Cost Effective Financial Advisor

I am an independant financial advisor with a limited budget. What marketing tools are the most cost effective? How can I get articles written and published? How can I get my more exposure in my marketplace? I want to get my name out there quick. I am not looking for national exposure, just local.

The greatest inexpensive marketing strategy I have ever seen:

Be seen. Be known. Be paid. Here is how it works:

Pick 5 or 6 places that you believe your target groups visits on a regular basis for example, take martial arts, get into yoga or some othe venue. Take classes that your target group would take. The point is to be in the same place at the same time all the time and get to know the people there. The best leads (free) come from people who know you and want nothing in return.

I know of a Realtor who goes to 5 different Starbucks every day at the same time and sells 4 houses a month out here in So. California and earns $40,000 a month. She sets up her laptop, places out business cards and she's in business!

2007-03-18 16:57:34 by Alan B

Our Aim is "To make independent financial advisors truly independent". And to make it possible we are offering a free web based ...

I am a financial advisor of mutual funds, insurance and stock market and I want to develop my advisory business throughout India can anybody give me cost effective right suggestion so that I can develop my advisory business.

Direct Marketing. Low cost. Measureable results. You can go to your library and look up books on the subject. If you have the budget, look for firms that specialize in direct marketing. They can set up a direct marketing campaign for you to get your advisory service up and running.

Also read Selling the Invisible by Harry Beckwith.

I wish you the best! http://jsforex.blogspot.com

2008-06-15 05:10:22 by munna

You are a financial adviser and have been employed to write a report recommending a financial plan for your clients (the Wellington family). This plan will be based on their current financial circumstances, and you will need to justify your advice.

Income :
Ben - aged 42 net monthly $6200
Prue- Age 39 net monthly $1100

Assets:
House $680 000 market value
Joint bank savings account $12500
Bens supperannuation $85000 currently invested in a cash fund.
Prue's super : nil.
Ben's redundancy payout from previous job $58000
Other investments: nil.

Liabilites:
Outstanding 4.75% variable rate mortagage $180 000
Credit Card balance (interest rate 17.5% pa.) $4400
Cost of necessary home repairs $4000
Cost of upgrading car: $5000

CHILDREN GOALS:
Luke, 17, is completing high school and hopes to commence work as an apprentice electrician next year.
Brook is age 15 and wants to study drama at university after completing high school in 2 years.

BEN AND PRUE'S GOALS:
Ben intends to continue working fulltime for the next 20 years and is in hurry to pay out the mortgage early. Similarly, Prue intends to continue working part time. They both agree they want to build up savings for their retirement in the most tax effective manner and to make better use of long term investments such as shares..

THIS IS REALLY CONFUSING ME?!?
I NEED HELP!!
AND ADVISE WILL BE GREATLY APPRECIATED.

They are not giving you any guidance here. You need to find out what the savings rate is. I will assume 10% or about $700 a month. I would put it in the deferred savings plan and get it vested in the market. I would maximize the previous super and top load Ben since he is older. After he is maximized I would max out Prue. I see a glaring life insurance need, about $800k for Ben and about $250 for Prue. 20 year term should do the trick. It is very vague, but that is how I would do it in real life.

2009-08-30 00:28:33 by

Hello,

I am an Executive Recruiter with RJ & Makay. We are the largest recruiting firm within the financial services industry nationwide. We came across your resume and would like to speak to you regarding an opportunity that may be of interest.

Our client is looking for professionals who have experienced success in a prior career and want to leverage their experience in a new industry. This position offers an opportunity for excellent training and licensing in the financial services industry. The position offers a salary plus commissions and full benefits. You will become both a stockbroker and a Financial Advisor working from your own office with your own full time assistant, working with leading-edge technology and more support than you ever thought possible.

You may be wondering why your resume was selected. You display traits that our client is looking for; so, your background may transition well into this career.

Many of our candidates ask us why they should consider a career in financial services now during a time of economic uncertainty and market volatility. We’re proud to represent clients who are stable, not connected directly to the banking industry, and who manage investments conservatively for the long run. Although the media is painting a very bleak picture, their analysts have guided advisors well and they continue to perform well. History has proven that new advisors at our client companies do as well in down markets as they do in bull markets. Investors are starving for good, prudent advice. Our clients’ competitors are not talking to their clients and this represents a tremendous opportunity for our advisors who are proactively making contact with these prospects. Our clients’ financial advisors are as successful in transferring in accounts during down markets by being proactive with potential clients as they do in up markets. New FAs have a proven history of doing well in declining or flat markets due to our clients’ prospecting strategy. It quite simply is more effective in building trust and establishing new relationships. Our New FA’s are currently performing at the highest levels since early 2005.

Opportunities like this are rare - and this one doesn't cost you anything but time and interest. We can equip you with a highly competitive advantage by coaching you through the candidacy process. This is a serious professional opportunity with a leading firm in the financial industry. We will act as your agent, at no cost to you. After your initial interview with us, should we decide to move forward with the client interview process, we will send you our customized Interview Preparation Package which is a detailed and powerful tool equipping you with everything you need to know about the process, position and the client.

Please reply to this e-mail to set an appointment to discuss the position in detail and include the following:

#1 - The best 2 hour window for you to be reached to hear about the position

#2 - The best phone number for us to call you

#3 - A copy of your resume/CV in MS Word or PDF format

If a member of our hiring team has not already called you, you may receive a call soon. For additional information, please feel free to visit our website at www.rjandmakay.com.


Sincerely,

Adrienne Obey
RJ and Makay
Executive Recruiting
aobey@rjandmakay.com
(888) 928-0008 ext. 308

Probably a scam.

2009-01-22 19:26:14 by dngrzdmn

I've been saying that the whole thing forces rationing, with the central committee designing 'cost effective procedures' and enforcing them, whether in public OR private insurance through a mandated compensation system for paying doctors and health providers by how well they do compared to compliance with the recommendations of the government committee. That plus the fact that the CBO says costs will INCREASE under Obamacare means premiums will increase and become unaffordable for most of us (the subsidy amount will generally apply to the same people it does now, except preexisting conditions.) That means even if we had a choice people would be rationing, and even dropping insurance if they were above the subsidy amount but had to make hard decisions about making their mortgage or the govt mandated insurance premiums. Note that the fines don't cost as much as the insurance. This is a NEW loss of access to insurance no one is talking about. However, it would also lead to less being covered, earlier, as premium costs spiraled. Medicare is being cut $500 billion in the House bill or $550 billion in the Senate bill, yet the efficiencies Obama says will cover this are only given credit by the CBO for reducing $1 billion in costs. Medicare's standard for care drops to what is 'cost effective'.

It is clear that saying you can keep your plan is disingenuous since almost all plans naturally end, and there are large financial incentives in the bill for employers to drop their current plans. Also, changes to a plan (which occur all the time) will typically render it a new plan having to meet Obamacare standards. All employer plans do within 5 years, in any event. Off the top of my head the only types of plans you could really 'keep' for very long under Obamacare would be union and Congress's plan.

Altogether, this read as if we weren't all being put on Medicare, we were all being put on MEDICAID (which many doctors won't even accept), including those on medicare. However, you had to get there from logic, since the details of administration weren't written out.

But this article finds, as I understood, that rationing is a primary intent of the central government committee 'recommending' cost effective procedures. And determinations by this committee of what will be reimbursed for doctors and other providers, are shielded from any challenge.

At least now if your plan wrongfully denies care, you can sue.

What do you think? Why are they only focusing on the 'public/private' administration of the government written policies that will be mandated, when that doesn't go to so many of the issues?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424 052970204683204574358233780260914.html

"Although administration officials are eager to deny it, rationing health care is central to President Barack Obama’s health plan. The Obama strategy is to reduce health costs by rationing the services that we and future generations of patients will receive.

The White House Council of Economic Advisers issued a report in June explaining the Obama administration's goal of reducing projected health spending by 30% over the next two decades. That reduction would be achieved by eliminating "high cost, low-value treatments," by "implementing a set of performance measures that all providers would adopt," and by "directly targeting individual providers . . . (and other) high-end outliers."

The president has emphasized the importance of limiting services to "health care that works." To identify such care, he provided more than $1 billion in the fiscal stimulus package to jump-start Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) and to finance a federal CER advisory council to implement that idea. That could morph over time into a cost-control mechanism of the sort proposed by former Sen. Tom Daschle, Mr. Obama's original choice for White House health czar. Comparative effectiveness could become the vehicle for deciding whether each method of treatment provides enough of an improvement in health care to justify its cost.

In the British national health service, a government agency approves only those expensive treatments that add at least one Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) per £30,000 (about $49,685) of additional health-care spending. If a treatment costs more per QALY, the health service will not pay for it. The existence of such a program in the United States would not only deny lifesaving care but would also cast a pall over medical researchers who would fear that government experts might reject their discoveries as "too expensive."

One reason the Obama administration is prepared to use rationing to limit health care is to rein in the government's exploding health-care budget. Government now pays for nearly half of all health care in the U.S., primarily through the Medicare and Medicaid programs. The White House predicts that the aging of the population and the current trend in health-care spending per beneficiary woul