Date: Sat, 21 Feb 2004 04:54:33 CST
From: anothername@access4less.net (Doug)
Newsgroups: misc.invest.financial-plan
Subject:  Re: Financial planner vs. Do It Myself?
Message-ID:  <1b3f4ae6.0402201926.621432b@posting.google.com>
References:   <200220041436442883%john@johnweeks.com>
	iQBVAwUAQDc46fl/I4+O31e5AQHpyAIAzhYY/2eF/loQqY+zuyupZsMss6bXaIGn
	k029u7xWrr7d5QenNZyDh7HapsqVpLqu6QFdYJilzVQ/lpnjDMIdLg==
	=9jd1

After a few years, and under a different "advisor", they will switch
you to a "better" plan. Stick with Vanguard.

"John A. Weeks III"  wrote in message news:<200220041436442883%john@johnweeks.com>...
> In article , HW \"Skip\"
> Weldon  wrote:
> 
> >       Now the real interesting part: Fee Structure.  The service fees
> > for maintaining a fund with First Command is all paid up-front.  So,
> > on a $1000/mon ($12,000 invested/year) plan, $6000 would be paid in
> > the first year in service fees.  After the first year, however, NO
> > service fees will EVER be paid again.  This means if the asset grows
> > to $3.5 million in 30 years, I would pay $0 in service fees.  The guy
> > called it "expensive up front, cheap later."
> 
> $6,000!?!?!?!?  Just as a general rule, I am not going to pay any
> financial company $6000 for anything, not unless it involves call
> girls, and even then, they are going to have to have some pretty
> significant assets.  Even if you bought full front load funds that
> cost 5% up front, you would have to put in $120,000 just to break
> even here, which is 10 years.  And it doesn't sound like you would
> do something as silly as that anyway (buying loaded funds).  Run!
> 
> -john-