Another talk to your attorney question. Much will depend on the age of the girls as they are now the owners and not you.

I'm confused. Were stocks originally bought as jointly owned

Husband passed and you are sole surviving owner, with children designated as beneficiaries?

OR, were the shares in your late husband's name only?

Sorry for the confusion. The stocks were jointly owned and are now in my name only, with adult daughters named as beneficiaries. Only reason I mentioned all that is to show that we/I have been in control of these stocks over the years and there is no "management" needed or wanted from planner in regard to them. I've already done all that needs doing. Therefore, I'm wondering about any reason they should be included in portfolio that he is managing.

A true "planner" should not be managing your stocks. Are you talking about a broker who gets a cut of everything you own? Or about someone who is analyzing all your holdings and encouraging you to do your own buy/sell management thru a low fee company like Schwab?

He's a fee based fiduciary Certified FP. Manages our, (now my) investments.But yes, the fee is based on percentage of investments. Might be just as simple as that. Adding to the fee.Just wondering if there could be a more legitimate reason.

I have to agree with sushipup. As the only reason he would like to "manage" them is to liquidate and move the money to another stock where he/she can increase their fees. I would be running away from this person. If you are happy with the stock and want to keep it there is no reason for it to be managed. Probably sees you as a woman that can easily be taken advantage of. Fiduciary may mean something to some but to others in the industry is only a title earned after study and not anything more than that.

My MIL has some stocks that are in her financial plan/portfolio, as is her house, but are not actively 'managed' by her planner, so they incur no fees from him.

A CFP should take all of your assets into account in making financial recommendations to you. A discussion with him is in order to clarify to you just what his obligations, legal and otherwise, are.

Thank you, Randy. Good perspective. I've questioned him a few times about those but never occurred to me to question fees on them. I always just assumed everything was included in fees and it annoyed me. Thanks for another view. That's the question I've overlooked.

My advice is to only use a financial planner who will sign a fiduciary agreement. There are simply too many fee structures and variations between potential and actual fees to give good advice about CFP's. If you have an accountant who is a CPA ask him to look over the fees and offer an opinion.

Your CFP should be aware of all of your investments, assets and liabilities. There is no way to properly adjust for risk without knowing your overall financial position and exposure.

Having said that, there is that old saying about all your eggs in one basket, Bernie Madoff was basically doing this same thing, managing the investment portfolio of people. While that kind of thing is very rare it never hurts to be prudent.

Any portfolio management arrangement, or any other legal or financial arrangement for that matter, should include a written agreement defining services to be provided and fees to be charged. A standard agreement rarely permits the manager to withdraw funds from accounts, thus the "Madoff" situation where client funds were stolen is pretty rare. People and companies with large portfolios typically employ several or many managers, depending on the size, but few Average Joes or Josephines would have enough to justify doing that.

An investment manager IS a "fiduciary" under the law, no agreement is needed to establish that from a duty and responsibility standpoint. Maybe the use of this term to describe an agreement was generic rather than specific, but that wouldn't normally be what it is called or even referred to as in such an agreement itself.

As with anything else, the manager's activities should be monitored periodically.

I prefer a CFP who charges by the hour, recommends changes to my portfolio and I make my own trades. The cost of this arrangement is now just hundreds of dollars per year vs the thousands I would pay if I was paying a percentage. I'm not an investment expert but have learned enough basics to know the % route is a rip off for me. I paid more $ initially to do retirement planning but now that's done and I'm in maintenance mode until I retire.

An investment manager IS a "fiduciary" under the law, no agreement is needed to establish that from a duty and responsibility standpoint.

From https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2012/12/06/can-your-edward-jones-financial-advisor-really-ser.aspx

Are broker-dealers like Edward Jones required to serve your best interests?

Aside from these serious conflicts of interest, many investors would be surprised to know that most financial professionals who are paid to offer you advice aren't actually required to give their best advice.

That's because professionals offering personalized investment advice come in two basic flavors: "brokers," like Edward Jones and numerous other financial services firms, who are paid on commission to execute trades, and "investment advisors," who are paid a fee to manage your money. Different rules govern how they're allowed to treat clients. Fiduciary investment advisors have an ongoing legal obligation to act in the best interest of clients, whereas brokers are only required to deal fairly with clients.

But investors aren't generally aware of this fine legal distinction.

Adding to the confusion, many professionals are registered as both brokers and investment advisors, sometimes acting in a fiduciary capacity toward a client, othertimes not -- a practice known in the industry as "switching hats."

What's more, brokers often market themselves ambiguously as "financial advisors" or "financial consultants." According to an SEC-commissioned study, 59% of investors are under the impression that professionals with those designations are required to act in their client's best interest. (A separate survey by the Consumer Federation of America found that 76% of investors mistakenly believe that professionals who call themselves "financial advisors" are required to put their clients first.) Just as troubling, only 34% of investors knew that such professionals typically receive commissions based on the fees they generate through their recommendations.

From Marketwatch.com (emphasis mine)

Do you accept fiduciary responsibility?

This is a legal term meaning they have a fundamental obligation to provide suitable investment advice and always act in your best interests, not theirs. They should also be willing to give you a written statement that they accept this responsibility.

I could keep on doing this the rest of the day, but you can Google it yourself.

A standard agreement rarely permits the manager to withdraw funds from accounts, thus the "Madoff" situation where client funds were stolen is pretty rare.

If you make payments to and receive account statements from your planner individually then those funds are at risk for fraud.

ETA: Bernie Madoff didn't do anything unusual. FINRA keeps statistics on fraud and you can look them up yourself. Madoff pulled it off on a scale that dwarfed anyone else, but there have been many settlements since 2005. The median amount of settlements was $40,000.

Having followed scams most of my life I have to agree with bry911 about Madoff not doing anything unusual. Happens all of the time to some degree. This is the reason in an earlier comment I suggested the OP not include the stocks mentioned in the "Planner's" portfolio. The planner does need to know about them and probably most of the other financial information. Unless the planner and owner are planning on selling there should be no reason to turn them over to the planner. A good scam is like a good mystery/suspense novel you know that there is something wrong but it is hard to know exactly what until the end.

I also read somewhere that there was recently changes in the fiduciary rules to allow brokers to return to the good old days where their clients were not as important as making money.

"you can Google it yourself"

The apparent source of your "knowledge and understanding" too. Smoke blowers are usually quite easy to spot.

Oh an ad hominem attack, how original for you (sarcasm off). I hope no one notices that you didn't speak to any of my points.

To the OP, while Gardenweb is great, this board isn't very active. Feel free to verify my advice at https://www.reddit.com/r/FinancialPlanning/ where you will find hundreds of professionals willing to offer their perspective daily.

Not at all. My comment had nothing to do with you personally. I only observed that what was said and how didn't suggest to me that you were speaking about things you were familiar with.

Internet word searches find words only. Sometimes they even find articles on topics of apparent interest. What internet searches don't produce is understanding, insights and context for the information found. Far too often search results are also lacking in caveats and clarity about the adequacy of the author's qualifications, the information's provenance and whether it's authoritative, in terms the searcher can understand.

Elmer - I know for the uninitiated that your above post will seem reasonable. However, for people who know anything about this subject your post doesn't make any sense at all. You appear guilty of exactly what you are accusing others of, speaking about things that you are not familiar with.

Let's look at why - by looking at your statement.

An investment manager IS a "fiduciary" under the law, no agreement is needed to establish that from a duty and responsibility standpoint.

There is really no such thing as an investment manager, nor does calling yourself one mean that you have a fiduciary duty. Many people call themselves investment managers, most of those are brokers. A Registered Investment Advisor (RIA) has a fiduciary duty. Investment manager isn't currently a licensed or recognized designation. So right out of the gate you don't even know the proper terminology, and the terminology is hugely important in this case, because you can't establish a legal requirement for a made up job.

Terminology aside let's look at the implication. There is a regulation that notes anyone who is being paid by someone for financial advice owes them a fiduciary duty. However, this has been thoroughly tested in the courts and so long as you work on commissions you don't have a fiduciary responsibility as you are not being paid by the client. You are operating as a salesman rather than an advisor (see the terminology is back again). A financial planner, financial manager, retirement planner, investment manager, investment planner, some CFP's and just about anyone else who works on a commission only basis doesn't have a fiduciary responsibility to the customer (because they are just customers) at this time.

Generally speaking, if the fees are on the front end you are a lot better off. However, they can still be both an advisor with a fiduciary duty and a broker with only the duty of due care. So long as the paid advice met a fiduciary standard, products like "the new investment product that would be great for you," doesn't have to.

In reality most of the "professionals" who offer these services, such as the ones you see advertised all over television, are not currently fiduciaries. Of the investment professionals, only RIA's typically have a full time fiduciary responsibility. A CFP may choose to operate with a full time fiduciary duty but they are not barred from being brokers.

Furthermore, anyone who isn't aware of this problem isn't paying attention. The Department of Labor has a new rule set to begin this Sunday that notes if you are dealing with qualifying ERISA funds then you have a fiduciary responsibility. The abuse of commissioned investments has gotten so bad that the DOL had to step in, going around Congress and the investment lobby, to institute a rule that should have been there the whole time. The rule, the uproar from brokerages and President Trump's delaying of it has been all over the financial news for a solid 18 months.

This new rule only applies to managing ERISA type retirement accounts but since that is such a large portion of the business it probably gives some coverage to everyone. We should also note that things may not change that much. Edward Jones has come up with a plan to disclose commissions but still take them. I personally don't see how anyone can be a fiduciary when advising clients between different investments with wildly different commissions.

Maybe the use of this term to describe an agreement was generic rather than specific, but that wouldn't normally be what it is called or even referred to as in such an agreement itself.

I don't understand what you are saying here. A fiduciary agreement is exactly what it is called. I guess you can call it a fiduciary contract or a fiduciary clause if part of a larger contract, and maybe even a fiduciary letter, but it is just something signed by the professional that notes he agrees to act only in a fiduciary capacity when managing your investments. AKA... An agreement.

Finally, I cut and paste a couple of quick things from Google because I have just spent a decent amount of time responding to an inane comment. I didn't want to commit to a long post when so many other people have already put forth that effort. I gave two highly reputable sources (the Motley Fool and Marketwatch) and your only response was some nonsense about those only being words and their credentials. Unlike us, those were not anonymous people posting on a message board. The level of hubris required of anonymous poster on a gardening forum to claim that articles on financial forums are inadequate because you can't check the credentials of the author is astounding. It isn't like either of us is throwing a bio up to be verified by these readers...

Here are a few more "just words" for you.

Are you a CFP? Which FINRA series are you licensed for?

At this point, I feel confident that there will be some other attack on my knowledge and understanding forthcoming.

I am not interested in some alpha male competition with anyone here. This marking of territory has become banal.

I do think it is criminal to post something that might in any way discourage a healthy skepticism of investment advice from anyone, paid or unpaid. Especially, considering the mountain of evidence contrary to that view. While I would rather disentangle myself from this entire conversation, I feel obligated to ensure that no reasonable person is satisfied by your assertion.

Elmer - you walked into the same pit you always do. You are a brilliant guy with excellent experience and great advice, but for some reason you are threatened by anyone else who is knowledgeable. You are willing to say ridiculous things, that I know you can't believe, to maintain your top dog status. I actively avoid posting on "your board" because I am afraid that your inevitable unreasonable stance against any knowledgeable post will do people more harm than good.

ETA: When you are the originator of advice, it is almost always spot on. It is only when you counter someone else's advice that things go crazy.

To the OP and others who actually want the right answer - Please feel free to find any one of the active financial boards and verify my information. There are countless blogs, stories, and discussions, all with "just words" from people who are knowledgeable and experienced. Please don't take my word or my advice on this issue without corroboration.

Good luck.

Why not limit your comments to the discussion and avoid personal comments?

What does get my attention here and in the real world is when people seem to go beyond their own expertise in giving others advice. Knowledgeable people don't do Google searches and cite random web hits and such obscure things as DOL ERISA regs to answer an average citizen's basic question. When latching on to search hits that aren't completely understood and passing them along, it's unavoidable to stray and wind up with disjointed comments that are off-point.

It's a public forum, everyone can say what they want. But for those attempting to offer more than just a personal opinion or experience, be sure there can be readers with real knowledge of the subject matter who may speak up. As in this case, a thread I wasn't participating in until I saw comments I disagreed with.

Why not limit your comments to the discussion and avoid personal comments?

That is a fair question and I am happy to respond.

I posted an opinion as someone who is knowledgeable and experienced. It was brief and to the point. You posted a counter to my position that was 100% objectively factually incorrect. I didn't attack you for it, nor did I point out your mistake, I simply added a little bit of corroboration for my point.

At which point you offered an ad hominem falacy as a counter to my evidence. You didn't take any objection to what I posted or offer any counter to that. You said (in reference to my mention of Google), "The apparent source of your "knowledge and understanding" too. Smoke blowers are usually quite easy to spot."

"SMOKE BLOWERS"... I am not sure how that is anything other than a personal attack, but I still didn't rise to the occasion and counterattack. Instead I pointed to the logical fallacy and offered other resources for those who questioned my assertion.

You then doubled down on the ad hominem fallacy. Now questioning my ability and the ability of others. At this point, since we were obviously not going to leave the realm of targeting the people rather than their points, and my knowledge and experience had been called into question, I decided to expose the limits of your supposed expertise WITH FACTS! Certainly if you can question my knowledge with vague assertions I should be able to point out the actual shortcomings of your posts and question how someone who purports to be knowledgeable can make them.

Notice how you still haven't discussed any of my points. In response to my assertion that you invented a financial expert out of thin air and then ascribed them legal responsibilities that don't exist, two things that are easily verifiable, you respond with the same tired thing about, "What does get my attention here and in the real world is when people seem to go beyond their own expertise in giving others advice" - On this we completely agree. Can you please show me the law that you claim exists?

Knowledgeable people don't do Google searches and cite random web hits - Yes they do. Why should I spend a lot of time writing a thorough explanation of something that someone else has already done adequately? I have heard the saying about not reinventing the wheel a thousand times. The difference between people who are knowledgeable and those who aren't, is those who are knowledgeable know the right terms to search and can evaluate the quality of the results. When the answers are insufficient for the question, then it is time to roll up your sleeves and put together a solid explanation.

such obscure things as DOL ERISA regs to answer an average citizen's basic question.

More than anything else posted here this shows how retired and out of the loop you are. This isn't obscure, this is the most important thing that has happened to investing since the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934. This rule will reshape the entire investing industry. A financial professional claiming that this is obscure is like a doctor claiming penicillin is an herbal remedy.

Furthermore, where did I use this to "answer an average citizen's basic question"? I didn't. I used this as easily verifiable evidence to demonstrate exactly how limited your understanding is. However, even average citizens who are at all interested in investing or their retirement should have been exposed to this new rule, it has become quite ubiquitous lately.

I am happy to get back on point. But I refuse to let people believe that they are somehow protected from harm that I know they are not. So if you continue to contend that a fiduciary duty exists, I am going to ask that you support that.

Thank you all. I appreciate all your input. As far as fiduciary goes, I certainly wouldn't count on that alone as protection from fraud.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=As6y5eI01XE

Just to be clear, a fiduciary offers no protection from fraud.

A fiduciary should establish how you can be advised. For example, a fiduciary "should" be barred from putting you into underperforming investments even if they pay him great commissions. While someone who is a broker absolutely can put you into underperforming investments just because they pay him well. Really, brokers are like car salesmen, they try to use a relationship of trust to convince you to buy an investment product.

If either of these are willing to violate their duty in a fraudulent manner a paper noting they were a fiduciary will offer no help at all. It does, however, turn things that would be acceptable into fraud.