The question I would ask is if there is a real reason for this.
Agents generally get 4% of playing contracts. Not a ton, and the agent then can use the money to pay HIS infrastructure and go out and "cold call" to get him more work. If he doesn't think agents actually "pound the pavement", or he thinks he is going to be such a transcendent star it won't be necessary, then it may be a strong move.
The second question I would ask is if he has a real plan for that money. If he says "Yes, municipal bonds" (as an example), then OK. But if he is like "not really, I just feel like that money could be used to touch g-strings", well then that is poor reasoning.
Well, if he's consistent he'll simply put the money in Vanguard Index funds instead of paying a 1% or 2% fee to a financial advisor! I like what he's doing here, although I do agree agents add value in ways that perhaps financial advisors don't (no offense to anyone that is a financial advisor out there - that's just my opinion).
The question I would ask is if there is a real reason for this.
Agents generally get 4% of playing contracts. Not a ton, and the agent then can use the money to pay HIS infrastructure and go out and "cold call" to get him more work. If he doesn't think agents actually "pound the pavement", or he thinks he is going to be such a transcendent star it won't be necessary, then it may be a strong move.
The second question I would ask is if he has a real plan for that money. If he says "Yes, municipal bonds" (as an example), then OK. But if he is like "not really, I just feel like that money could be used to touch g-strings", well then that is poor reasoning.
Well, if he's consistent he'll simply put the money in Vanguard Index funds instead of paying a 1% or 2% fee to a financial advisor! I like what he's doing here, although I do agree agents add value in ways that perhaps financial advisors don't (no offense to anyone that is a financial advisor out there - that's just my opinion).
In a high tax market like MIN, "Muni's" are not a horrible choice. But I think we are in agreement that the strip club is out.
Question: Is Deja Vu still there? How about Solid Gold?
The question I would ask is if there is a real reason for this.
Agents generally get 4% of playing contracts. Not a ton, and the agent then can use the money to pay HIS infrastructure and go out and "cold call" to get him more work. If he doesn't think agents actually "pound the pavement", or he thinks he is going to be such a transcendent star it won't be necessary, then it may be a strong move.
The second question I would ask is if he has a real plan for that money. If he says "Yes, municipal bonds" (as an example), then OK. But if he is like "not really, I just feel like that money could be used to touch g-strings", well then that is poor reasoning.
Well, if he's consistent he'll simply put the money in Vanguard Index funds instead of paying a 1% or 2% fee to a financial advisor! I like what he's doing here, although I do agree agents add value in ways that perhaps financial advisors don't (no offense to anyone that is a financial advisor out there - that's just my opinion).
In a high tax market like MIN, "Muni's" are not a horrible choice. But I think we are in agreement that the strip club is out.
Question: Is Deja Vu still there? How about Solid Gold?
....only if those Munis are issued by the state. A muni bond fund is good depending more on one's federal tax bracket. But we digress.
And like you, I haven't lived in Minnesota for many years.
The question I would ask is if there is a real reason for this.
Agents generally get 4% of playing contracts. Not a ton, and the agent then can use the money to pay HIS infrastructure and go out and "cold call" to get him more work. If he doesn't think agents actually "pound the pavement", or he thinks he is going to be such a transcendent star it won't be necessary, then it may be a strong move.
The second question I would ask is if he has a real plan for that money. If he says "Yes, municipal bonds" (as an example), then OK. But if he is like "not really, I just feel like that money could be used to touch g-strings", well then that is poor reasoning.
Well, if he's consistent he'll simply put the money in Vanguard Index funds instead of paying a 1% or 2% fee to a financial advisor! I like what he's doing here, although I do agree agents add value in ways that perhaps financial advisors don't (no offense to anyone that is a financial advisor out there - that's just my opinion).
In a high tax market like MIN, "Muni's" are not a horrible choice. But I think we are in agreement that the strip club is out.
Question: Is Deja Vu still there? How about Solid Gold?
....only if those Munis are issued by the state. A muni bond fund is good depending more on one's federal tax bracket. But we digress.
And like you, I haven't lived in Minnesota for many years.
I think it was basketball insiders Steve Kyler that mentioned on a local radio show in passing that agents tend to pick up the tab for pre draft training and workouts etc so you figure in all that stuff plus maybe they pay for some of he travel etc too. It seems possible it's worth it to have someone take care of that stuff for you. I used to be pretty much all about DIY but I've gotten around to the thinking that in some cases it's just worth it to pay someone some of your hard earned $$$ to do things for you. It helps to be a little more financially stable and I do still do a lot of stuff myself to save some cash cause I'm not exactly rolling in the dough. Lol
It also sounds like some people are Warren Buffet disciples saying the financial advisor ain't worth it. :) I pay the fee to have my retirement accounts managed but I generally don't think about them much. That may change as they grow in value now that I am finally contributing again.
The question I would ask is if there is a real reason for this.
Agents generally get 4% of playing contracts. Not a ton, and the agent then can use the money to pay HIS infrastructure and go out and "cold call" to get him more work. If he doesn't think agents actually "pound the pavement", or he thinks he is going to be such a transcendent star it won't be necessary, then it may be a strong move.
The second question I would ask is if he has a real plan for that money. If he says "Yes, municipal bonds" (as an example), then OK. But if he is like "not really, I just feel like that money could be used to touch g-strings", well then that is poor reasoning.
Well, if he's consistent he'll simply put the money in Vanguard Index funds instead of paying a 1% or 2% fee to a financial advisor! I like what he's doing here, although I do agree agents add value in ways that perhaps financial advisors don't (no offense to anyone that is a financial advisor out there - that's just my opinion).
In a high tax market like MIN, "Muni's" are not a horrible choice. But I think we are in agreement that the strip club is out.
Question: Is Deja Vu still there? How about Solid Gold?
....only if those Munis are issued by the state. A muni bond fund is good depending more on one's federal tax bracket. But we digress.
And like you, I haven't lived in Minnesota for many years.
I think it was basketball insiders Steve Kyler that mentioned on a local radio show in passing that agents tend to pick up the tab for pre draft training and workouts etc so you figure in all that stuff plus maybe they pay for some of he travel etc too. It seems possible it's worth it to have someone take care of that stuff for you. I used to be pretty much all about DIY but I've gotten around to the thinking that in some cases it's just worth it to pay someone some of your hard earned $$$ to do things for you. It helps to be a little more financially stable and I do still do a lot of stuff myself to save some cash cause I'm not exactly rolling in the dough. Lol
It also sounds like some people are Warren Buffet disciples saying the financial advisor ain't worth it. :) I pay the fee to have my retirement accounts managed but I generally don't think about them much. That may change as they grow in value now that I am finally contributing again.
I'm a John Bogle enthusiast myself. I would encourage you to do a little research on this issue if it interests you. In such a low interest rate environment where stock values are so high and bond yields so low, you really want to squeeze as much costs out of investing as possible. That .5 or 1% otherwise paid to an active fund or advisory firm can add up quickly and compound! And there are things called "lazy portfolios" where you basically set them up and don't touch it more than once a year or so. Not real complicated or time consuming at all.
The question I would ask is if there is a real reason for this.
Agents generally get 4% of playing contracts. Not a ton, and the agent then can use the money to pay HIS infrastructure and go out and "cold call" to get him more work. If he doesn't think agents actually "pound the pavement", or he thinks he is going to be such a transcendent star it won't be necessary, then it may be a strong move.
The second question I would ask is if he has a real plan for that money. If he says "Yes, municipal bonds" (as an example), then OK. But if he is like "not really, I just feel like that money could be used to touch g-strings", well then that is poor reasoning.
Well, if he's consistent he'll simply put the money in Vanguard Index funds instead of paying a 1% or 2% fee to a financial advisor! I like what he's doing here, although I do agree agents add value in ways that perhaps financial advisors don't (no offense to anyone that is a financial advisor out there - that's just my opinion).
In a high tax market like MIN, "Muni's" are not a horrible choice. But I think we are in agreement that the strip club is out.
Question: Is Deja Vu still there? How about Solid Gold?
....only if those Munis are issued by the state. A muni bond fund is good depending more on one's federal tax bracket. But we digress.
And like you, I haven't lived in Minnesota for many years.
I think it was basketball insiders Steve Kyler that mentioned on a local radio show in passing that agents tend to pick up the tab for pre draft training and workouts etc so you figure in all that stuff plus maybe they pay for some of he travel etc too. It seems possible it's worth it to have someone take care of that stuff for you. I used to be pretty much all about DIY but I've gotten around to the thinking that in some cases it's just worth it to pay someone some of your hard earned $$$ to do things for you. It helps to be a little more financially stable and I do still do a lot of stuff myself to save some cash cause I'm not exactly rolling in the dough. Lol
It also sounds like some people are Warren Buffet disciples saying the financial advisor ain't worth it. :) I pay the fee to have my retirement accounts managed but I generally don't think about them much. That may change as they grow in value now that I am finally contributing again.
Not to turn this into a political thread, but it seems for the past 35 years or so, people who have no business doing so have said "Do I really need a guy to do that?" and the answer 90% of the time is "YES" and the other 10% is "No, but I'm not paying a fair wage for someone else to do it".
And I have to admit, I even get sucked in. When I read that you pay a fee, my first thought was to tell you to transfer your 401k's/403b's to your current employer. But that's very presumptuous of me, so I'm guilty of the same line of thought sometimes as Jalen Brown is.
The question I would ask is if there is a real reason for this.
Agents generally get 4% of playing contracts. Not a ton, and the agent then can use the money to pay HIS infrastructure and go out and "cold call" to get him more work. If he doesn't think agents actually "pound the pavement", or he thinks he is going to be such a transcendent star it won't be necessary, then it may be a strong move.
The second question I would ask is if he has a real plan for that money. If he says "Yes, municipal bonds" (as an example), then OK. But if he is like "not really, I just feel like that money could be used to touch g-strings", well then that is poor reasoning.
Well, if he's consistent he'll simply put the money in Vanguard Index funds instead of paying a 1% or 2% fee to a financial advisor! I like what he's doing here, although I do agree agents add value in ways that perhaps financial advisors don't (no offense to anyone that is a financial advisor out there - that's just my opinion).
In a high tax market like MIN, "Muni's" are not a horrible choice. But I think we are in agreement that the strip club is out.
Question: Is Deja Vu still there? How about Solid Gold?
....only if those Munis are issued by the state. A muni bond fund is good depending more on one's federal tax bracket. But we digress.
And like you, I haven't lived in Minnesota for many years.
I think it was basketball insiders Steve Kyler that mentioned on a local radio show in passing that agents tend to pick up the tab for pre draft training and workouts etc so you figure in all that stuff plus maybe they pay for some of he travel etc too. It seems possible it's worth it to have someone take care of that stuff for you. I used to be pretty much all about DIY but I've gotten around to the thinking that in some cases it's just worth it to pay someone some of your hard earned $$$ to do things for you. It helps to be a little more financially stable and I do still do a lot of stuff myself to save some cash cause I'm not exactly rolling in the dough. Lol
It also sounds like some people are Warren Buffet disciples saying the financial advisor ain't worth it. :) I pay the fee to have my retirement accounts managed but I generally don't think about them much. That may change as they grow in value now that I am finally contributing again.
I'm a John Bogle enthusiast myself. I would encourage you to do a little research on this issue if it interests you. In such a low interest rate environment where stock values are so high and bond yields so low, you really want to squeeze as much costs out of investing as possible. That .5 or 1% otherwise paid to an active fund or advisory firm can add up quickly and compound! And there are things called "lazy portfolios" where you basically set them up and don't touch it more than once a year or so. Not real complicated or time consuming at all.
OK - off my soapbox!
It's my field so I am definitely interested. Another great way to avoid fees can be to transfer 401k's/403b's to the new employer rather than an IRA account. But read the info carefully. Some employers have poor managements deals set up.
Right, there isn't much you can do if you are locked into your current employer's plan other than evaluate all the fund choices and make sure you compare the fees along with the risk profile. In terms of IRAs, 401 k funds left with a former employer, or after-tax funds, that's where people have much more flexibility to go ultra low-cost.
