Quote:
Originally Posted by Boomer
Does anyone have an opinion on why an advisor would put someone into closed-end funds? CEFs have high expenses and use leverage and it seems like there would be other kinds of funds that would be better.
Is there an advantage to closed-end funds? Whose advantage is it?
Boomer
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by retiredguy123
It is for the advisor to make a commission. That is who benefits from it.
|
Hey, retiredguy123, longtime TOTV poster, always read by me.
AHA! I saw in post # 21 here that you took CFP training. I did something like that, only not as involved. For me, I got a real estate license. That was many years ago and I did not keep up the license or ever do much of anything with it BECAUSE I never intended to quit my day job. I just wanted to know stuff. 10 houses later, it was well worth knowing stuff. My guess is you just wanted to know stuff, too. I get that.
So, about those CEFs, they sure are smoke and mirrors — to me anyway. So? If an advisor claims to be working only on a percentage of AUM billed to the client, can said advisor claim that he or the umbrella under which he operates is not receiving anything back from those CEFs, as in kickbacks, payola, trailer fees, bonuses, whatever?
In other words, can an advisor putting a client in CEFs, look a client straight in the eye and say he gets nothing back from those CEFs — without his pants catching on fire, that is?
(Of course, I know a lot of people have fireproof pants, which is too bad.)
To simplify: Does using CEFs when claiming only AUM as cost to clients always require the advisor to wear fireproof pants?
Boomer