The No Stupid Questions Thread

[FearlessF]

So... How do you even start to establish with a financial planner?

I was lucky.  My cousin's son is a sharp young guy that I trust.

Guessing on the right stocks and holdings is more luck than anything, so I'm not too worried about that.
Your situation is complex but those guys can give you the options on moving forward in the future.  They can suggest what they would do and why but, let you make those decisions.
It's not rocket science, mostly simple math
I think the tough part is finding someone that you can trust.

[847badgerfan]

So... How do you even start to establish with a financial planner?

I've got a 401K and my wife has a SEPP IRA that I'm not sure they can do much with until/unless we were to have a job change and roll it over. But I also have my own stock account that has VERY concentrated holdings (2 stocks) and for the moment has a lot of unrealized capital gains. I think over time I need to diversify those positions. And I'm not sure that I trust myself to figure it out--especially given the cost of the tax implications of those capital gains if/when I sell stock to diversify. And the risk of the IRS getting all mad at me and demanding things like quarterly tax payments if I have a sudden increase in capital gains taxes and them thinking it'll be continued...

So I know I need to do something. But I don't even know how to get started here...

1. Make sure you hire a fiduciary. I've been very happy with my guy at LPL (which bought Waddel and Reed).

2. He/she will max out your 401 and Sepp to the best of their ability.

3. Contribute the maximum amount you can to Roth IRA accounts. I believe you're not yet 50, so that would be $7K/year. Taxes will never be lower than they are now, so this is the time.

[MrNubbz]

1. Make sure you hire a fiduciary. I've been very happy with my guy at LPL (which bought Waddel and Reed).

2. He/she will max out your 401 and Sepp to the best of their ability.

3. Contribute the maximum amount you can to Roth IRA accounts. I believe you're not yet 50, so that would be $7K/year. Taxes will never be lower than they are now, so this is the time.

Nailed it
The guy I went with took over from an old friend of the folks who was church affiliated that did fine by them.The new guy railed/harped about ROTH's years back wish I had listened then/there. Eye popping emoji is needed here I was shocked how much it gathered(by my means) in 15 yrs. BWARB - like 847 said max out the ROTH.As far as the fudiciary trust you instincts/gut or ask someone you trust.

Oh and by all mean take the 7th horse in the 5th out at the big T win/place/show  

[MikeDeTiger]

For our lawyers, if you happen to know anything about criminal law:  

Does a defense attorney typically know if their client is guilty or not?  At least according to the client, I mean.  Does it matter to a defense attorney?  Does it change anything, and so they want to know, and they tell the client to shoot straight with them and explain that the answer is under attorney/client privilege?  Or does it not matter at all, and the attorney tells the client to keep their mouth shut, they don't want to know anything, just let me do my job?  

[SFBadger96]

For our lawyers, if you happen to know anything about criminal law: 

Does a defense attorney typically know if their client is guilty or not?  At least according to the client, I mean.  Does it matter to a defense attorney?  Does it change anything, and so they want to know, and they tell the client to shoot straight with them and explain that the answer is under attorney/client privilege?  Or does it not matter at all, and the attorney tells the client to keep their mouth shut, they don't want to know anything, just let me do my job? 

I haven't been a criminal defense attorney much, but I think the answer usually is yes, but not always. My understanding of the people who are lifers in the criminal defense bar is that they are zealots for governmental process, i.e., it is always the government's obligation to prove guilt. This is a rather libertarian--or at least limiting government power--approach.

Also, there's a wide range of crimes out there and governments routinely overcharge, so even a guilty client is often not guilty of all that the government says.

A good attorney is always going to want to know more, not less. Not knowing something leaves you subject to surprise. Surprise is usually bad in court.

One of an attorney's jobs is to get the client the best possible outcome--that doesn't always mean "not guilty." The best possible outcome might be guilty with mitigation. The more you know, the easier it is to get there. But back to the criminal defense lifers: they know that they will represent despicable people; there's no getting around that. They believe in protecting the public from government overreach, and the only way to guard that is zealously.

I haven't spent a lot of time with attorneys who have defended the worst of the worst, but I wonder if they also have a belief in the power of redemption.

[FearlessF]

good question for 4ever on the back porch

[MikeDeTiger]

I haven't been a criminal defense attorney much, but I think the answer usually is yes, but not always. My understanding of the people who are lifers in the criminal defense bar is that they are zealots for governmental process, i.e., it is always the government's obligation to prove guilt. This is a rather libertarian--or at least limiting government power--approach.

That seems right.  I hate it when my libertarian proclivities are exposed, but it is what it is.  

[Brutus Buckeye]

[Gigem]

I always wondered how the British crown received news they lost the war with the former colonies. I heard it took about 2-3 months to cross the Atlantic, so any news or orders were extremely outdated.  Were the British generals sending news and reports often or were they sporadic, and 2-3 months out of date?  Did the King give orders, and if so were they followed? 

[Cincydawg]

King G III wasn't much involved in decision making.  Lord North was calling the shots.  As for communications, the Battle of New Orleans in 1815 was fought after the peace deal was signed, and this was a few decades after the RW of course.

I suspect by the time Cornwallis was bottled up at Yorktown and the British fleet was turned back, the British PTBs knew the game was up.

[MikeDeTiger]

I was always under the impression that the British did not lose the war so much as they discontinued it because they realized it would not be won as easily as they needed it to be.  Basically, that they could've re-subdued the colonies if they decided to stick it out, but they deemed it financially imprudent and had other matters to attend to.  

In that case, they wouldn't really receive news they lost anything.  They would've been looking at fundraising and balance sheets and then sending word to the forces in the colonies, "Stop doing what you're doing and come home.  You're needed elsewhere."  

[SFBadger96]

I think that's generally how stronger powers lose wars in far off places. They lose the will to keep spending resources on them. The people who live there are much less likely to lose their will than the people who live far away.

[Cincydawg]

A sizeable portion of the American colonists were "Tories", remaining loyal to the Crown, so they no doubt felt abandoned.  Many left for Canada.

It's easy now to say "Yay 'Mericuh", but at the time, one might ponder on which side one really would have been.

Then was the minor issue of assembling a country,  the first attempt being not great.

[Gigem]

New topic....

I always wondered how movie theatres back in the day reported ticket sales back to the major studios.  I'm sure it's all electronic now and 99% by credit card transactions but in the earlier days I heard the vast majority of movie theatres were independent  and rather small, maybe one or two screens total.  What would've stopped them from simply holding back royalties or whatever they call it when they sell tickets?  Isn't the studio supposed to get a cut of ticket sales?  

I clearly remember the 80's here, we had 3-4 movie theatres scattered around the next town over, most had 2 screens.  They didn't build one bigger than 3 screens until the late 90's, I think it had 6 or 8 screens.  Nowadays most have way more than that I think.