things that are illegal to any other company. id it because we need their services and that is what it takes, or is it because they have power to influence if not make laws that favor them? i think recent events have shown us it is a little of both. before i sound too anti-establishment, let me say i think financial institutions are important and necessary�"ie. banks, insurance companies, the US government, the FED, and even payday lenders. BUT they are in busniness to make themselves rich, not us. if you do not understand what they are doing, how they make money, or worse, what you are doing, they will take advantage of you. thus education. it is through education that you can see the smoke and mirrors they use to make you feel good about making them rich at your expense. one of the most ubiquitous is the home mortgage. i am emphatic that the most expensive ways to buy a house are in this order; cash, paid off early mortgage, continually refinanced mortgage, a 15-year note, a 30-year note, ARM, variable rate, interest only, and deferred interest-AKA sub-prime being the cheapest. that said, i don't like differed interest as it assumes the risk in the real estate market and if used by the uneducated or irresponsible it can (and has) blown up in the borrowers face. what does the bank want you to do? they love you to take out a 30 year and refinance every few years or pay it off early. if you are going to take it to term, they prefer you take out a 15-year because it makes them more money and that is why they have a cheaper rate to take it�"they need to give you incentive to do what benefits them and think you are getting the better end of the deal�"if it makes them more money, how can it also save you money and show up in two places at once? this all sounds like hericy i know. but where do we get our financial education from? our bank? alan greenspan has a nice quote about the variable interest only mortgage being the best deal out there if people only knew how to use it and the 30 year not serving its customers as the think. i will see if i can find it. the mortgage subject was perhaps the most eye-opening and influential education i ever had in finance. it is the lesson that taught me to see the whole equation and not look at a financial strategy in a vacuum. it taught me to understand finance on a macro economic level to understand how to best use products on a micro economic level. it is painful and feels like you brain is removed and turned around and put back in. but i assure you it is all true and useful information, but it requires the user to be responsible for their financial life and some are not willing to do this and for them it is not wise to have control. just as fire in the hands a of one is destructive and to another the opposite. what i am talking about is basic business finance�"in short figuring out the lost opportunity cost and the taking the greatest margin. if done properly with understanding risk is minimized and growth is maximized. some will refuse to believe, but that does not prove those strategies wrong. i myself do not practice whole-heartedly all the strategies i know an believe because of issues regarding timing, my own laziness or whatever. this does not mean i don't acknowledge their strengths or potential. but it serves me to understand alternatives. there are many i have encountered on this forum and in other places who flat out throw up a wall and won't even try to understand that there are several strategies to use in every situation and they all have merits. my beef is with those who claim merits that are not truly there or ignore others. those who emotionally attach themselves to dogma that was sold to them without trying to understand. i have been guilty of this and still am at times and it only hurts myself. when i have a few hours to spend with a calculator, i will start a new thread and actually run the numbers on the most popular mortgage products side-by-side including paying cash. i will treat all as equals. it is amazing how different the outcome is from popular beliefs, but if you look at who is selling the mortgages and the information i guess it is not shocking. it won't prove anything other than which is the most expensive in terms of money and what risks are inherent in each scenario. the individual would have to choose which is best for them. the problem is that most choose the wrong thing for what they claim to want. if you know how they each work you can choose more appropriately for your goals whatever they may be.