CFP’s Investment Recommendations
Resume IA
Un couple de 35 ans reçoit des recommandations d'investissement conservatrices de la part d'un CFP, malgré leur horizon d'investissement de 20 ans et leur tolérance au risque modérée. La communauté remet en question la valeur ajoutée de l'advisor.
Conseil cle
Une allocation d'actifs simple et diversifiée, telle qu'un portefeuille à trois fonds (US stocks, International Stocks, Total Bond Market Index Fund), peut être suffisante pour la plupart des gens.
My wife (35F) and I (35M) engaged a fee-only CFP for a financial plan. They provided a survey to gauge our investment risk tolerance. Our results showed us as moderate risk takers. Our goal is to have a solid retirement at 57. I’m a Federal government employee currently covered by a pension that will be 38% of my salary when I retire. I largely view this as the bond portion of our portfolio. I was amazed when I received the CFP’s investment recommendations. They seem extremely conservative considering our 20+ year horizon. I was leaning towards a VT portfolio, or VTI and VXUS for the taxable account. What are your thoughts?
“Looks like a classic [Humpty Dumpty Portfolio](https://www.cnbc.com/2023/01/27/what-is-a-humpty-dumpty-portfolio.html) that advisors throw at people to make it look like they are doing something complex, when they are really not doing anything more diversified or "optimized" than a vanilla Three Fund Portfolio of US stocks, International Stocks, and Total Bond Market Index Fund. There is not much value-added for most people in having an advisor build an investment asset allocation for them. Anyone can do that. The value-added is if they are doing things like budgeting, behavioral coaching, insurance/risk overview, tax-planning, retirement planning, estate planning, etc. At least make them earn that fat AUM fee if you are going that route.”