Charles Schwab financial advice

I used to work at Morgan Stanley, and if there is one thing I learned, it’s that everything revolves around chasing the almighty dollar—yet somehow, nobody actually sees any of it. You put in the hours, you grind away, and yet the money just isn't there. It is honestly heartbreaking to see people working in certain financial firms lure others in by painting this incredibly rosy picture, telling clients that everything is perfect and prosperous, when the reality is 👎 something much more cynical than they care to admit. And since we are on the subject of Morgan Stanley, let's be real: they have always maintained this polished reputation for being reliable, successful, and perpetually profitable. A legitimate, honest firm would never feel the need to hide its losses, but they act as if they have never experienced a single setback in their lives. 😲 It sounds absurd, I know, but from the moment I started, my gut was telling me something was off. Once I finally saw the actual state of affairs and realized exactly where this path was leading, I handed in my resignation. I made sure to tell everyone who asked me for the truth that I wouldn't recommend Morgan Stanley to my worst enemy, because, quite frankly, the whole setup feels like a scam. That’s all I have to say about that. 🙄

Went to two consultations about three months ago. Man, the guy was such a sleazebag. He kept trying to butter me up, asking if I knew anyone else who needed this kind of thing, all while constantly bragging about how he works on a 🤮 🤮
basis.

casualtrucker7, my only real gripe was with how Edward Jones operates—something I haven't experienced firsthand as a client.

But look, let’s be precise here. When you talk about a public commission, if you're actually referring to the fee for setting up a home savings contract, Edward Jones doesn't set that rate—Bank of America does. That fee is standardized across the board (NYSE, NASDAQ, Vanguard, and Bank of America Securities) and sits at 1% of the agreed amount.

That fee is pulled from the client's initial deposits; neither you nor I get to decide whether it’s charged or not. And if it’s true that clients opening contracts at Bank of America through Edward Jones somehow skip that fee, then I guess you'll have to explain how you actually earn a commission for the work? Because that fee is what covers both the employees and the partners.

Unless, of course, you're just working for free. I highly doubt it.

I don't know what kind of deal Edward Jones and Bank of America have worked out, but there’s always a way to make it happen.
Didn't Bank of America run a promotion last year where they let people switch over from other institutions without charging any fees? Did you manage to pull that off for free?
I remember seeing reports in the papers about them offering discounts with certain coupons, too.

The previous promotions were just 1% fee waivers, but those had strict expiration dates. In those cases, we basically walk away from our margin—which isn't exactly standard practice.

There’s no such thing as a free lunch, and there’s no such thing as a decent job without a paycheck. Fees are set by federal law; bonuses, discounts, and all that stuff only kick in once the fees have actually been collected.

Transfers are free on our end, though the bank you're moving money out of will likely charge you an exit fee.

casualtrucker7 said:Look, if you're going to talk about public commissions, at least be specific. If you're referring to the fee for setting up a home savings contract, Edward Jones doesn't set that rate—Bank of America does. That specific fee is standardized across all major institutions (NYSE, NASDAQ, Vanguard, and Bank of America) and sits right at 1% of the agreed amount.

That fee is pulled straight from the client's initial deposits; neither you nor I get to decide whether it gets collected or not. Now, if it’s actually true that clients signing through Edward Jones for Bank of America don't have to cough up that fee, then you need to explain how you're even getting paid for your work. Those fees are what fund the salaries for both employees and partners.

Unless, of course, you're out there working as a volunteer. I highly doubt it.

The 1% fee at Bank of America is waived until April 1st, 2006, provided the contract is signed through Edward Jones.
It's pretty obvious that Bank of America wants to stay competitive against Wells Fargo and Vanguard, who are also partners with Edward Jones.

As for how they collect their commission or where the money comes from, I haven't a clue. But you can bet your life Bank of America sees some kind of strategic advantage in offering terms like that.

You can argue all you want, but in this scenario, the Edward Jones advisors have the upper hand. It's simple: they have a better deal on the table than you do working over at Bank of America.

I'm sure they have similar arrangements in place with several other partners too.

casualtrucker7 said:The stock deals we saw earlier involved waiving that 1% fee, but those were strictly limited-time offers. In those specific scenarios, they’re basically leaving money on the table, which is a total outlier.

I am 100% certain that Edward Jones isn't about to just walk away from their commissions. They'll squeeze every single cent out of those Bank of America contracts, regardless of whether that 1% fee is on the table or not.

Frankie, could you double-check if that promo fee discount isn't actually 50%? I'm thinking maybe it's not quite 100%—let me know what your people end up saying.

casualtrucker7 said:Frankie, hey, can you double-check if that promotional fee discount isn't actually 50%? It might not be the full 100%, but let us know what your people told you.

Look, just check it yourself if it bothers you that much. Maybe my memory is fuzzy, but honestly, whether it’s 50% or 100% is irrelevant here. You don't even get a 1% discount at Bank of America.
If you're trying to prove that working at Bank of America makes you somehow superior to the folks over at Edward Jones, you need a better argument, because you're definitely not going to win this one.

And while we're at it, don't say "my people"—they aren't yours.
I sat in for a consultation with them once, that's it. I didn't spend years grinding through an engineering degree at MIT just to end up doing some entry-level advisor's job.
My experience with them was fine, so I really don't get where you're coming from, especially since you haven't even seen how they operate or what they actually do. Go get a firsthand look before you start posting comments about their partners and their objectivity.

Edward Jones can only be as objective as an institution that works with three out of the four major savings banks on the market. If you look at the insurance landscape—where maybe eight out of twenty thousand firms actually matter—they’re partnered with five of them. Even with pension funds, they’ve got two out of the four major players. As for investment funds, they aren't bad, but they aren't the gold standard either; they work with seven of those.
If you’ve got enough grit, self-drive, and a positive mindset, you can definitely grind your way at Edward Jones to a solid monthly income—somewhere around $6.75 per month or even more.
For those treating this as a side hustle rather than a full-time gig, you can still pull in a decent paycheck of about $1.75 or higher. It’s all pretty transparent if you look at the commission statements—these payouts aren't some big secret.😉

Personally, I’ve found Edward Jones to be a great place to socialize and make money, instead of just sitting around the house complaining about how there are no jobs or how the world is going to hell.

At the end of the day, it’s not for everyone, and not everyone is cut out for it.

I’m with you on that last point—that’s how we should be handling this. We shouldn't take everything personally like neonrider7 does; I guess instead of letting ego get in the way, people end up dismissing roles like being an "advisor" just because someone from Fidelity thinks it's beneath them.

Look, let’s be real here—these advisors are completely biased, and honestly, you shouldn't trust a single word coming out of their mouths.
So, I'm curious, how much would you actually be willing to shell out if you could find an independent advisor who was truly objective?

hollowtrucker77 said:Fine, these advisors have skin in the game and you can't really trust them anyway.
So now I'm wondering—how much would you actually pay for an independent, objective advisor who isn't trying to sell you something?

I like where your head's at.
What kind of fees would an independent pro charge? Something along the lines of a lawyer?

Say you're buying a house:
1. Credit score check - $167
2. Picking the best mortgage rate - $167
3. Life insurance - maybe 1% of the coverage amount ($200-$300)
4. Homeowners insurance - thrown in for free as part of a bundle
5. Loan closing assistance - 1% fee ($500)
6. .....

Look, it's just business. Let's just start our own firm and call it a day.

Gerald Thomas11, you should probably flesh out that idea you mentioned... there’s some logic to it—that's essentially how insurance brokerages got their start, I guess.

I haven't come across any objective Financial Planning Associates either, so maybe we should look into what kind of hurdles exist for operating that way and what they might be.

And are there agencies or firms like that outside of the US?

Smiley said:I’m with you on that last point. That’s how we should be talking. People shouldn't take everything personally like neonrider7 does—you know, where ego gets in the way and suddenly some profession like being an "advisor" is looked down upon just because someone graduated from MIT and thinks they're too good for it.

You put "some advisor" in quotes, but I didn't. Maybe I should rephrase: I wouldn't work as an advisor because it's just not my thing, and my current job is perfectly fine even if the paycheck isn't exactly massive $6667.
It wasn't about taking anything personally; it just rubbed me the wrong way seeing someone judge a professional's work without having any actual insight into what they do. It bothered me because I actually saw that whole advisory session in a very positive light.
As far as objectivity goes, for me, that was the most objective free advice I could get right now. Sure, it would be better if they represented every single player on the market, but look at the big picture—this firm operates across several countries, and if you look at their partner list, you'll see none of them operate exclusively within America. How would it look if their advisor in Germany told a client, "Hey, we partner with State Farm and PNC Bank"? If their partner is JPMorgan Chase instead of their own specific savings house, there’s almost certainly a damn good reason for it. Maybe the issue lies with the bank itself.

Smiley said:I haven't come across any truly objective financial advisory services either. Let's dig into what kind of hurdles exist if someone tries to operate that way and what they actually look like.

And does this kind of agency or firm even exist outside of the US?

Let’s start by narrowing the scope down strictly to insurance. There are about 25 major players in the US market.
Would an agency like that even need all 25 of them?
You have to factor in client security. Personally, I wouldn't even bother seeking advice from an insurance provider that only operates out of two small offices and holds a measly 1% market share.

Smiley said:Gerald Thomas11, go ahead and flesh out that concept you mentioned... there's potential there. That's how insurance brokerage firms get started in the first place.
I haven't come across any legitimate Charles Schwab-style advisory services around here either. Let's see what kind of regulatory hurdles we'd actually face if we tried this.
And do these kinds of agencies exist outside of America?

I wasn't trying to be snarky, but I'm open to developing this idea.
Let's call the firm "Idea Corp" just to get things moving.

To start, let's narrow the scope strictly to insurance. There are about 25 major providers in the US.
Would an agency like ours even need all 25 of them?

Idea Corp wouldn't have direct contracts with any carriers; we'd just need to master everyone's terms and rates. Is that data even accessible? Would insurers even give it to us?
There's a new insurance law recently passed. We'll need to study it to figure out how to register Idea Corp properly.
Liability? What happens if someone gives a client bad advice?
Pricing. I might have overshot the mark in my last post. We’d need a proper fee schedule—hourly rates for consultations, prep work, research, field visits...

That's a starting point. Carry on.

I think we’re looking at this all wrong—take housing savings programs, for example. There are only about four major players in the US, and they all operate under the exact same Housing Savings Act. I’ve seen plenty of financial comparisons in the news and online, and they always show that they’re basically identical, differing by maybe a few bucks at most.
What they’re actually selling is the SERVICE and the Marketing Inc. side of things. They compete on who can offer better perks, extra services, or those little "bonus" incentives.
But when you crunch the numbers, it all ends up being the same.
For me personally, what matters is having someone give me the straight truth, just like I wrote above.
I don't want some clueless clerk behind a Chase counter looking me in the eye and lying to my face, saying stuff like, "You know, we're the only ones who refund that 1% contract fee; none of the other banks do that."
Oh, please! Don't insult my intelligence!
That kind of nonsense really gets under my skin.
Anyone working at an institution that handles three different housing plans isn't going to be honest with you—they couldn't care less which one they sell you...
In my opinion, that's just the objective reality.😉

We should probably move past the whole OVB discussion and focus on Charles Schwab style financial advising instead. It’s a field that demands a lot from you, but man, can it pay off—both for the clients and the pros actually doing the work.
I’ve been in this game for over eight years now. I set my own hours, work when the mood strikes, and pick my own partners (whether that's a client or a major firm). I’ve turned away more clients than I can count, even when they were practically shoving cash at me just to close a life insurance premium. Anyone who’s been around the block knows that every client has their price, and sometimes, you just have to be grateful for the right ones. It’s a two-way street: the customer gets to choose their advisor, and the advisor gets to choose their customer.
I’m writing this because some people just don't get it or they totally underestimate the profession. Sure, every job is a grind at first, but like we've said here before, if you invest in yourself—knowledge, drive, and a bit of guts—it all comes back to you. Anyone who has put in a few years in this business knows ten times more than any retail banker ever could. And there's a very good reason for that. A retail banker doesn't care if they sell you something or not. Their salary stays the same (or they get a pathetic little bonus), so frankly, you as a client don't really matter to them. But for a financial advisor who actually lives off these sales, it is in their best interest to find the absolute best solution for the client. (No offense to the retail bankers, but you really don't have a clue, and you won't until you get out from behind that teller window).
For instance, just by giving one specific client the right advice and a solid suite of services, I saved them over $65,000. Financial advising within a broader range of financial services is an incredibly serious business that, when done right, benefits both the client and the advisor. People who look down on this job, or even potential stock market advisory, clearly have a messy relationship with their own wallets. And those who think they can "test" an agent... well, they're my favorite kind of people...

living debt free:

I guess

http://www.livingdebtfree.info/newsstand/