What is your opinion of Waddell & Reed?

[vykyng]

Hello:

Has anyone here ever done business with a company called Waddell & Reed (e.g. received service from one of their financial advisors)? If so, what was your experience (e.g. good? bad?)?

Please advise.

Thanks!

V.

[Unproncble]

Alas, my opinion of Waddell & Reed is not favorable at all. First their advisor tried to hood-wink me. Then, when I attempt to negotiate a reasonable settlement of my claim with them --- it became evident there was an absence of good faith and fair dealing. Yes, they wanted to settle with me, but the terms were so one-sided it was insulting. So its back to square one and am having the complaint drafted for court filing.

What has been your experience?

[vykyng]

I'm sorry to hear that your experience with W&R was not favorable. (Two of their senior employees contacted me with regards to a job as a Financial Advisor so I'm just wondering if it's a reputable company.) How did their Financial Advisor try to hoodwink you?

[Unproncble]

She defrauded me. She made certain representations about her fees that were patently false, thereby setting up a conflict of interest at my expense. Basically, she agreed to purchase "x" amount of assets for me and, for a yearly fee, we would get together 4x/year to review those assets and make whatever adjustments up or down that might be necessary. Well, that was all well and good. Problem, however, was that she failed to tell me everything she purchased on my behalf would trigger a huge penalty/commission if sold under one year. So she basically set me up. There were other aspects to all this also; too complex to detail.

They are negotiating a settlement with me right now...the first round of talks was ridiculous (total lack of good faith and fair dealing), so I spoke with an atty about filing suit. Then, to my surprise (after they told me to go F myself, basically), they brought in a new negotiator who came back with another settlement offer which now I probably will accept.

As far as the firm is concerned, I think they are limited in their ability to make purchases outside of their defined little "Waddell & Reed world". I have a new advisor now who was unimpressed with what was purchased on my behalf and stated there were many better alternatives. However, his research indicates Waddell & Reed could not have made those better purchases for me (which was something else I didn't really know or understand at the time I signed up with Waddell & Reed), because they are limited in their ability of what they can hold, purchase, etc.

Sigh....

[ajm184]

Waddell & Reed ('WR') is a mixed bag in my opinion from being a financial advisor. A the end of the day, a financial advisor who is employed by a company like this works for the company, not the client.

Like most places in the financial services (and just about all others for that matter) areana, selling the products of your employer is highly encouraged. When considering a position, a person needs to examine the products offered and their relative competitive position within the overall marketplace. Given you asking the question in the first place would indicate its position. In addition, a further examination of its mutual funds (though they also have JV's to sell insurance products) would show in Morningstar to middle of the road for the most part (a couple highly specialized funds are well rated).

The positive is that the fund manager's for many years have had to 'eat their own stew' by investing a lot of money into their own fund(s).

I think a position with them can be beneficial if you would like to get access to initial training or have a deep network pool (willing to invest).

[FormerAdviserTrainee]

I don't think Waddell and Reed is a good place to invest with. I recently started as a trainee, but very soon became disillusioned with their approach.
First of all, their fund managers in Kansas City, MO are incompetent. Check their Web site and look at their returns. Forget what Barron's said about their funds last year. That's old news and not representative of what's happening now. They are completely out of touch with the market, and make some very bad bets.
As of today, their main fund, which has been running since 1940, is nearly 45% DOWN on the year. Worse, read the commentaries on their Web site and see the poorly written and lame excuses they make for their poor performance, and compare it with the what the top fund managers in the industry have to say. They are not accepting accountability for their performance! In performance oriented firms, these fund managers would soon be fired. But in this "family oriented" midwestern firm, employees come first, and investors last. Actually, the financial advisers come last, because they are expendable, low-cost people who come and go frequently.
The current CEO is blaming Wall Street for their woes. Look at the picture of his face - he even looks like a dirty scammer. This is a company that prides themselves on being far away from the "liberal elite" Wall Street crowd, but don't be fooled. They're basically of the same mode - greedy and self-serving - albeit "bible-thumping" as they like to say. And not as smart as the Wall Street people. Also check their stock price. I think it's still being artificially propped up by their own funds, but I expect it will continue to crash until they find some greater fool to buy them out.
My advice - Don't hire these people to manage your money. They are highly trained to target middle income people, sell lousy products, and keep you from redeeming your funds. W&R don't train their contract advisers in real financial planning. They only look for how much disposable income you have and try to get you to invest all of it with them. Ask them some "gotcha" questions and see how they respond. Any financial education that an advisor wants, he needs to pay for himself. In fact, the new advisors even have to pay up front themselves to get their securities and insurance licenses on their own, via Internet. W&R only train and push their contract advisers to get new clients and keep those clients from leaving. In the end, they will grab you and fight like hell not to let you go, even if your needs, and all logic and market conditions, say that you should change investments. If you insist on moving your money, they are trained to use tactics to make you feel afraid and stupid if you leave them. The branch managers and regional managers may even come out to try to make you feel even more stupid and guilty for leaving - if your account is big enough. Kind of like trying to leave a strict Episcopalian church.
In the end, it is in their best interests - and not yours - that you not pull out money from their funds. They will say they have your interests at heart, but don't be fooled - they will be hurting more than you if you move away from them. Worst of all, all they have to sell you are their high load mutual funds, which is a poor shelf of product choices.
Except if - and maybe even worse - they're pushing insurance or variable annuities from Nationwide, with which they lost many lawsuits with, but continue to sell, due to their high commission rate. I think the variable annuity bubble is going to be the next big bubble that's going to crash.
My advice - work with a bigger investment adviser, that has many more choices for you to select from - and buy ETFs (exchange traded funds).
They will be cheaper and give you much more flexibility.

[Industry Guru]

"Waddell & Reed ('WR') is a mixed bag in my opinion from being a financial advisor. A the end of the day, a financial advisor who is employed by a company like this works for the company, not the client."

-Good one... So you'd rather have an employee of Wachovia, or Morgan Stanley do a "Financial Plan" for you with all of their investments? Waddell advisors are 1099'd contractors, not employees (w2)... They don't sign non-compete clauses and have access to over 100 different fund families. Sounds like they work for the company not the clients... Get your facts straight before you make inaccurate assumptions

Like most places in the financial services (and just about all others for that matter) areana, selling the products of your employer is highly encouraged. When considering a position, a person needs to examine the products offered and their relative competitive position within the overall marketplace. Given you asking the question in the first place would indicate its position. In addition, a further examination of its mutual funds (though they also have JV's to sell insurance products) would show in Morningstar to middle of the road for the most part (a couple highly specialized funds are well rated).

The positive is that the fund manager's for many years have had to 'eat their own stew' by investing a lot of money into their own fund(s).

I think a position with them can be beneficial if you would like to get access to initial training or have a deep network pool (willing to invest).

-Again, you reflect the "Employer" in here... There is no employer when there are independant contractors involved. Also, Waddell & Reed is currently THE NUMBER ONE RANKED MUTUAL FUND FAMILY IN THE COUNTRY... AND Smith Barney is the #1 seller of the IVY fund family which is the public version of the private Waddell Funds. Get your facts straight my friend.

"She defrauded me. She made certain representations about her fees that were patently false, thereby setting up a conflict of interest at my expense. Basically, she agreed to purchase "x" amount of assets for me and, for a yearly fee, we would get together 4x/year to review those assets and make whatever adjustments up or down that might be necessary. Well, that was all well and good. Problem, however, was that she failed to tell me everything she purchased on my behalf would trigger a huge penalty/commission if sold under one year. So she basically set me up. There were other aspects to all this also; too complex to detail.

They are negotiating a settlement with me right now...the first round of talks was ridiculous (total lack of good faith and fair dealing), so I spoke with an atty about filing suit. Then, to my surprise (after they told me to go F myself, basically), they brought in a new negotiator who came back with another settlement offer which now I probably will accept.

As far as the firm is concerned, I think they are limited in their ability to make purchases outside of their defined little "Waddell & Reed world". I have a new advisor now who was unimpressed with what was purchased on my behalf and stated there were many better alternatives. However, his research indicates Waddell & Reed could not have made those better purchases for me (which was something else I didn't really know or understand at the time I signed up with Waddell & Reed), because they are limited in their ability of what they can hold, purchase, etc.

Sigh...."

-You sound like someone just pissed in your cup of soup... First and most importantly... Waddell & Reed has been around for SEVENTY ONE YEARS. They have 3,000 advisors throughout the country and over 250 offices. They are the number one ranked mutual fund family IN THE WORLD. They are the oldest financial planning instituion. IN SEVENTY ONE YEARS, THEY HAVE BEEN SUED OR HAVE HAD 26 COMPLAINTS!!! To put that in prospective for you... Merrill Lynch has had over 900 complaints THIS YEAR. You want integrity and a solid company, Waddell & Reed is it.

As for "FORMERADVISORTRAINEE"... I didn't take the time to read your entire whining post but it sounds like someone couldn't pass his securities exam and maybe had to go back and consider community college or 3rd shift at Wendy's? FYI The CEO has been with the company FORTY YEARS and speaks publicly ALWAYS reminding the field team that it is NOT their money to lose but their clients. The fund managers are the only ones in the industry who have their own retirement in their funds which is incredible and speaks loudly about the integrity of the business model. The average client stays with Waddell 13 years to the industries 2.6 years. The average advisor that contracts with the company and survives longer than 3 years will most times NEVER leave the firm FOR THEIR ENTIRE CAREER. Sounds like a bad deal to me. Why not take the time you wasted filling a post with smiley faces and go study for your series 7 young man. And take ownership of your own failures will you?

God bless you... And the stock market!

-23

[NotImpressed]

At my girlfriend's insistence, we went to a W&R financial "advisor" last week. I was not happy at all with the quality of service we got.

She was unable to answer relatively simple questions like, "How much will we have after x years if we set aside y dollars/month?" She blamed it on an upgrade of their software, which supposedly changed how to use many of the features.

She recommended that my girlfriend move money out of an old state pension fund, without even checking what rate the fund offered.
My girlfriend:"I think that fund is paying 8% annually."
Advisor:"I find that highly unlikely, but if it's true then you should keep your money there."
So my girlfriend checked with the state and sure enough it was at 8%. Of course, the funds the advisor recommended all came with high front-end loads. The advisor should have done the job we paid for, and checked before automatically recommending the switch. Of course, it wouldn't surprise me to know that she did check, and just said she didn't because she wanted the commission.

She also suggested that I move my IRA from where it is, to their family of funds. Again, every single fund she recommended had a high front-end load, as well as higher than average management fees. When I pointed out the high load, she replied with, "Yes, but try getting these kinds of returns with a no-load fund". This, despite the years of research which shows ZERO difference in performance between load and no-load funds. Basically, she lied to us, hoping that we were ignorant of the truth. F**k that, f**k her, and f**k W&R.

It digusts me that we paid money to have this glorified con artist try to sell us overpriced, second-rate products. Despite what "Industry Guru" (an obvious shill for W&R) says, W&R sucks and I would not recommend them to anybody, for any reason. Are they better or worse than any other corporate financial advisor? I couldn't tell you. But I can tell you that, based on my experience as a client/sucker, they SUCK. They say that they are advisors, when in reality they are salespeople. We specifically chose a fee-based service so that we would get unbiased advice, but that did not happen.

[NotImpressed]

Oh, and if you look at the prospectuses for W&R's mutual funds, they all have 12b-1 fees. If you don't know what they are, they're fees that you pay so that they can go out and advertise their crappy products to other people.

W&R are scum. Industry Guru? F**k you, too.

[Rachel234]

Wow. These are very interesting thoughts on advisors. I do not work for Waddell and Reed...but I am a financial advisor.
1. 12b-1 fees are attached to EVERY mutual fund. Waddell and reed did not create them. In fact the SEC has regulations on the amount of the 12b-1 fees.
2. Depending on what types of shares you purchase, you will have up front costs, back end costs or constant low fees attached quarterly to your principal....this is the same at every brokerage. If you feel you were misled, you should read the contracts before you sign your money away. Usually if you choose a specific share type, you should understand that they are intendended for the long term and taking the funds out may incur fees--this is not made up at Waddell and reed I assure you.
3. W and R advisors ARE independant, but they do have their own products. Advisors don't have incentive to sell their own products but just have more information on them and sometimes prefer them due to ease of use. I know this from being an advisor with Merrill Lynch.
4. Do you just call up a surgeon and have him operate on you without interviewing him about your SPECIFIC health issue? Well before you go huffing and puffing about your advisor....you should interview him and ask questions like how long have you been in the industry, how many clients do you have, etc...
Waddell and Reed has been around for a LONG time...they are clearly in the business to make a little and give a little. Different advisors and brokers have different clients that they cater to...ie merrill caters to the high networth, AIG to lower networth, edward jones invests with the people in the neighborhood.

Its really quite silly to see people complaining about these things like 12b-1 and share class fees--if you have done your research you would be familiar with these things---my advice to you...don't hand over your hard earned $$$ to anyone without the proper understanding of how these things operate.

[NotImpressed]

1. 12b-1 fees are attached to EVERY mutual fund. Waddell and reed did not create them. In fact the SEC has regulations on the amount of the 12b-1 fees.

I never stated that W&R created them; where did you get that from? I did make a typo, though; I meant to say "high 12b-1 fees". Yes, most (not all, as you claim) mutual funds charge 12b-1 fees. But why should anybody pay 1) a high front-end load, AND 2) high 12b-1 fees? The mutual funds being pushed by this particular "advisor" had both; in fact, the 12b-1 fees were about 4-5x what they are in a true 100% no-load mutual fund. And repeated research has shown that higher expenses do NOT correlate to higher returns. In fact, it's the opposite. So how is that in the best interest of the client? Answer: it's not. Get it?

Here's a fun fact:
W&R has a sales brochure which shows how highly rated they were in 2007 (I wonder how long they're going to use those outdated figures) in several classes. What's funny is that if you look at the other 'winners' in those classes, 3 out of 4 times the corresponding no-load Janus fund beats the W&R fund. And it's right there in their very own sales literature. Yes, Janus management had issues of it's own a few years ago in regards to allowing certain clients to market-time and lying about it, to the detriment of their smaller clients, but that says more about the financial services industry as a whole than anything else. That, and the weekly news stories about fund managers embezzling their clients money. And the current market meltdown, helped along by the credit default swaps. And the... well, I'm sure you get the idea.

2. Depending on what types of shares you purchase, you will have up front costs, back end costs or constant low fees attached quarterly to your principal....this is the same at every brokerage. If you feel you were misled, you should read the contracts before you sign your money away. Usually if you choose a specific share type, you should understand that they are intendended for the long term and taking the funds out may incur fees--this is not made up at Waddell and reed I assure you.

I didn't "sign any money away", unless you count paying a single flat fee for what was supposed to be impartial and helpful information. Money that we're in the process of getting refunded, btw.

You're making assumptions and stating them as fact. Do you do the same when advising your clients, too...?

3. W and R advisors ARE independant, but they do have their own products. Advisors don't have incentive to sell their own products but just have more information on them and sometimes prefer them due to ease of use. I know this from being an advisor with Merrill Lynch.

You're claiming that even though she was trying to push mutual funds with high front-end loads, that she "doesn't have an incentive" to sell them over others? Bullshit. What, does the money get donated to charity, then? It's starting to sound like Merrill Lynch isn't any better than W&R. Which honestly doesn't suprise me at all.

The bottom line is that this woman was paid to give finanacial advice IN OUR BEST INTEREST, not advice that was "easy". I don't give a shit if she or you find it easier to recommend in-house products even though there are better products available on the market. How pathetic is that. You're basically saying that you're too lazy to do your jobs well. With the added benefit of a big fat sales commission to boot. Thanks for the heads-up.

If you don't want to be viewed like slimy used-car salesmen, stop acting like them. Get it?

4. Do you just call up a surgeon and have him operate on you without interviewing him about your SPECIFIC health issue? Well before you go huffing and puffing about your advisor....you should interview him and ask questions like how long have you been in the industry, how many clients do you have, etc...

Wasn't my idea; my girlfriend insisted. The "advisor" came recommended by somebody she trusted. Suffice it to say, when my girlfriend told this other person about our experience, he decided to reevaluate continuing using her. Which I think is great, because I'm guessing he's a fairly big client (owns a business and has/had her administering the company 401k program).

Its really quite silly to see people complaining about these things like 12b-1 and share class fees--if you have done your research you would be familiar with these things---my advice to you...don't hand over your hard earned $$$ to anyone without the proper understanding of how these things operate.

You can call it silly all you want. What's happening here is the free exchange of information. What's really silly (and pathetic) is watching people, like you and "Industry Guru", get all whiny and defensive when your colleagues get called on their shit in a public forum. Their (your) business practices may be commonplace, but that doesn't make it any less contemptible. Quite the contrary, actually.

Do research? Some of us have, and that's why we're so disgusted with people like you and many of your colleagues, who try to make a living by exploiting other peoples ignorance and fear. I hope the money you take from your clients is enough to compensate for not being able to look at yourself in the mirror and honestly say that you're giving your clients the best advice possible. Because you already admitted that you and your colleagues do what's easy instead.

[happyclient]

I am very surprised with the responses on this blog. I just moved all my money/assets to Waddell and Reed. My advisor was fresh out of college with a degree in finance. I was a little skeptical at first because of her age and most advisors are men. After meeting with her (which by the way was free), I decided she was very knowledgeable with the current conditions of the market and with products. I gave her all the information she requested and scheduled a second appointment, (which was also free). She met with me a second time. This time I did my research prior to our meeting and had everything I was interested in outlined for her. She looked over my suggestions and then asked if she could present her recommendations before responding to mine. She did her spill and I was taken aback. She had done a considerable amount of research and came up with a solution to my specific needs. She offered me very solid advise. I was embarrassed at my attempt to tell her how to do her job. I did at that time pay her a small fee for a financial plan. I have found her plan to be worth every penny. It helped me see where my money was going and how I could use this expendable cash to my benefit. This young lady came from the Palm Harbour office. I guess as with any business/service, it depends on the people, not the company. There are "bad" people in every industry/job. As a consumer, it is our responsiblity to interview people we want to entrust our most private details to. If you do not feel comfortable or trust with this person--do not use them. Ask for another advisor. As for me, I have been very satisfied with the service I have received. Yes the market is down and my investments are down, just like everyone else. But having been down this road before, I know that when the market is back up, I will make up for my losses and then some. I think all of the whiners who are so interested in moving their money/funds are the ones that are causing the majority of the problems in the market. They want in when times are good and want out when it is bad. If they would average the overall experience, they would see they are even or better. Any investment only pays off in the long haul. For people who want to move money/funds all the time, maybe they should look at the overall picture. I guess what I am trying to say is don't judge a book by its cover. I am sure that Waddell and Reed have questionable people just like every other business/industry out there.

[NotImpressed]

I thought I'd follow up on one of Rachel's comments, about the "silliness" of complaining about 12b-1 fees, which "every" mutual fund has, according to her.

Some funds also charge 12b-1 fees - named after the SEC rule authorizing them - to pay for distribution costs, such as advertising and commissions paid to brokers. Investment companies assess such fees against their funds' assets. Although typically amounting to only a few basis points a year, 12b-1 fees have been contentious since their inception. Investment companies have argued that these fees help reduce fund expenses over the long run because they can be used to pay for promotions that help fund assets grow more rapidly than they otherwise would. Ferris and Change (1987) and Trzcinka and Zweig (1990), however, found that funds charging 12b-1 fees tend to have higher over-all expenses than other funds. They concluded that funds charging 12b-1 fees are imposing an undue burden on their shareholders.

-http://www.dows.com/Publications/Mut...Efficiency.pdf

"Undue burden" is a fancy way of saying that 12b-1 fees drag down a mutual funds performance for no valid reason; the fund managers are taking your money and spending it trying to convince yet more people to join the fund, so they can do the same thing to them too. But yeah, it sure is silly of us to not want that.

You see, Rachel; it's because we research these things that we get disgusted when "professionals" like yourself try to convince us that it's normal, and nothing to be upset about.

EDIT:
For anybody who wants to read about this subject in more detail:

"A COMPREHENSIVE LONG-TERM PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS OF LOAD VS. NO-LOAD MUTUAL FUNDS"
- http://www.studyfinance.com/jfsd/pdf...13n2/kuhle.pdf

[danoodle]

lol notimpressed, seems you have a bit of pent up anger there. Just because you had one bad experience with an advisor, you go on this rampage making claims that encompass the entire financial industry. Yeah there are bad people out there. Yes you need to do your own due dilligence. But claiming an entire company is garbage based on your ONE experience is simply foolish. It's comparable to prejudice and stereotypes. All Irish are alcoholics. All Asians know martial arts. Waddell and Reed is a horrible company because I had one bad experience with a financial advisor. Boo f-ing hoo. Go online and open up an account with Ameritrade. Nuff said

[NotImpressed]

Originally Posted by danoodle

lol notimpressed, seems you have a bit of pent up anger there. Just because you had one bad experience with an advisor, you go on this rampage making claims that encompass the entire financial industry.

Nice attempt at a Strawman Argument, but that's not what I said. My ire was directed at W&R specifically, not the industry in general. Although, since you bring it up, much of the industry is pretty bad. A few years ago I worked with a very ethical person who became a financial advisor. To make a long story short, as he began to see the kinds of business practices that occurred every day, he became quickly disgusted and left the industry.

Yeah there are bad people out there. Yes you need to do your own due dilligence. But claiming an entire company is garbage based on your ONE experience is simply foolish. It's comparable to prejudice and stereotypes. All Irish are alcoholics. All Asians know martial arts. Waddell and Reed is a horrible company because I had one bad experience with a financial advisor.

Again, you are unable to refute what I and others actually said, so you try to completely misrepresent the situation. If you had bothered to read (or comprehend) the entire thread, you would have seen that many people are dissatisfied with the integrity of the W&R advisors that they met with. And one of the posters, who used to be in their trainee program, stated quite clearly that their advisors are indoctrinated in unsavory business practices from the very beginning, which would make the issue pretty much company-wide. I find it curious that you ignore all of that and instead focus on my "pent up anger". It makes me question your objectivity and/or your mental faculties.

[danoodle]

lol I'm not refuting that you had a bad experience with this particular advisor. Or anyone for that matter. You are still claiming W&R is horrible based on your one experience. Show me some case studies. How many people have been scammed by W&R? What is the level of satisfaction with current investors and ones that left? You'll get a different story from every person you hear. I'm still not convinced. It comes down to the individual advisor. You can find some great advisors at the worst firms and horrible ones at the top ranked ones.

Give me some hard evidence that W&R, as a company, is complete garbage, that every advisor is a scam artist, that every person who has paid them money for their services is unsatisfied.

[NotImpressed]

Originally Posted by danoodle

lol I'm not refuting that you had a bad experience with this particular advisor. Or anyone for that matter. You are still claiming W&R is horrible based on your one experience. Show me some case studies. How many people have been scammed by W&R? What is the level of satisfaction with current investors and ones that left? You'll get a different story from every person you hear. I'm still not convinced. It comes down to the individual advisor. You can find some great advisors at the worst firms and horrible ones at the top ranked ones.

Give me some hard evidence that W&R, as a company, is complete garbage, that every advisor is a scam artist, that every person who has paid them money for their services is unsatisfied.

lqtm I see at least two flaws in your reasoning. First, a client has to know that he's been cheated before it counts. Second, that every single advisor has to be scum and every single client has to have been ripped off before the firm itself is bad; that's a curiously high standard.

But ok, I'll play your silly game for a sec. Let's see what a quick Google search turns up:

Waddell & Reed Settles NASD Charge:

04/29/05
Waddell & Reed will pay $18 million in fines and restitution to settle allegations the investment firm employed "aggressive" tactics associated with the sale of variable annuities.
Securities regulators contend the Kansas-based investment firm engaged in a national sales campaign to persuade customers to switch variable annuity contracts issued by one life insurer to those issued by another insurer. The campaign generated extra fees for Waddell & Reed, but led to some 5,000 customers paying unnecessary expenses.

Regulators at the NASD contend Waddell pressured customers to switch annuity contracts "without regard to whether the transactions were in the customer's best interests."

Waddell & Reed Settles Market Timing Case:

July 25, 2006
The state of New York has reached an agreement with one of the nation's oldest mutual fund management companies to settle charges that the firm permitted illegal trading of its funds.
Under the settlement, Waddell & Reed, Inc., based in Kansas City, agreed to pay $50 million in restitution to investors and make fee reductions totaling $25 million over the next five years. The company also will adopt a series of management reforms.

And:

Investigation also determined that Waddell & Reed's senior management knew that timing activity was harming the firm's small investors, and yet the company did nothing to stop the harmful activity for a period of 18 months. During that time, the Company's prospectus created the false impression that Waddell & Reed vigorously policed timing activity.

These were both on the first page of search results, and both were just a few years ago. But let me guess: now you're going to contend that they were just flukes, they learned the error of their ways, the bad apples are gone, etc ad nauseum.

Face it, the corruption is pretty much company-wide, and goes all the way to the top. A previous poster already explained that unsavory sales tactics are taught from the beginning, but for whatever reason you choose to ignore that. Are there individuals working for the company that are honest and ethical? More than likely. Why they would want to work for a company like W&R, I don't know. Maybe they're trying to get enough experience so that they can eventually move on to a more reputable business.

If you want to continue apologizing for W&R, knock yourself out. I've proven my point. Better yet, if you honestly believe that they're so great, let them manage all of your money. I hear they've got a great deal on variable annuities...

Dumbass.

[danoodle]

Originally Posted by NotImpressed

Second, that every single advisor has to be scum and every single client has to have been ripped off before the firm itself is bad; that's a curiously high standard.

It's called hyperbole. I thought a smart, sophisticated man like yourself who says "lqtm" would know that. Seriously, lqtm...wow....

Please tell me the name of one or more companies that are ethical. That will make you endless returns on your money. I dare you to name a "reputable" company on here because any moron can do a google search on any company and find dirt on them.

The bottom line is that people need to do their own due diligence. That's why there is a site called scam.com (imagine that?). Why you would ever let anyone "manage all your money" or do anything based on a "girlfriend's insistence" is asinine in its own right.

I don't believe they charged at the initial consultation. Why would you have not seen for yourself the character of this advisor first hand? Why would you not do your research and investigate the litigation against the company. I damn well know when I go to a new doctor the first thing I ask is if they have ever been sued for malpractice.

Keep dreaming if you think you will ever find a broker dealer that has never had a case against them. Once again, I would like those names of "reputable" companies. Good luck in your search.

[Giggity]

Waddell & Reed is just middle class to low class people trying to be "financial advisors" and middle class to low class people trying to feel like they have enough wealth to be advised. The reason there have only been 26 complaints is 1) the people involved are not smart enough to understand what is going on 2) they probably do not have nearly as many clients as Merrill 3) people who would file a claim have not even lost enough money to care enough to make a fuss.

WR is a joke and the prior responses are obviously from delusional and incompetent "advisors" from wr who think they are on the brink of really "making it." I bet most have a night job.

NotImpressed is the only realistic person who seems to know what's going on. This is directed to NotImpressed, don't you love their scripted arguments they post in here? Basically feeding their terrible sales pitch. It really is comical.

[DerekForeal]

Not that high. I interviewed with Waddell & Reed in 2002 well before the laughing gas in the financial industry had been turned off. This was after I had interviewed with Salmon, Smith & Barney and Merill Lynch.

My gut feeling was, "Wow, once I sign with you guys I am ALL ON MY OWN!" Now, I would still had to have drum up business with the other two financial houses mentioned but the support system would have been at least average if not great.

At the end of the day, I came out of school thinking I wanted to be a stockbroker only to find out that that name is synonym for salesman in the financial services industry. I immediately just taught myself investing by endless library and internet reading.

In short, I would not recommend Waddell & Reed or any other financial services firm for that matter for investing. If you don't see that the stock market is a glorified ponzi scheme by now, I can't help you.

[NotImpressed]

Originally Posted by danoodle

It's called hyperbole. I thought a smart, sophisticated man like yourself who says "lqtm" would know that.

Right. Keep telling yourself that you're not backpedaling like mad, because you can't defend what you actually said.

Originally Posted by danoodle

Seriously, lqtm...wow....

This is truly funny. You can use "lol", but if I use "lqtm" instead you respond with a "wow", like it has some kind of special significance? Now I'm not lqtm anymore; I'm definitely ROTFLMFAO! Is that really the best retort you could come up with?

Originally Posted by danoodle

Please tell me the name of one or more companies that are ethical. That will make you endless returns on your money. I dare you to name a "reputable" company on here because any moron can do a google search on any company and find dirt on them.

And now you're trying to change the subject. Sorry, aint gonna work. This thread is about Waddell and Reed being an untrustworthy company to do business with. Not other businesses. If you want to talk about other companies, start your own thread.

Originally Posted by danoodle

I don't believe they charged at the initial consultation. Why would you have not seen for yourself the character of this advisor first hand? Why would you not do your research and investigate the litigation against the company.

And now you're trying to blame the victim? Really? "You should have seen it coming, so it's really your own fault!" Man, your objections are getting more and more.... pathetic? Desperate? In your world, do rape victims "ask for it" too?

I find it very telling how much ****** you're putting into defending W&R. It makes me think that you are much less objective about them than you let on.

You asked for evidence that the company itself is bad. I provided it. Now you want to pretend that it doesn't mean anything; the only excuse you can come up with is "everybody has a case against them eventually". What's the matter? Having a hard time accepting that you lost the argument and made yourself look stupid in the process? Boo f-ing hoo.

[danoodle]

You have still failed to answer my simple, direct statement notimpressed. Don't worry, I'll be waiting...indefinitely. Pm me the list.

I don't see why your superior mind can't comprehend that it comes down to the individual advisor. There are going to be good and bad people at every single company you invest in. Therefore you have two options:

1. Find someone you can trust.
2. Do it yourself.

How's that for a scripted argument?

If you aren't going to trust other people with your money, then put in the time and research and do it yourself on Ameritrade. It's that simple. That's it. End of discussion.

DYODD and good luck investing. We all need it in times like these...

[NotImpressed]

Originally Posted by danoodle

You have still failed to answer my simple, direct statement notimpressed. Don't worry, I'll be waiting...indefinitely. Pm me the list.

You can wait as long as you like. I don't need to send you any list, because all you are trying to do is change the subject. This thread is not about anybody but Waddell & Reed. Why is this so hard for you to understand or accept?

Originally Posted by danoodle

I don't see why your superior mind can't comprehend that it comes down to the individual advisor. There are going to be good and bad people at every single company you invest in.

In my last post I believe I addressed the issue of otherwise decent people working for Waddell & Reed. Maybe you should try rereading it; for comprehension, this time.

My point is, and has been, that the company itself promotes bad behavior on the part of their "advisors", by rewarding them for screwing over their clients. Yes, it's possible for people to resist that temptation, and I'm sure many do. But why do business with a company when 1) you can't be sure that the advisor truly has your best interests in mind, and 2) even if you do find an honest W&R advisor, the company itself (read: the corrupt management) is still going to benefit. I don't see why your superior mind can't comprehend that.

Personally, I don't like doing business with scumbags and letting them profit off of me, even if they are honest with me personally. Apparently, you have a different set of standards. To each his (or her) own.

Just to recap. So far your arguments have consisted of:

1. A Strawman Argument: taking my statements about W&R specifically and trying to make blanket statements about the industry as a whole.
2. Ignoring what several other people in this thread have also stated about the less than savory business practices of W&R.

3. Claiming that a client has to know that he's been cheated before it counts.

4. Asking for "hard evidence" that the company itself is bad, and when presented with that evidence (as I did), you proceeded to dismiss it and ignore it. I've got news for you: despite what you claim, not every financial services company has been fined over $68 million dollars in a one-year period. Maybe that would be normal if there was more regulatory enforcement, but as things stand right now that is not normal. In this regard, W&R is exceptional. The problem is, it's not a good thing.

5. Attempting to change the subject by asking about other "better" companies (AKA a Red Herring fallacy). Something that you've done more than once now, I might add.

6. Making a stupid "wow" comment about my use of internet slang, even though you use it yourself. Which is actually another logical fallacy: Ad Hominem.

7. Blaming the victim, by claiming that if I didn't see this "advisor's" true character I'm to blame.

And I'll point out that each time I counter one of your ridiculous arguments, you just move on to another set of logical fallacies. Except for the Red Herring fallacy; you are stubbornly clinging to that one. I don't know where (or if) you learned how to debate, but the goal is to avoid logical fallacies. Not collect them.

[Babbert]

The only thing I can add is that I just received an email to come in for an interview for a financial advisor position at Waddell & Reed. They apparently saw my resume on the internet. I have absolutely ZERO background in finance or investing. Just a sales background and a B.A. in French.
Seems a little irresponsible to me.

[Shadow001]

I've visited this forum off-and-on for a while now as it's an interesting place to observe people debating about real, meaningful things. Most threads concerning an individual or an organization being called a scam feature a number of people posting generalized complaints with a couple of others defending against said complaints, representing the other side.

While a couple of other threads on scam.com rival this one (search AIL Insurance, Cobra Group) in terms of entertainment value, this thread absolutely takes the cake pretaining to the person with a legitimate complaint exhibiting complete and utter dominance over the person who's defending.

I created my account here and am taking 3 minutes out of my day solely to make this post; to congratulate Notimpressed for exhibiting total mastery of the internet in owning danoodle both verbally and mentally.

Often times it's easy for a person to 'win' an argument, especially on the internet, by being more articulate and through the use of a better vocabulary, but what we have in this thread is just pure gold. Notimpressed dissected nearly every point danoodle made and came back with something stronger and mentally superior at each angle. I suggest to everyone reading this post to reference this as a benchmark on how to win the internet.

(Before I get flamed for 'wasting my time' by posting garbage like this, I'd like to point out that I have nothing but free time. What interests me in life is finding individuals who exemplify superiority and the desire to use it against others.)

Well done.

[danoodle]

Originally Posted by NotImpressed

But why do business with a company when 1) you can't be sure that the advisor truly has your best interests in mind

I believe we established about 20 posts back that W&R advisors are 1099'd and are technically self-employed. They are licensed with either their 63 or 65 or both. Their fiduciary liability is to their clients. If they breach that, there are (or should be) repercussions and you should go ahead and sue them. They should go to jail. Maybe you should get your facts straight?

[NotImpressed]

Originally Posted by danoodle

I believe we established about 20 posts back that W&R advisors are 1099'd and are technically self-employed. They are licensed with either their 63 or 65 or both. Their fiduciary liability is to their clients. If they breach that, there are (or should be) repercussions and you should go ahead and sue them. They should go to jail. Maybe you should get your facts straight?

"Rachel", is that you...?

Man, you really are a glutton for punishment, aren't you? My facts are perfectly fine; once again, it seems that your grasp of reality is the real issue here. Unfortunately, there is a big difference between the way things should be (or, the way they are on paper), and the way things actually work. Making the advisors "technically self-employed" (your words) doesn't mean shit. They (you?) get plenty of incentives from W&R to do what W&R wants done, not what is in the best interests of the client.

You (and Industry Guru) act as if the fact that financial advisors are 1099 contractors somehow magically makes them immune to any kind of influence from the company for which they work. Apparently you either didn't read or didn't comprehend (again!) that it has already been established that W&R is ready, willing, and able to get their advisors to screw over their clients. As I pointed out to you once already, they agreed to pay a multi-million dollar fine because they did exactly this, and wanted to make the whole situation go away once they got caught. Once again, because it didn't sink in the first time:

Waddell & Reed will pay $18 million in fines and restitution to settle allegations the investment firm employed "aggressive" tactics associated with the sale of variable annuities.

Again, that was a nationwide sales campaign. That is, the company urged their advisors to screw over their clients. And many did just that. So you have a situation of a corrupt company incentivizing unethical/illegal behavior on the part of their "technically self-employed" advisors, and many of those advisors went right along with it. Why? Because they (and by 'they', I mean those "technically self-employed" advisors) were rewarded for doing it by W&R. Did I use small enough words this time? Shall I try to shorten my sentences next?

I even bolded it for you the first time, in the (seemingly futile) attempt to get past your ADD issue. W&R agreed to pay a large fine for it. Why are you pretending like it didn't happen? It is official, public record; an indisputable fact to anybody with half a.... hmmm. I think I see the problem here...

And I will point out (yet again) that you have so far been unable or unwilling to confront the fact that I have systematically shut down every fallacious argument that you have presented. So far, your MO has been to come up with increasingly ridiculous arguments. Why is that? I mean, if your arguments are actually valid, why don't you defend them using facts? The only fact you keep trotting out is that the advisors are "technically self-employed", which is completely meaningless.

[danoodle]

Easy with your high blood pressure. You want some facts? It would save us all some time if you went to www.waddell.com, but I'll list them for you:

• 70+ years in the business
• Currently number one mutual fund family for over the last 5 years

http://www.reuters.com/article/press...09+PRN20090206

You really are stuck on that one incident that happened under old management. As the article says, "the firm's former president."

The NASD charges that Hechler "encouraged the sales force to engage aggressively in switching customers," even those some brokers "expressed concern that these switches were not in the best interests of their clients."

Despite the typo in the article, I believe "those" should be "though", the way I interpret it is that the advisors did express their concern about making the switches. Could it be? Advisors standing up for their clients against the "evil upper management". The evil upper management that got the boot? But you've been disregarding this fact this whole time haven't you?

Yea yea, come back with your rebuttal on my logical fallacies ablazin'. I'll stick with my ad hominems. Get a life. Get over it. What's done is done. Move on with your life. Ad nauseum. I await your reply because you can never just let something go. Gotta get the last word in. I do believe this horse has been beaten. Flogged. Ad nauseum. Good luck in your life's journey and I hope you find true happiness in life other than arguing on internet forums all day. Ad nauseum.

[NotImpressed]

Originally Posted by danoodle

Easy with your high blood pressure.

lol My blood pressure's just fine, but thanks for your concern.

Originally Posted by danoodle

You want some facts? It would save us all some time if you went to www.waddell.com, but I'll list them for you:
70+ years in the business
Currently number one mutual fund family for over the last 5 years
http://www.reuters.com/article/press...09+PRN20090206

Your last response has all but convinced me of two things:
1. You work as a financial "advisor", possibly for W&R, but don't want to admit it because you're afraid of what that admission might do to whatever shred of objectivity you think your image still has here.
2. You had help because you knew you were getting clobbered. Others in this thread have said so. Why do I think that? Because even though it's not very challenging to show what a smokescreen your last post is, it is an improvement over your previous posts.

Moving on: Is anybody really supposed to be impressed with the fact that they've been in business for over 70 years? As I recall, Madoff bilked people for quite a long time too.... It strikes me that the only people that are really going to care about that are the actual "advisors" themselves; hence, one of the reasons I suspect that you are a shill for them. It must really bug the shit out of them (you!) that if anybody googles "waddell reed", this thread comes up third, directly below two links to their own website; talk about having your dirty laundry out where everybody can see it. And by contributing to this thread, you are doing your part to make sure it stays there, so: from the bottom of my heart, THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT!

And I just want to point out that even though the link that you posted is to reuters.com, the article is actually a press release. I will, however, give you kudos in your attempt to make what amounts to an advertisement appear as a news article.

Originally Posted by danoodle

You really are stuck on that one incident that happened under old management. As the article says, "the firm's former president."

Actually, there is more than this one "incident" (what a lovely white-washing term, btw); if you'll recall I also mentioned the market-timing "incident" as well. Remember that one? That's the "incident" where W&R management screwed over their smaller investors. For years. Also, Hechler was involved, but he was not the only one involved; there were others. So it's not necessarily a case of replacing one person and suddenly the whole corporate culture changes. But you know more about this than I do: tell us, what's it like there now, with him gone?

Originally Posted by danoodle

The NASD charges that Hechler "encouraged the sales force to engage aggressively in switching customers," even those some brokers "expressed concern that these switches were not in the best interests of their clients."

Despite the typo in the article, I believe "those" should be "though", the way I interpret it is that the advisors did express their concern about making the switches. Could it be? Advisors standing up for their clients against the "evil upper management". The evil upper management that got the boot? But you've been disregarding this fact this whole time haven't you?

And yet another Strawman argument. Anybody who has followed this thread, and can read and comprehend the English language, knows that I have already talked about W&R advisors who resisted the temptation/coercion placed upon them by their supervisors. Why are you ignoring that? I'm sure that this will be just another in a series of questions that you will choose to ignore, because you know that you can't address the question(s) without making yourself look like an even bigger ass.

I also wonder why you made a point of making the link off of the words "sales force". Could it be that you were trying to give the false impression that the "sales force" and the "advisors" are two distinct groups? If so, nice try but it won't work. Anybody who knows anything about financial advisors knows that they are first and foremost salespeople. I'm sure that you'll try to deny it, but it's true. People in this thread have said so; people I have personally known (and used to work in the industry) have said so; hell, Waddell & Reed says so. Just for fun, I googled a W&R job posting:

** FINANCIAL ADVISOR
We are also looking for successful sales people to join us as a financial advisor.
General Requirements for Financial Advisor Appointment
· US Citizen (Required)
· College Graduate or last semester college senior
· Current Financial Advisors and Insurance Agents
· Career Changers, Early Retirees, or recently downsized from another firm.
Strong sales and/or people skills, a genuine desire to help others, an interest in learning financial planning methods, and a personal commitment to becoming a professional in the financial services industry.

--Source

And I clearly recall sitting in this W&R "advisor's" office and shaking my head. Why? Because sitting on her bookshelf were awards she had received. From Waddell & Reed. What were the awards for, you might ask? Were they for how well her clients' portfolios were doing? No. They were for how much she had sold. You think these people would at least have the sense to not put their stupid trophies where their clients/victims can see them.

Originally Posted by danoodle

Yea yea, come back with your rebuttal on my logical fallacies ablazin'. I'll stick with my ad hominems.

lol Yeah, I noticed. But hey, when the facts don't support your position, what else are you supposed to do? Admit you have been wrong the whole time? I really don't see you doing that; it's much easier to try and change the subject by shooting the messenger. Too bad you've got such bad aim, though; all you seem to be doing is shooting yourself in the foot. Over and over. Time to reload!

Originally Posted by danoodle

Get a life. Get over it. What's done is done. Move on with your life. Ad nauseum. I await your reply because you can never just let something go. Gotta get the last word in. I do believe this horse has been beaten. Flogged. Ad nauseum. Good luck in your life's journey and I hope you find true happiness in life other than arguing on internet forums all day. Ad nauseum.

This is funny. So I guess this makes you the pot, and me the kettle, right? Because everything you're saying could just as easily apply to you. More so, actually: you were the one that started this little exchange, remember? "Danoodle" didn't show up until well into this conversation, with comments aimed directly at me. Sadly, I think you're getting your sockpuppets confused.

[XSamsonX]

Wow... I am just starting as a financial advisor for Waddell & Reed, so I thought I'd check out some of the negative comments about the company to give myself a better perspective. What I found was one really pissed off person who has way too much time on his hands and, well, that's about it. I'm sure NotImpressed has impressed many with his cunning linguistics and stunningly researched arguments about the evil incarnate that he believes WDR is. However, while he may have earned kudos for his ability to verbally smack down his opponent, I tend to agree with his opponent that it is unfortunately impossible to find a single financial company that has not employed nefarious characters, or has not been brought up on some kind of charges for misleading or screwing their customers. This industry, as we all now know due to current market conditions, is driven by greed. The most important statistic I read in any post on here is that WDR has had, in its more than 70 years, 26 complaints and/or lawsuits brought against it. One could argue that 26 is 26 too many, and they would of course be right. However, considering the rest of the industry's track record, 26 cases could make it eligible for sainthood. So to NotImpressed, I say congrats on your mastery of the text-based argument. You certainly showed your opponent that you are of superior mental faculties when it comes to stating your case and backing it up with facts that you think are worthy of mention. However, perhaps if you used your *****s for good rather than, say, trying to own someone in an online fight, you might not have to worry so much about your money being taken by shysters like us financial advisors. Perhaps you should go back to law school. What I really get from this thread is that while a couple of former clients and advisors may have had an unhappy or unfulfilling experience, the lack of lawsuits over a 70 year period and the fact that the entire thread was dominated by a single argument between two people rather than hundreds of posts describing how bad they think WDR is says to me that WDR is actually a pretty good company. So thanks for helping me gain some confidence in my new employer!

[NotImpressed]

Originally Posted by XSamsonX

Wow... I am just starting as a financial advisor for Waddell & Reed, so I thought I'd check out some of the negative comments about the company to give myself a better perspective. What I found was one really pissed off person who has way too much time on his hands and, well, that's about it.

Some people see what they want to see...

First of all, I'm not the only person here who has said negative things about Waddell & Reed, so this statement is a blatant misrepresentation of the facts. Second, I'm not "pissed off"; I have firm beliefs based on my own experiences (and research) and the experiences of people who I trust. On the contrary, I have found it rather amusing responding to the many lies and misrepresentations put forth in this thread by people trying to defend W&R's record. And not very challenging either, truth be told. Alas, their record speaks for itself; I'm just the messenger.

Originally Posted by XSamsonX

I'm sure NotImpressed has impressed many with his cunning linguistics and stunningly researched arguments about the evil incarnate that he believes WDR is.However, while he may have earned kudos for his ability to verbally smack down his opponent, ...

Aw hell, you're gonna make me blush!

Originally Posted by XSamsonX

... I tend to agree with his opponent that it is unfortunately impossible to find a single financial company that has not employed nefarious characters, or has not been brought up on some kind of charges for misleading or screwing their customers. This industry, as we all now know due to current market conditions, is driven by greed.

Here we are in agreement. Where we seem to disagree is how the bad actions of others makes W&R's actions any less contemptible. And just for the record, Waddell & Reed was more than just brought up on "some kind of charges"; they agreed, more than once, to pay multi-million dollar amounts in fines and restitution rather than prove their innocence regarding them screwing over their clients on a nationwide scale, over a period of years.

Originally Posted by XSamsonX

The most important statistic I read in any post on here is that WDR has had, in its more than 70 years, 26 complaints and/or lawsuits brought against it. One could argue that 26 is 26 too many, and they would of course be right.

I have a joke for you: Did you know that 46.8% of all statistics are made up on the spot? It's not the funniest joke out there, but I think it gets my point across. To say that "Industry Guru" is less than credible as a source of information would be an understatement. If you want anybody to view his claims as anything but b.s., then you/he/somebody is going to need to back them up with credible citations. Until and unless that happens, this particular claim of his will continue to be filed under the category of "More Unsubstantiated Bombast".

Originally Posted by XSamsonX

However, considering the rest of the industry's track record, 26 cases could make it eligible for sainthood.

Only if you want to seriously devalue the whole concept of sainthood.

Here's a thought experiment: a guy is standing at the entrance to the Pearly Gates. He says to Saint Pete, "Yeah, I killed a few people in my day, but you see that guy in line back there? He killed more people than Hannibal Lector!! So all things considered, you really should let me in, dontcha think?" Do you think he gets in? Unless things have seriously changed and things like honesty and integrity are graded on a curve, I highly doubt it. But that's just me; YMMV.

Originally Posted by XSamsonX

So to NotImpressed, I say congrats on your mastery of the text-based argument. You certainly showed your opponent that you are of superior mental faculties when it comes to stating your case and backing it up with facts that you think are worthy of mention.

Now you've done it; I'm blushing like a virgin bride! (Do those even exist anymore?)
Facts that "I think" are worthy of mention? That's an interesting choice of words. It's almost like you're trying to imply that they're not really important, except to me. Call me crazy, but I think that this is exactly the kind of info a person should have before deciding to entrust somebody with the management of their hard-earned money. But again, YMMV.

Originally Posted by XSamsonX

However, perhaps if you used your *****s for good rather than, say, trying to own someone in an online fight, you might not have to worry so much about your money being taken by shysters like us financial advisors.

It wasn't my intention to 'own' danoodle; it just worked out that way when she decided to call me out. And I'm not worried about shysters taking my money; I actually feel pretty comfortable. And I don't think that all financial advisors are shysters; but there is no way to get around the fact that the industry is set up in such a way (offering commissions based on sales of specific products/services) that in many ways advisors are rewarded for doing things that are not in the best interests of their clients. And as the record shows, it is all too easy to succumb to that temptation.

Originally Posted by XSamsonX

What I really get from this thread is that while a couple of former clients and advisors may have had an unhappy or unfulfilling experience, the lack of lawsuits over a 70 year period and the fact that the entire thread was dominated by a single argument between two people rather than hundreds of posts describing how bad they think WDR is says to me that WDR is actually a pretty good company.

So there have to be "hundreds of posts" before it matters? That's an interesting standard. You're basing your claim that W&R is a good company based on "Industry Guru's" unsubstantiated claims about how it's so much better than its competitors; he specifically mentioned Merrill Lynch as having a large number of complaints (also unsubstantiated, I might add). But here's what I don't get: if ML (and presumably all of the others) is so much worse than W&R, then why aren't there any threads here about them? I mean, if we use your standard about the lack of posts, doesn't that mean that people would be better off going with ML instead of W&R? After all, ML has fewer negative posts than W&R does; there's not even a thread dedicated to them. But there is for W&R. That seems kinda odd. And before you reply about comparing the number of complaints/lawsuits/whatever, remember: none of that has been proven; it's an uncorroborated claim from somebody who obviously works for W&R.

Originally Posted by XSamsonX

So thanks for helping me gain some confidence in my new employer!

It wasn't me; it was the Koolaid...

I think it's pretty clear that what's going on here is that the supporters (read: employees/management) of W&R have realized that they can't make this thread go away, so they want to try and spin all of the negative information into a positive ("Is that all there is???"). It's actually kind of clever. But it's not going to work.

I suspect that very shortly we are going to see even more sockpuppets appear, telling us how great they're doing since choosing to invest with W&R. I am curious to see if they'll be as over-the-top obvious as Wade Cook's employees used to get when they were trying to defend that crook.

[notforyou1]

I've been reading this thread with considerable interest; both because of the subject matter and the venom with which critics of Waddell & Reed post "refutations" of anything remotely suggesting that there could be a good person working at Waddell & Reed. The main critic, NotImpressed, is obviously a hack, an amateur at best. Somebody whose knowledge of the financial industry is limited at best to one encounter with an advisor at Waddell & Reed, who may not have been as experienced as her peers. I have been working in the financial industry for just over 35 years, am a CFP and an independent financial planner not affiliated with WDR or any other firm. I have worked for many firms in the industry, not including WDR. I will say that 95% of the complaints being alleged here are against the financial industry IN GENERAL and not specifically WDR. I challenge the critics of WDR to find another national company that has been in business for a substantial length of time without client complaints. It won't happen. The only event that has been cited here, regarding the market timing case and the replacement of accounts for commissions, is the only real black mark on WDR's record. Although that event is a shame, all of the leadership at the time was removed and is no longer affiliated with the firm. The current executives were culled from the investment management division, i.e. fund managers/analysts. I have been using WDR investments on the Ivy side since they became available on the non-proprietary channel in 1999 and they are OUTSTANDING. They are easily some of the best mutual funds available in the industry since they are research oriented and conservative (i.e. they do not expose their shareholders to unnecessary risk since IT WOULDN'T BE IN THE CLIENTS BEST INTEREST). If you wanted to compare apples to apples, look up Ameriprise. They are another national financial planning firm and have been inundated with consumer complaints on a regular basis that FAR EXCEED anything Waddell has been subject to. In response to the blogger who was complaining about 12-b-1 fees, although their use is under scrutiny, the SEC has not ruled that they are not in the public's best interest and they are in virtually every mutual fund. In response to the blogger who was complaining that they saw plaques in an advisor's office noting that they were successful at sales, I have a question. If you were searching for a real estate agent to handle the sale/purchase of a home for you, would you want somebody with no experience or the million dollar producer? Of course, you'll want the one with experience that can navigate you through the process. When you need an attorney, do you look for the kid fresh out of law school that is hungry for clients or the successful and established attorney with references available? When you need an accountant, would you hire a housewife that just finished her CPA exam or an established accountant with hundreds of clients that has been providing such a service for decades? I'd trust my financial decisions with an established track record of success rather than some hack that wants me to be his first guinea pig. As for the diatribe regarding Waddell & Reed, an argument has two parts: a claim and a warrant. I see precious few warrants on this pathetic excuse for an informed discussion. Waddell & Reed has a ton of other CFPs working for them, which are subject to the strictest ethics requirements in the industry. If they were as evil as the dumbasses on this thread would have you believe, there wouldn't be a CFP eligible to work for them. And if the jackasses who keep crying about ONE advisor at WDR object to that argument, then you are contending that the CFP board in this country is corrupt. Good luck finding a financial planner that will work with you. So in addition to finding a national company with a substantial track record without complaints, I'd also like to find out what company that the critics are with now. My guess is that the two idiots will hit up google before naming a company instead of ponying up the truth. Just a hunch.

[notforyou1]

To put things in perspective, for anybody reading the complaints about WDR, get on an internet search engine and type in ameriprise complaints. Ameriprise Financial is the best apples to apples comparison to WDR. They are the largest national financial planning firm. Be prepared to put WDR back on that pedestal.

[NotImpressed]

Originally Posted by notforyou1

I've been reading this thread with considerable interest; both because of the subject matter and the venom with which critics of Waddell & Reed post "refutations" of anything remotely suggesting that there could be a good person working at Waddell & Reed. The main critic, NotImpressed, is obviously a hack, an amateur at best. Somebody whose knowledge of the financial industry is limited at best to one encounter with an advisor at Waddell & Reed, who may not have been as experienced as her peers.

lol Here's a counter-perspective: I have been reading (and posting) in this thread with some interest, both because of the subject matter and the venom with which defenders of Waddell & Reed post "refutations" of and attacks on people talking about their bad experiences with the company. The first acerbic apologist, Industry Guru, was followed by a few others, including Rachel234, Danoodle, and now Notforyou1. Notforyou1's obviously just another in a line of dirtbag apologists for W&R's bad behavior. /sarcasm

I find it interesting that you mentioned my "venom" but were completely silent on Industry Guru's invective. It goes a long way to highlighting your bias and double-standard.

So I'm a "hack" and an "amateur" because I don't buy the line of shit that you and your peers try to feed people? If that's the standard, then I'll gladly take the title of "amateur". I would much rather be a "hack" than pretend that almost every encounter with a financial advisor is not based on a fundamental conflict of interest; a conflict that W&R (amongst many others) has a proven track record of being ready, willing, and able to exploit.

If we use this logic, then you must be a con artist and a scumbag because you apparently not only refuse to accept/acknowledge that there are a lot of con artists and scumbags working in your industry, but also refuse to accept/acknowledge that there is a large and inherent conflict of interest in the way financial advisors are compensated.

Originally Posted by notforyou1

I have been working in the financial industry for just over 35 years, am a CFP and an independent financial planner not affiliated with WDR or any other firm. I have worked for many firms in the industry, not including WDR. I will say that 95% of the complaints being alleged here are against the financial industry IN GENERAL and not specifically WDR.

Congratulations. So you've spent a long career in an industry known for preying on people's ignorance and fear in order to make a living. Do you think that makes you (check one)?
[ ] more credible
[ ] less credible

You state your experience/certs as if that alone makes you believable. I've got news for you: it doesn't. All it really shows is that you've had a lot of opportunities to drink the Koolaid. Something that is bolstered by the rest of your slanted post, btw.

Originally Posted by notforyou1

I challenge the critics of WDR to find another national company that has been in business for a substantial length of time without client complaints. It won't happen.

And yet another Strawman argument rolled into a Red Herring. At this point, I can't say as I'm surprised. I'm not even going to bother refuting this again. Been there, done that.

Originally Posted by notforyou1

The only event that has been cited here, regarding the market timing case and the replacement of accounts for commissions, is the only real black mark on WDR's record. Although that event is a shame, all of the leadership at the time was removed and is no longer affiliated with the firm. The current executives were culled from the investment management division, i.e. fund managers/analysts.

Those are actually two events, not one. And these are the "only black marks" on their record? Are you sure about that? You may want to google "waddell reed stephen sawtelle" before you continue that particular line of bullshit. I already know what you're going to say: that was a long time ago, previous management, blah blah blah. It's funny how people like you keep claiming "that's all there is" until it's shown that it's not.

How are we supposed to view your ilk as anything but full-of-shit liars when it can be shown that you keep saying things that aren't true? I am reminded of Danoodle refuting that financial advisors have a conflict of interest by stating that most of them are 1099's; yes, it's true that many/most advisors are independent contractors, but that has absolutely no relevance when it comes to whether or not they're susceptible to pressure from their (non-)"employer". More than that, when we see people like you constantly resort to these kinds of baffle-'em-with-bullshit antics, it underscores exactly why people like you can't be trusted: you're willing to say anything in order to support your argument, regardless of whether or not it happens to be true or germane. What's funny is that your argument boils down to, "we're honest and you should trust us". Talk about irony.

Originally Posted by notforyou1

I have been using WDR investments on the Ivy side since they became available on the non-proprietary channel in 1999 and they are OUTSTANDING. They are easily some of the best mutual funds available in the industry since they are research oriented and conservative (i.e. they do not expose their shareholders to unnecessary risk since IT WOULDN'T BE IN THE CLIENTS BEST INTEREST).

I do not dispute that some of their individual products may be okay and offer decent returns. My complaint has centered around how W&R the company has a track record of putting pressure on it's advisors (yes, even the 1099 contractors) to do things that are not in the best interests of their clients. So you bringing up the performance of some of their mutual funds is irrelevant. I don't care how good their products are; I prefer not to do business with an organization that has a track record of screwing over its clients based on company directives pushed down to the individual salespeople. It makes ensuring that you're dealing with an honest person that much more complicated. Obviously, your mileage varies.

Originally Posted by notforyou1

If you wanted to compare apples to apples, look up Ameriprise. They are another national financial planning firm and have been inundated with consumer complaints on a regular basis that FAR EXCEED anything Waddell has been subject to.

Ah yes. Yet another installment of, "We're not as bad as those other guys". Sorry if I find that argument completely unconvincing.

Originally Posted by notforyou1

In response to the blogger who was complaining about 12-b-1 fees, although their use is under scrutiny, the SEC has not ruled that they are not in the public's best interest and they are in virtually every mutual fund.

Oh, okay. I guess because the SEC hasn't ruled on it yet then it must be okay. After all, something is only really unethical if there's a rule which addresses it specifically. So as long as the industry keeps coming up with new ways to separate clients from their money, people like you can do it with a clean conscience until the SEC says you can't. And then the industry can just think up another scam and we all take another spin or two on the Merry-Go-Round. Wheee! But thank God we all have stalwart champions of truth like you to explain to us simple folk that it's all okay, cuz the SEC is only "scrutinizing" it...

Just because something is 'ethical' based on procedural grounds doesn't make it the right thing to do. Based on your defense of the practice, this is a distinction that you don't get. What a coincidence that this practice also puts money in your pocket. How convenient.

Originally Posted by notforyou1

In response to the blogger who was complaining that they saw plaques in an advisor's office noting that they were successful at sales, I have a question. If you were searching for a real estate agent to handle the sale/purchase of a home for you, would you want somebody with no experience or the million dollar producer? Of course, you'll want the one with experience that can navigate you through the process. When you need an attorney, do you look for the kid fresh out of law school that is hungry for clients or the successful and established attorney with references available? When you need an accountant, would you hire a housewife that just finished her CPA exam or an established accountant with hundreds of clients that has been providing such a service for decades? I'd trust my financial decisions with an established track record of success rather than some hack that wants me to be his first guinea pig.

What I see here is an excellent example of exactly how your 35 years of experience has institutionalized your thought process. You have confused skill at sales with skill in the law, accounting, etc. You think the plaques are good because they show that the financial advisor is experienced and therefore (presumably) knows what she is doing. What the plaques actually do is underscore the conflict of interest that advisors face when they 1) sell their "expertise" in financial planning/management to their clients, and then 2) offer to sell products on commission to those same clients without telling them about the commission/conflict. Something that people like you would obviously prefer that the rest of us didn't understand, because it messes up your image of being a truly independent advocate.

I get it that people, regardless of vocation, like "attaboys", and that sales volume is an easy metric to use. But in an industry that is as conflicted as yours is, my simple advice on this is: find a better metric.

Originally Posted by notforyou1

As for the diatribe regarding Waddell & Reed, an argument has two parts: a claim and a warrant. I see precious few warrants on this pathetic excuse for an informed discussion.

lol In Logic, arguments are usually described as consisting of propostions (with one being the premise), inferences, and conclusions.

In the Toulmin model, an argument actually has three essential elements, not two (with three other elements): a claim, support/data/grounds, and a warrant. A claim/warrant without grounds is worthless. And I saw precious few grounds in your pathetic excuse for an informed post. Mostly it consisted of regurgitated rehashes of the same flawed reasoning and logical fallacies which have already been exposed for the dross that they are.

So yeah; you may want to rethink trying to dazzle us with yer fancy buk lernin an stuf, cuz it aint werkin fer ya to wel. Especially when it seems to be beyond you to do something as simple as organizing your thoughts into these things called paragraphs. And to think that you call other people idiots and dumbasses. You crack me up.

Originally Posted by notforyou1

Waddell & Reed has a ton of other CFPs working for them, which are subject to the strictest ethics requirements in the industry. If they were as evil as the dumbasses on this thread would have you believe, there wouldn't be a CFP eligible to work for them. And if the jackasses who keep crying about ONE advisor at WDR object to that argument, then you are contending that the CFP board in this country is corrupt. Good luck finding a financial planner that will work with you.

It's hard to decide which logical fallacy best describes this particular group of statements. Strawman? Red Herring? I think I'll go with False Dilemma. People can share their experiences with, thoughts on, and information about Waddell & Reed without turning it into this dramatic questioning-the-very-fabric-of-society bullshit that you're pretending it is. Seriously, get over yourself; you're just salespeople.

Originally Posted by notforyou1

So in addition to finding a national company with a substantial track record without complaints, I'd also like to find out what company that the critics are with now. My guess is that the two idiots will hit up google before naming a company instead of ponying up the truth. Just a hunch.

The first part of your statement actually (and given the intellectual rigor of the rest of your post, I'm sure accidentally) gets closer to the crux of the issue than anything else in this post. That is, "advisors" (salespeople) that work for large national companies, which not only sell advice/expertise but also sell financial products, have a huge conflict of interest. "Rachel" even dimed you guys out much earlier when she admitted that a lot of advisors recommend in-house products because it's "easier". Of course, being the good little trooper that she is, she didn't mention the commissions (shhhhhh). Yes, independent advisors also get commissions for much of what they sell, but they don't have the added pressure that comes from having to toe the company line as well. Of course, you stated at the beginning that you're independent, so obviously finding an independent advisor is no guarantee of honesty either.

As to the second part of your statement: it's NOYFB.

[NotImpressed]

I realized that I forgot to add a note explaining why Stephen Sawtelle's name came up in this discussion, for anybody who didn't google his name.

Briefly: he was a top-performing W&R advisor (worked there 17 years). W&R fired him and then embarked on an extensive campaign of spreading lies about him in order to discredit him and steal his clients. Why did they do this? Because he had the nerve, the unmitigated gall, to tell the truth to SEC investigators about not just how another W&R advisor who was embezzling client money, but also that he had previously warned W&R management about this other guy and nothing was done. Fortunately, the story has a somewhat happy ending: after years of legal wrangling (W&R tried unsuccessfully to drive him into the ground financially, hoping he would give up), he received a multi-million dollar award from the courts.

I don't use him for financial advice, but he's the kind of person I would be much more inclined to trust.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So XSampsonX, how's your confidence in your new employer doing now?

[notforyou1]

Originally Posted by NotImpressed

I realized that I forgot to add a note explaining why Stephen Sawtelle's name came up in this discussion, for anybody who didn't google his name.

Briefly: he was a top-performing W&R advisor (worked there 17 years). W&R fired him and then embarked on an extensive campaign of spreading lies about him in order to discredit him and steal his clients. Why did they do this? Because he had the nerve, the unmitigated gall, to tell the truth to SEC investigators about not just how another W&R advisor who was embezzling client money, but also that he had previously warned W&R management about this other guy and nothing was done. Fortunately, the story has a somewhat happy ending: after years of legal wrangling (W&R tried unsuccessfully to drive him into the ground financially, hoping he would give up), he received a multi-million dollar award from the courts.

Apparently your research skills are on par with your financial literacy. That award was overturned in court in Waddell & Reed's favor and Waddell & Reed has never been ordered to pay a dime in damages in that case. From the New York Times:
A New York appeals court yesterday overturned an arbitration panel's ruling that ordered Waddell & Reed Financial Inc. to pay a former employee more than $25 million.

The New York Supreme Court reduced compensatory damages to $1.08 million from $1.8 million in June 2002 but upheld $25 million in punitive damages. Yesterday, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court found the punitive damages were ''grossly disproportionate to the compensatory damages awarded'' and ordered arbitrators to reconsider the matter.

[notforyou1]

So I'm a "hack" and an "amateur" because I don't buy the line of shit that you and your peers try to feed people? If that's the standard, then I'll gladly take the title of "amateur". I would much rather be a "hack" than pretend that almost every encounter with a financial advisor is not based on a fundamental conflict of interest

Nope, you're a hack and an amateur because you would just sign up your investments with somebody without doing any homework. Actually, that makes you a moron. For anybody considering a financial advisor, you should:
*Read the prospectus (this would tell you about any expenses or sales charges)
*Ask for references
*Ask if there are accounts that waive commissions or sales charges (Waddell & Reed does offer this)
*Ask if the advisor holds a professional designation
*Research the advisor on FINRA's website Broker Check

If we use this logic, then you must be a con artist and a scumbag because you apparently not only refuse to accept/acknowledge that there are a lot of con artists and scumbags working in your industry, but also refuse to accept/acknowledge that there is a large and inherent conflict of interest in the way financial advisors are compensated.

Well, first off, we're not using your logic since you are intellectually and morally bankrupt. There are "con artists and scumbags" in EVERY industry. There are bad teachers, doctors, lawyers, churches and even corrupt charities. That does not make everybody in those professions a bad person. Just as it doesn't make every blogger an idiot because you are. I'll agree that there are some bad financial advisors out there, but that does not mean that all of them are bad people. That's the central crux of my contention: the few isolated incidents that you won't let go of regarding Waddell & Reed do not indict the entire company.

Congratulations. So you've spent a long career in an industry known for preying on people's ignorance and fear in order to make a living Do you think that makes you (check one)?

[X] more credible
[ ] less credible

THANK YOU for conceding my argument that your crying is about the INDUSTRY AND NOT WADDELL & REED. And remember I am an independent financial planner, i.e. I do not take commissions. I did notice that you neglected to address my observation that Waddell & Reed has a ton of CFPs in good standing working for them, which are subject to the strictest ethics requirements in the industry. If Waddell & Reed were as nefarious as you would mislead people to believe, you are essentially criticizing the CFP board itself. Thanks for shedding any credibility you might have had left. I really don't understand how somebody could have been impressed with your argumentation. Perhaps it was your use of obfuscation and lies.

I do not dispute that some of their individual products may be okay and offer decent returns. My complaint has centered around how W&R the company has a track record of putting pressure on it's advisors (yes, even the 1099 contractors) to do things that are not in the best interests of their clients. So you bringing up the performance of some of their mutual funds is irrelevant.

Actually, that's not irrelevant. Waddell & Reed advisors are able to offer hundreds of different families of mutual funds and ARE NOT COMPENSATED MORE FOR SELLING WDR PRODUCTS than they would be for offering Oppenheimer, American funds or anything else. If they received some sort of kickbacks or higher compensation, there would clearly be a conflict of interest. But there's not. Since you've conceded that they offer good products, anybody considering Waddell & Reed as an employer needs to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself if you will look out for your client's best interest. If so, then you have an excellent platform from which to deliver great service to your clients.

Ah yes. Yet another installment of, "We're not as bad as those other guys". Sorry if I find that argument completely unconvincing.

Well, then you're not answering the question. You're going off on your petty tirades against the industry and any other industry that charges a commission. Did you know that 78% of the economy is predicated on sales? Did you know that when you purchased your car, you paid a commission? Did you know that when you insured that car, you paid a commission? When you buy a book (although I doubt you've read many), you pay a commission (they're called royalties). When you visit a doctor or dentist, a portion of your bill goes in his pocket (i.e. a commission). Just as some advisors in the industry may have made recommendations based on those commissions, there are doctors and dentists that will recommend additional procedures due to the higher profit margin. If you don't believe that, you're a moron. I'm sorry to break it to you, but communism only works in theory.

(Here's another paragraph for you)
The person who started this thread was asking specifically about Waddell & Reed. When people have defended them, you lash out at the industry in general while citing the very few and isolated incidents, which actually made Waddell & Reed a better company since they beefed up their compliance department and changed leadership of the firm. The discussion of this post was trying to determine how Waddell & Reed is relative to other companies in the industry. I called the Securities and Exchange Commission to do some homework.

What follows are the past SEC regulatory actions against specific firms:
Smith Barney 236
Morgan Stanley 618
Merrill Lynch 757
Waddell & Reed 31

Since Google seems to be your preferred reference (most of your posts are copied directly from there), let's see how many sites you can find for the following:

UBS Complaints 190,000
Wachovia Complaints 249,000
Morgan Stanley Complaints 353,000
Merrill Lynch Complaints 552,000
Waddell & Reed Complaints 4,310

And I asked about the earlier statistic regarding the 26 complaints over 71 years versus over 900 for Merrill Lynch this year. It's not entirely true: that was over 72 years, not 71. Your incessant crying about Waddell & Reed is starting to ring hollow.

What the plaques actually do is underscore the conflict of interest that advisors face when they 1) sell their "expertise" in financial planning/management to their clients, and then 2) offer to sell products on commission to those same clients without telling them about the commission/conflict.

Wrong again. Like I said earlier, this information is contained in every prospectus, which you should read before investing your money in something you don't understand. I've already pointed out that commissions exist on almost every economic exchange in the private sector. These tangents have NOTHING to do with Waddell & Reed, you're way off point.

So yeah; you may want to rethink trying to dazzle us with yer fancy buk lernin an stuf, cuz it aint werkin fer ya to wel. Especially when it seems to be beyond you to do something as simple as organizing your thoughts into these things called paragraphs.

I think you debase your credibility when you criticize my lack of proper grammar while using text message acronyms.

As to the second part of your statement: it's NOYFB

.
Since you can't name your company of choice or recommend one that you use, you remove any legitimacy or credibility that you may have had. Therefore, your rants are about the INDUSTRY IN GENERAL, NOT WADDELL & REED. Cry me a river.

[NotImpressed]

Originally Posted by notforyou1

Apparently your research skills are on par with your financial literacy.

Riiight. Keep telling yourself that. My intent, as I clearly stated when I prefaced everything with the word "briefly", was to give a Readers Digest summary of events, not the War & Peace blow-by-blow account.

Originally Posted by notforyou1

That award was overturned in court in Waddell & Reed's favor and Waddell & Reed has never been ordered to pay a dime in damages in that case.

And this is another classic example of just how completely full of shit you are. Even though this is at best only tangential to the actual topic, let's run down the events in a bit more detail, just to show how deceitful you really are:
August 7, 2001: An NASD arbitration panel awards Sawtelle $27 million, over $25 million of which are punitive damages.
June 10, 2002: The NY State Supreme Court (Justice Stallman) upholds the $25 million dollar punitive award. The compensatory damages were adjusted downward by $750,000 because it included attorneys' fees, which were included as a separate item in the award. Basically, attorneys' fees were counted twice and the judge took took one of those out.
February 11, 2003: The Appellate Division modified the Judgment by vacating the punitive award, and sent it back to the original panel of arbitrators for them to redecide. It was in no way an exoneration of W&R's conduct/treatment of Sawtelle.
February 25, 2003: Sawtelle was paid $2,069,620.80, comprised of the confirmed $1,080,499 in compensatory damages, the confirmed $747,000 attorneys' fee award, plus $242,121.80 in interest on those amounts.
September 4, 2003: The arbritration panel reaffirms the original $25 million in punitive damages.
January 22, 2004: Justice Stallman vacates the punitive award, and orders it be sent to a new arbitration panel. Sawtelle files a motion offering to set a maximum amount for punitive damages.
November 30, 2004: Stallman denies the motion.
September 22, 2005: The Appellate Division affirms Stallman's order vacating the punitive damages award and remanding to a new arbitration panel. Sawtelle then appealed to the New York Court of Appeals, New York's highest court.The Court of Appeals declined to take the case at the time, on technical grounds, because it lacked jurisdiction over the appeal.
December 15, 2005: Waddell & Reed and Hechler and Sawtelle reached a settlement. Waddell & Reed paid Mr. Sawtelle $7.9 million. In total, Mr. Sawtelle received about $10 million ($7.9 million in settlement of his punitive damages, $2,069,620.80 in compensatory damages, attorneys' fees, and interest, $30,000 in sanctions paid during the arbitration, and $21,440 refunded from the NASD.

- Source

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So let's count off your errors and omissions:
1. The link you provide in your post does not in any way corroborate anything you said. It links to a man's bio; it has nothing to do with the actual topic. You may as well have linked to here.

2. You took one out-of-context quote from April 2003, well before everything has played out in the courts, to "prove" that W&R "won" in the courts.

3. You claimed that, "Waddell & Reed has never been ordered to pay a dime in damages in that case", which is a flat-out lie. Unless you want to somehow try and argue that none of the $10 million was for damages. Good luck with that. Go back and look at what happened on Feb. 25, 2003. (Hint: Sawtelle was paid over $2 million, $1.08 million of which was compensatory damages. Checkmate, jackass.)

And you want to talk smack about my research skills? Physician, heal thyself.

[NotImpressed]

Originally Posted by notforyou1

Nope, you're a hack and an amateur because you would just sign up your investments with somebody without doing any homework. Actually, that makes you a moron. For anybody considering a financial advisor, you should:
*Read the prospectus (this would tell you about any expenses or sales charges)
*Ask for references
*Ask if there are accounts that waive commissions or sales charges (Waddell & Reed does offer this)
*Ask if the advisor holds a professional designation
*Research the advisor on FINRA's website Broker Check

Your reading comprehension skills suck as bad as Danoodles. As I have said twice already, I never "signed up my investments"; we paid a single fee for advice. Why is this so hard for you guys to understand? Based on your apparent inability to listen or understand what you're reading, I feel bad for anybody who hires you to advise them.

You also share another problem with Danoodle; you both jump to conclusions. You assumed that I didn't check on the broker's record (ever heard of the definition of 'assume'?). In fact, she did not have any disciplinary actions or complaints. Just because somebody has no record of derogatory information does not make them honest or competent.

Lastly, I find it funny that you recommend "reading the prospectus" when considering a financial advisor. That's kinda hard to do when you don't know what they're going to recommend. Further evidence that longevity in a career does not equal competence...

Originally Posted by notforyou1

Well, first off, we're not using your logic since you are intellectually and morally bankrupt.

LOL I would love to see you try and back this up using actual facts, and not the bullshit and lies that you've used so far.

Originally Posted by notforyou1

I'll agree that there are some bad financial advisors out there, but that does not mean that all of them are bad people. That's the central crux of my contention: the few isolated incidents that you won't let go of regarding Waddell & Reed do not indict the entire company.

Again with the reading comprehension problem. I didn't say that the company is bad because of a "few isolated incidents" from their advisors. This is (yet another) Strawman logical fallacy; it's funny how you guys can't argue the actual subject so you keep trying to change it. The issues that I have brought up concern the company itself. The issues stem from either pressuring their advisors to sell products that their clients don't need (at very high cost), or screwing over their smaller investors by allowing others to market-time while lying to everybody about not letting people do this. These kinds of things do indict the "entire company". You assume that because a few of the senior execs were removed that everything is magically better now. Again, ever heard the definition of 'assume'...?

This is really not that hard to understand.

Originally Posted by notforyou1

THANK YOU for conceding my argument that your crying is about the INDUSTRY AND NOT WADDELL & REED.

Ummm, I've got news for you; I haven't conceded anything. You see, this thread has talked about both, starting long before you showed up. Here, let me help you. Here is what I have said previously:

Yes, Janus management had issues of it's own a few years ago in regards to allowing certain clients to market-time and lying about it, to the detriment of their smaller clients, but that says more about the financial services industry as a whole than anything else.
-- msg #11, 03-02-2009

Nice attempt at a Strawman Argument, but that's not what I said. My ire was directed at W&R specifically, not the industry in general. Although, since you bring it up, much of the industry is pretty bad.
-- msg #15, 03-19-2009

So despite your breathless assertion, this isn't some stunning admission. Of anything. I think you've watched Frost-Nixon too many times. So, please spare us the phony theatrics.

Originally Posted by notforyou1

I did notice that you neglected to address my observation that Waddell & Reed has a ton of CFPs in good standing working for them, which are subject to the strictest ethics requirements in the industry. If Waddell & Reed were as nefarious as you would mislead people to believe, you are essentially criticizing the CFP board itself. Thanks for shedding any credibility you might have had left.

It looks like you also suffer from selective hearing/reading. I did address it. I recognized it as the Red Herring that it was, and moved on. Just because people tell lawyer jokes and hold lawyers in generally low regard does not mean that they are "criticizing" the bar exam (and even if they were, so what?); lawyers have ethics requirements too, and look at their reputation. You act like there's some special significance here when there's not. Again: get over yourself, and spare us the phony righteous indignation.

Originally Posted by notforyou1

I really don't understand how somebody could have been impressed with your argumentation. Perhaps it was your use of obfuscation and lies.

Please, use facts and point to what I have lied about. Here, I'll even start by showing how you've either lied or tried to bullshit:

1. You claimed that the variable annuities and market-timing incidents were the only black marks on W&R's record. I showed that was a blatantly false statement when I pointed out the Sawtelle lawsuit.

2. Then, realizing that you had been caught in a lie but not wanting to admit it, you tried to distort the situation even more by claiming that, "Waddell & Reed has never been ordered to pay a dime in damages in that case", another false statement.

3. Then you used an out-of-context quote taken from a news article well before the entire incident had run its course. Tell us, if you were really interested in presenting a truthful and accurate portrayal of what happened, why did you use a source from April 2003, when the issue wasn't finally settled until December 2005? It's currently May 2009; there really is no excuse. You're either a liar/bullshitter, or monumentally stupid.

So, which is it: did you lie (deliberately make false statements), were you bullshitting (making statements, not caring whether they were true or false), or are you just a complete idiot? Keep in mind, some people make a good argument that bullshitting is more insidious than lying. Your best option may actually be Door #3, but don't feel too bad: it's not your fault, you were born that way.

Originally Posted by notforyou1

Actually, that's not irrelevant. ... Blah blah blah...
If so, then you have an excellent platform from which to deliver great service to your clients.

Are you sure you don't have ADD? Because I know that I've already said that there are better products than what W&R offers, with the added benefit of them offering no/low loads in particular, and much lower fees in general. Unlike the W&R funds. Unless you want to deny that too, which I somehow expect you will. Based on W&R's own sales literature which was given to me by their own advisor, there is nothing that a W&R advisor can offer that can't be had elsewhere that's at least as good, and probably cheaper.

Originally Posted by notforyou1

Well, then you're not answering the question. You're going off on your petty tirades against the industry and any other industry that charges a commission.

And yet another Strawman logical fallacy. Please point out where I derided "any industry" that works on commission. This is just more of your bullshit.

Originally Posted by notforyou1

I'm sorry to break it to you, but communism only works in theory.

lol So now I'm a communist because I think that your industry is seriously conflicted? That's just sad. Really. You are going off the deep end. Seek help.

Originally Posted by notforyou1

The person who started this thread was asking specifically about Waddell & Reed. When people have defended them, you lash out at the industry in general while citing the very few and isolated incidents, which actually made Waddell & Reed a better company since they beefed up their compliance department and changed leadership of the firm.

And yet you and a few others keep trying to change the subject and talk about other firms. And you completely ignored Industry Guru "lashing out" at people sharing their experiences; why is that? Or will you just ignore this question again? You are showing just how big your double-standard is.

Originally Posted by notforyou1

The discussion of this post was trying to determine how Waddell & Reed is relative to other companies in the industry.

No, it wasn't. The OP did NOT ask, "Is W&R better than other firms in the financial services industry?". His exact words were:

Has anyone here ever done business with a company called Waddell & Reed (e.g. received service from one of their financial advisors)? If so, what was your experience (e.g. good? bad?)?

So, once again you are completely distorting what other people are saying. What's truly sad is how easy it is to show how completely full of shit you are. Why did you lie (again!) about something so easily disproven?

Originally Posted by notforyou1

Since Google seems to be your preferred reference (most of your posts are copied directly from there), ...

Actually, none of my posts are copied "directly" from google. Google isn't a reference; it's a search engine. It's funny that you talk shit about being able to research things but don't understand this basic concept.

Originally Posted by notforyou1

I think you debase your credibility when you criticize my lack of proper grammar while using text message acronyms.

I thought this was one of the funniest things you've said so far. First of all, I wasn't criticizing your "lack of proper grammar"; everybody makes some kind of spelling/grammar error occasionally. I was actually pointing out that your explanation of what an argument consists of was wrong, which was especially funny considering your comment about this being a "pathetic excuse for an informed discussion". Second, I wasn't using "text message acronyms"; I was deliberately misspelling words to mock your failed attempt to sound educated. The fact that this went over your head cracks me up. lol

Originally Posted by notforyou1

Since you can't name your company of choice or recommend one that you use, you remove any legitimacy or credibility that you may have had.

lol Umm, no I don't.

Let's tweak the wording a bit:

"Since you can't name your law firm of choice or recommend one that you use, you remove any credibility you may have had when it comes to criticizing lawyers".

Or:
"Since you can't name your hospital of choice or recommend one that you use, you remove any credibility you may have had when it comes to criticizing doctors".

Now it sounds pretty stupid, yet we're supposed to take it seriously when you say it in regards to "financial advisors"? Gimme a break.

So you think I'm some horrible Communist baby-eating liar because I believe that the financial services industry is conflicted in the way that most advisors are compensated. Is that about right? Okay Einstein, then maybe you can explain why the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors holds an even stronger position than I do. From their FAQ page:

Q. Why is Fee-Only Compensation of Critical Importance?
A. A financial planner who has a financial stake in the course of action that he/she recommends to a client faces an inherent conflict of interest and cannot be considered objective and unbiased. This is true even if the planner truly believes that he/she has only the best interests of the client at heart. Unfortunately, the vast majority of financial advisors in the United States are sellers of financial products. Some or all of their income may be dependent upon their ability to steer their clients to a limited number of the thousands of financial products available today. (Putting aside the conflict-of-interest factor, this limiting of choices, in and of itself, often is enough to impact the quality of the investment advice.)

These advisors include stock-brokers, analysts, insurance agents, accountants and attorneys, as well as financial planners. Many of their clients are not aware of their advisors’ dependence on selling products, or do not recognize its significance.
NAPFA believes that many of the problems that beset Americans today in their financial affairs – including the mis-management of debt, failure to protect retirement assets and poor allocation of savings and investments – relate directly to the conflicts of interest that pervade the marketplace.

So here you are huffing and puffing about how "intellectually and morally bankrupt" I am, and yet there is actually a national association of financial advisors who are trying to address the elephant in the room that you absolutely refuse to acknowledge, even though you're covered in its shit. How 'bout that?

But I suppose you know more than all of them, eh? Maybe you should go scream at those "Communists" and tell them that they don't understand the financial services industry either. Good luck with that, and let us know how it goes.

Dumbass.

[XSamsonX]

Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick, NotImpressed. I know I praised your argumentative skills, but you are out of control. Actually, I am impressed by W&R's track record, and I'm happy to be affiliated with them. The longer I'm with them the more secure I feel that I joined the right firm to help people, not myself. I'm sure you'll call me a moron or easily duped or that I "drank the koolaid" (yummy! I love Koolaid!) but while your argumentative skills may be sharply honed, I still disagree with your basic point that we're all shysters who are ignoring a conflict of interest and have come to believe that you need to get off the computer and go enjoy the world. Go to the park. Watch some children play. Do something because you are a bitter, bitter person who spends waaaay too much time posting vitriolic responses to people who disagree with you. Life is short, man, let it go. And before you reply with researched responses to my every sentence, just know that I DON'T CARE. Your inability to post a response that is less than 3 pages and that systematically dismantles every minor point made by an innocuous responder who dares disagree with the mighty NotImpressed shows that basically, you are a cyberbully who can't stand not to get his own way, and your impulsive reaction is to beat them down until you've scared them away. You know there are other types of people that act like that. They're called babies. I have three of them and while your linguistics may be more advanced than their's is, your basic responses are the same: "No! I'm right! You're wrong! I don't like you! Waaaaaa!" So enjoy your little kingdom here on an obscure website, since it's probably the only place in this world where you actually think you command respect. I've got better, more interesting things to do besides listen to your asinine rambling. Like screw my clients out of their money! Because that's what we do! Hahahahahahaha (evil laugh, twisting my handlebar moustache). Grow up douchebag. Have a great life!

[NotImpressed]

Originally Posted by XSamsonX

Jesus H. Christ on a popsicle stick, NotImpressed. I know I praised your argumentative skills, but you are out of control. Actually, I am impressed by W&R's track record, and I'm happy to be affiliated with them. The longer I'm with them the more secure I feel that I joined the right firm to help people, not myself. I'm sure you'll call me a moron or easily duped or that I "drank the koolaid" (yummy! I love Koolaid!) but while your argumentative skills may be sharply honed, I still disagree with your basic point that we're all shysters who are ignoring a conflict of interest and have come to believe that you need to get off the computer and go enjoy the world. Go to the park. Watch some children play. Do something because you are a bitter, bitter person who spends waaaay too much time posting vitriolic responses to people who disagree with you. Life is short, man, let it go. And before you reply with researched responses to my every sentence, just know that I DON'T CARE. Your inability to post a response that is less than 3 pages and that systematically dismantles every minor point made by an innocuous responder who dares disagree with the mighty NotImpressed shows that basically, you are a cyberbully who can't stand not to get his own way, and your impulsive reaction is to beat them down until you've scared them away. You know there are other types of people that act like that. They're called babies. I have three of them and while your linguistics may be more advanced than their's is, your basic responses are the same: "No! I'm right! You're wrong! I don't like you! Waaaaaa!" So enjoy your little kingdom here on an obscure website, since it's probably the only place in this world where you actually think you command respect. I've got better, more interesting things to do besides listen to your asinine rambling. Like screw my clients out of their money! Because that's what we do! Hahahahahahaha (evil laugh, twisting my handlebar moustache). Grow up douchebag. Have a great life!

Does this mean we can't be penpals? If you are happy working for W&R, then congratulations. I'm pretty sure I never called anybody a moron simply because they worked for W&R; in fact, I know I made a comment about why ethical people might want to work for them. Sorry to burst your bubble/stereotype.

And you seem to have jumped on the, "He thinks we're all crooks"-bandwagon. I never said that. Those are words that others (like you, now) keep trying to put in my mouth because you cannot refute what I have actually been saying. And as I pointed out in my last post, there is an entire assocation of personal financial advisors who make an even stronger claim than I have made about the inability of advisors to be objective when they work on commission. I find it striking how you ignored that and instead focused on me. Again, sorry to burst your bubble.

Go to a park? That's a fantastic idea. In fact, a group of friends of mine and I took our kids to the zoo yesterday. It was a beautiful sunny day, and we had a great time (though I'm sure it's easier for you to tell yourself that I'm lying). Not that it matters, but the nature of my work means that I frequently have down-time throughout the day. I post in my free-time because it gives me something to do other than read. Again, sorry to burst your stereotype about me being some kind of bitter, antisocial shut-in.

It's also funny that you criticize actually knowing what I'm talking about by researching (and providing citations for) my responses. But I suppose it's to be expected from people who are allergic to the truth. Better that I should just make stuff up, like notforyou and danoodle have done? Believe me, it would be a lot easier, but some people aren't wired that way.

I'm a cyberbully because I respond to "innocuous responders" like Industry Guru, danoodle, and notforyou? You and I have a different idea of what "innocuous" means. Yeah, my posts have been long, mostly because people like them (and now you) pack so much b.s. into your posts. It's funny how you guys all keep making this accusation about me attacking "anybody"/"everybody", but if it were true then I would also have "attacked" 'happyclient' as well, but I didn't. But you guys will ignore pesky little details like that because it conflicts with the image of me being a big bad bully. The truth is in my first post I made comments aimed at Industry Guru because he was being a bully. A fact you guys keep ignoring. After that, I responded to comments made directly to me, and that makes me a bully?? Once again, the facts show that you're just as full of shit as the others. Sorry. :(

And if you really didn't care, you wouldn't have taken the time to write that long paragraph. ;)

[littleboyracer]

It Was Terrible. Bunch Of Gangsters

[JRiggs]

Wow, after struggling through reading this thread, I felt I just needed to say a few things.

When researching potential employers, the last thing I was to see when typing their name into Google is "scam" attached to their name.

XSamsonX, your posts make my eyes bleed. Learn to use paragraphs. You just got hired to a company that supplies you clients. How do you think your clients would feel if they saw your wall of text? Practise being professional. It's not hard to hit enter.

To anyone telling NotImpressed to calm down/go outside/get a life, just remember you're wasting your time replying to him. You are no better.

People seem to ignore probably one of the most important posts in here, and that is the one by Babbert. ZERO financial or investing background, but a sales background. That should ring a bell to the type of people they hire. SALES people.
If you still don't get it: they bring people in who know probably less about finances than you do. Sure, maybe they get a gem who actually knows what they are talking about...but it looks like they set the bar pretty low (no offense Babbert).

And that's my 2c, take it as you will.

[vetinvestor]

What is my oppinion? Great. I have a very diversified portolio. My returns are double digit YTD...yes, positive returns.

Want to know which funds they are? Can't tell you, because they may not be right for you. WR actually does a risk tolerance and suitablity questionairre before they recommend funds to you.

Are there cheaper funds out there, sure. Vanguard is the Wal-Mart of funds. If you think you know what you are doing - then go there and gamble your personal knowledge and money for cheaper fees. Having had a Series 7 and Series 66 license myself...I can tell you I did my own homework and they are GREAT funds.

As for the poster who wasn't pleased to see the word scam by WR's name in a Google search...This discussion page is the reason that comes up. Notice this site is the first hit that comes up.

NotImpressed - I won't even go there...too much to say and not worth going into (but worth mentioning). I don't have that much free time on my hands but decided to make some to reply to the threadstarter's question.

[Daughter One]

Just waded through this thread. Here's my story: I recently met with the Waddell & Reed "Financial Advisor" who has handled my parent's portfolio for 5 years. His business card is annotated with a "Crest Award" and "Member 2009 President's Council". The back of his business card states: "Award is presented annually by the firm and is based on sales activities." A search of W&R compensation indicates "advisors" receive bonuses and commissions based on performance.
Earlier I had investigated Waddell & Reed's history. The company is highly rated with few complaints, so like many investors, I thought my parents relatively small portfolio was in trusted hands. Last year W&R funds were ranked 5 and 9 out of 59 fund families by Barron's. It is not the products I have a problem with. It's the concept of "Financial Advice".
My folks are now in their late 80s, beginning to have memory problems. They live in a rural area without many financial planner alternatives. Last summer they sold their house. My parents told me they were receiving advice from their W&R Financial Advisor on what to do with the income.
I said, "Do not put it in the Stock Market. Get advice for something more secure right now like a Treasury notes - CDs - or municipal bonds."
September 2008. I called my parents and asked what happened to the proceeds from the sale of the house. My mother did not know exactly - saying their W&R Financial Advisor "took care of it". I asked specifically: did he put it in the Stock Market? My mother replied, "No, he told us it was safely 'parked', and he has increased our bonds." IRelieved, I did not call their W&R Financial Advisor for more details - I simply presumed he had put the proceeds into bonds.
Forward to June 2009. I now have ***** of attorney for my parent's finances. My folks are in decline with aging and health problems and may need to access their investments in the near future. I live in another state and visited over Father's Day. My parents arranged for me to meet with the W&R financial advisor at their place.
During the meeting I discover this trusted "Financial Advisor" had invested 80% of their portfolio in the stock market, including W&R funds, and only 20% in bonds. The so-called 'parked' money from last summer's sale of their home was invested this way.
Now, I'm no financial wiz, but I do know even non-conservative financial planners recommend roughly 50-50 between stocks and bonds for retirees. Some conservative planners say the % of bonds should equal your age - at 80 years this suggests my parent's position between stocks and bonds should be reversed.
The W&R guy began to tap dance when I asked him why he had EIGHTY PERCENT invested in stocks - "your father likes stocks" and "it is a safety net" and "we 'parked' the house money by spreading it across both stocks and bonds". It sounded like salesman trained wording, sprinkled with obscure yet comforting terms. I decided against a confrontation in front of my anxious parents. I escorted him to his car where he said, "It's good to see your parents are still capable of making their own decisions."
I quizzed my folks and neither can recall whether they specifically told the W&R advisor NOT to put the proceeds from the sale of their home into stocks or funds last year. But I am angry. First, angry at myself for allowing this to happen. And, angry at this W&R 'advisor' for NOT advising 80-year-old people to avoid the market at exactly the time Thunder Clouds were forming.
I am going though the statements saved by my parents, who fortunately seem to save everything. It may be a simple case of mis-communication. But in my experience, while W&R may have excellent products, their salesman - a "financial advisor" - appears to be rewarded by W&R for placing his best interest over his clients.
I do not yet know if this warrants a formal complaint. [FONT='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]

[NotImpressed]

Originally Posted by vetinvestor

NotImpressed - I won't even go there...too much to say and not worth going into (but worth mentioning).

I could be wrong, but it looks like you can't refute anything I've actually said, but have decided to disagree with me anyway...

//////////////

Daughter One:

Careful: you keep talking like that, and before you know it people will start attacking you personally. Not because they think you're lying, but because they know it's true and don't like the fact that you're talking about it. They'll try to discount it by sputtering something like, "But that hardly ever happens!!", while ignoring the fact that, as far as "the record" is concerned (at least for now), your parents weren't ever ripped off by their financial "advisor"; this is a classic example of how an organization can have a clean(-ish) record even though its employees behave badly.

Good luck getting it all sorted out.

[vetinvestor]

Just for clarification notimpressed - are discounting the advisor or the company when you replied to Daughterone?

[NotImpressed]

Originally Posted by vetinvestor

Just for clarification notimpressed - are discounting the advisor or the company when you replied to Daughterone?

Neither. I'm saying that the apologists in this thread will discount (or simply ignore) her story.

Daughterone is in the unenviable position of having to weigh the pros and cons of hiring somebody to review and scrutinize the last five years of "advice" that her parents got; personally, I doubt that this was the first time that he did something that benefited himself at the expense of her parents. The question is, is it worth the time and expense to do it? Unfortunately, the only real way to know the answer to that question is to do it.

[Figured it out]

Hey NotImpressive,

The "daddy didn't love me so now I desperately seek any attention I can get on the internet" thread is three clicks over. I think that's where you should spend your obviously valuable time.

[NotImpressed]

Originally Posted by Figured it out

Hey NotImpressive,

The "daddy didn't love me so now I desperately seek any attention I can get on the internet" thread is three clicks over. I think that's where you should spend your obviously valuable time.

Your pathetic attempt at an insult is rather ironic, considering that there isn't even a pretense at trying to address the actual subject. The sole purpose of your post is to try to start a flame war. Which makes you the biggest loser so far. Truly ironic.

Maybe you should take your own advice and start a thread specifically for adolescent trolls trying to get attention. Now I will heed the advice which says "Don't feed the trolls" and leave you to scream at your keyboard.

Buh-bye.