This is not a vent board or any other kind of therapy. Before you hit the POST button, ask yourself if your contribution will add to the level of discussion going on.

Important notes on articles:

• Please do not copy entire articles into your post; rather, provide links to them.. We are now links-only for ALL Internet publications. If only a small portion of the article pertains to your post, Fair Use allows you to copy those one or two paragraphs, provided you cite the author's name and the publication for which he writes. Otherwise, put a link in the HTTP Link box.
• Even if you're copying a reference to an article, provide a link to the page from which the article came. We're trying to cut down on duplicate topics, and the posting process will check the link to your article to see if it's already being discussed on this board. At the very least, you'll save yourself some grief on the boards.
• If your first reaction after reading the article you're going to share is the author is uninformed / stupid / a jerk / all of the above, it's not worth sharing with anyone. Not every article needs to be discussed. The more the hair-pulling articles are discussed (e.g. ESPN Page 2), the more the authors will write hair-pulling articles.

Post being replied to

This is complete B.S. by The Magic Rat

Let me guess: you work for an RIA and have a CFP? Let me also surmise that you have never worked at a wirehouse, or, more likely, started at one and couldn't get through the training program and now have an axe to grind.

It is laughable that you RIA types actually believe that you are the only ones held to a fiduciary standard. Are you kidding? Do you even have an active series 7 license? It's like you guys were given a script your first day at work to use against the big bad wirehouse advisor and you are dumb enough to believe all of it.

Almost 100% of your post is myth.

1. There are plenty of competent financial planners who don't have a CFP designation. And there are plenty of idiotic scumbags who have that designation.
2. This is patently false. FA's at wirehouses, if under a wrap-fee platform, have the same fiduciary standard, not to mention several more layers of oversight.
3. I will agree with the notion that insurance-based planners often steer clients towards insurance products, but this isn't always the case. I do find it interesting that you seem to be making a claim that you are evaluated based on "the quality of advice that you give"? How so? Are you making 2 and 20? This is B.S. You, like everyone else, are getting paid based on fees that you bring in to the firm, not on how good your advice is to the client. To infer otherwise is completely disingenuous.

You reek of someone trying to sell something.

Edited for spelling/grammar