patrick.net

Accountant is superior to financial salesman (aka "Advisor"). They understand taxation far better, which is more of a concern with somebody with 7 figs in assets who will probably be taping into wealth going into retirement.

Any Accountant in business with individuals/small businesses and the general public for a few years is more well rounded and better able to take care of people than a Mutual Fund/Whole Life Insurance/Annuity Salesperson.

Consider, too, whether you enjoy keeping up with the economy, markets and investments, says Kramer. “In my case, from my 20s to my 40s, I very much enjoyed handling my investments. In my mid-40s, I found that I didn’t enjoy it as much and wanted to spend my time on other personal and professional pursuits, so outsourcing that part of my finances was a good choice,” says Kramer, who now employs a financial adviser herself.

Uh, what the fuck do accountants do but keep an eye on your in flows and out flows. Y'know, it's kind of in the name. They won't charge 1% of your net assets, either, Taxes when you are living off investments are more crucial and more flexible than when you're on salary, accountants do that, financial advisosalesmen don't.

This "Article" is clearly sponsored by Financial Advisor "professional associations".

It's not a real question - it's a so-called humble brag.

If you find yourself in this guy’s situation, you don’t need to hire anyone.

Vanguard has a service which is essentially $500 to help you if you are a “Flagship” level customer with $1 million. Others like T. Rowe Price do too I think.

I would also consider paying a financial planning guy by the hour for some perspective.
I would also pay an enrolled agent or accountant by the hour to help minimize taxes.

There are 3 main issues concerning financial planning 1. Capital appreciation (easy) 2. Income when you quit working; you don’t want to run out of money (a bit more complicated) 3. Avoiding taxes (a bitch to figure out).

The guy above has a pension worth millions; take $350,000 and divide it by .05 (5%).
Theoretically he doesn’t need to touch his IRAs, etc.

I’m so pissed off about taxes I can’t stop thinking about it.
“Golden years” my ass.
Edit
As stated above, it's a humble brag.
Nobody in their right mind should pay 1% of his financial net worth to an "adviser".
That's $10,000 per million, it's absurd.

What happens when the dollar crashes, and everyone's forced to switch to CBDC's at 99% loss? I suppose I'm just an alarmist, and you definitely shouldn't investigate CDBC's, or historical transitions when fiat collapses, or the event they just ran simulating cyber attacks on the financial sector that could be used as an excuse to force us onto CDBC's.

You think that's money you're making Neo?

Al_Sharpton_for_President says

My question is, do I need to retain a financial advisor for a 1% fee or can I navigate my retirement financially with an accountant only?

I recommend putting all your money into Headset Asset Management. Unlike financial advisors, we do not charge any percentage of total assets fees! We use a very successful investment strategy we call "CHURN."

WSJ more or less solved this issue years ago with their 'dartboard portfolio', which often defeated so called seasoned, famous and knowledgeable pros aka darts randomly thrown at a basket of stocks vs. professional management. Professional managers are sales people who give you a sense of security that a 'higher power' is on your side helping you pick your investments. Fact is, it's all guess work unless you actually operate at the level of fraudulent market manipulation, which you won't achieve unless you successfully run for political office.

Brilliant tax strategies often wind you up in tax court eventually because taxes are a moving target. There are changes to the tax code every year, and large changes every five years. Your brilliant tax strategist is gone, and you are stuck fighting the IRS.

Buy the low commission various index funds and balance those every year or two between stocks and bonds if you like and just accept the yields. I don't know anybody who did day trading for the thrill of the chase who wound up winning in the long run. Being a day trader tends to be a 'retirement delay' plan rather than a retirement plan as your chances of flushing the pile in one way or another are pretty good..

NuttBoxer says

What happens when the dollar crashes, and everyone's forced to switch to CBDC's at 99% loss? I suppose I'm just an alarmist, and you definitely shouldn't investigate CDBC's, or historical transitions when fiat collapses, or the event they just ran simulating cyber attacks on the financial sector that could be used as an excuse to force us onto CDBC's.

You think that's money you're making Neo?

Wait, Amero is not a thing anymore? It's CBDCs now? Fuck, keeping up with all the dollar replacements is turning into a day job.

Eric Holder says

Wait, Amero is not a thing anymore? It's CBDCs now? Fuck, keeping up with all the dollar replacements is turning into a day job.

Central Banking Digital Currency. Generic term, but it's what they use whenever it's discussed. If you want to know it's intended use, there's a video of one of the central bankers from South America I believe talking about it's ability to track and restrict any transaction. One of the few honest moments in central banking history.

This guy has a $350,000/year pension? And he doesn't care about a legacy? Easy question to answer imo. No, you do not need to pay anyone but a good tax preparer. Good God, man, go live a stress-free life.

I think a lot of these marketwatch stories are fake.

A person like this is in very rare air. I couldn't imagine worrying about money if I was him. I'd concentrate on living a life full of relationships and being of use.

Why would this person even want to borrow the equity against his house?

How much is "well into 7 figures" anyway?

Is that like "high 7 figures"?

Just his pension alone is worth $7 million or so.

I see a lot of bullshit stories like his on my news feed; "I'm in my 30's and make $10,000/month with my side gig." etc.

Having some money requires a mind set; you don't mind the sacrifice of saving and invest the dough in stock mutual funds.
You tolerate the slings and arrows of those who can't save or who want you to spend on them (females, others).
You don't follow trends into nonsense gambling schemes (bitcoin) or pay for "day trade" etc. classes.
You don't throw money away to see guys like Tony Robbins and his ilk.
You don't buy any Joel Osteen books except at Goodwill if you must.
You don't go drinking in bars, ever.

The guy might have meant a $350k lump-sum pension, not annual payment. "Well into 7-figures" could mean 1.2M to 2M, including the $350k lump-sum pension.

So, now the guy's not so rich.
$350,000 X .05=$17,500/year pension if he doesn't blow it.
$2 million X .05=$100,000/year if systematically withdrawn.

$2 million is about $50,000/year if he just lives off dividends and interest.

Poor slob ;)

> $2 million is about $50,000/year if he just lives off dividends and interest.

Then something like Kodak happens.

To begin with, I doubt he had $2mil at the time of his writing. With recent nearly 50% or more decline in some tech stocks/funds, his 3 401k's and 2 mutual funds may well be below $1mil combined now, and most certainly will be below 1Mil by the end of this calendar year (the financial sector is likely to crater in order to consolidate and getting rid of some staff / reduce labor cost in that sector, and that's a huge component of most broad-market indices). Property tax for someone like that is likely over $10k per year. So he will be looking at about $2k-2.5k/mo for living expenses (including social security) after paying property taxes and home maintenance expenses, if the return on capital assumption is 5%, which is not guaranteed year after year at all due to things like Kodak. The purpose of Wall Street is not letting everyone walk away with 5% profit every year forever.