by darnardo1 » Mon May 18, 2009 04:33 am
Are Broker-Dealers and Stockbrokers the same thing?
A broker-dealer is a company or other organization that trades securities for its own account or on behalf of its customers.
A broker-dealer is a company or other organization that trades securities for its own account or on behalf of its customers.
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 10:42 am Post Subject:
Stockbrokers need to be an employee of a Broker/Dealer or they need to be an independent contractor of a broker/dealer.
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 11:16 am Post Subject:
They don't call themselves "Stock Brokers" anymore.
They are now called "Registered Representatives" so you don't know you're dealing with a Stock Broker.
The term "Registered Representative" is part of the systemic FRAUD on Wall St.
They also will get their insurance license to be able to sell the infamous bloated pig with lipstick known as a Variable Annuity but THEY ARE NOT INSURANCE AGENTS. You can thank Bill Clinton and the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 for that one. In less than ten years these FRAUD MERCHANTS have almost collapsed the USA monetary system.
A "Registered Representative" wouldn't ~know~ risk managment if he/she/it had a mouth full of it and they have done great harm to American's life savings with risky investments that are not suitable by age and financial objective for the client.
Most all of these losers are now out of the business and GOOD RIDDANCE!
Go sell used cars as that's going to be where the action is over the next five (5) years while the auto industry restructures.
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 01:46 pm Post Subject:
Gary, stock broker and registered representative are not synonymous terms. All stock brokers are registered representatives. All registered representatives are not stock brokers.
A stock broker must have a series 7. One can be a registered rep with a series 6. One who just has a series 6 can't sell stocks.
They are all registered representatives, but very few call themselves that. Most of them use the term financial advisor or something similar.
Most of them have their insurance license because it is smart on their part to be able to make money on insurance sales. They may not know what they are doing in terms of insurance sales, but like it or not, they are insurance agents.
There is nothing wrong with variable annuities. Like most financial products, they are appropriate or inappropriate based upon the situation.
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 08:08 pm Post Subject:
Insurance Expert thank you for clearing things up.
I think you said registered representative is what stock brokers call themselves now and yes they are also insurance agents who really don't sell insurance EXCEPT for Variable Annuities.
There is nothing wrong with variable annuities.
I strongly disagree.
Below is a typical Variable Annuity statement:
Posted: Mon May 18, 2009 09:54 pm Post Subject:
No, I didn't say that stock brokers call themselves registered representatives. I said that they are registered representatives. I've actually never heard a stock broker call himself that term.
Dorothy Stanley lost money on her variable annuity last year thus all variable annuities must be bad. The vast majority of people who bought homes within the last few years have lost money, thus home ownership must be bad. Most people who bought fixed indexed annuities and then needed their money within a few years, lost money, thus FIAs must be bad.
VAs make sense for many people. In fact, it may have made sense for Dorothy. If she couldn't afford that loss for the year, her money could have been in a guaranteed option and she wouldn't have lost a penny, and in fact, would have made money.
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 04:08 am Post Subject:
Interesting turn on the thread thanks to both for the informative dialogue.
"Stockbrokers need to be an employee of a Broker/Dealer or they need to be an independent contractor of a broker/dealer."
Are Fininancial planners in the same boat? What is the difference with them? Is it the governance that is different? Hope you can clear up my confusion
Thanks
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 05:09 am Post Subject:
Most people who bought fixed indexed annuities and then needed their money within a few years, lost money, thus FIAs must be bad
Can you explain what you mean here?
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 08:28 am Post Subject:
Are Fininancial planners in the same boat?
Nope, the financial planner would plan out every financial details for you. They would devise the investments options, suggest you the coverage you need to carry in order to ensure the financial future of your family/dependants and so forth.
Stock brokers would restrict themselves with the dealing of stocks. They may also act on your behalf. However, they may make you suggestions about the best shares to buy but they normally wouldn't venture out to the other financial planning.
Hope that clarifies.
Thanks,
Rupert
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 08:37 am Post Subject:
"Stock brokers would restrict themselves with the dealing of stocks"
As far as I know Stock brokers sold 16% of the market of Annuities in 2008.
Posted: Tue May 19, 2009 08:45 am Post Subject:
:P Great topic darnardo1 and ripe for a good old fashion THREAD WAR! :evil: :twisted: :wink:
Insurance Expert wrote:
No, I didn't say that stock brokers call themselves registered representatives. I said that they are registered representatives. I've actually never heard a stock broker call himself that term.
I understand.
So they call themselves "Financial Advisors" which is a generic term. Financial Planner is also a generic term.
But they are actually commissioned salemen of mutual funds, stocks, bonds, variable annuities and other financial products. Nothing wrong with that EXCEPT they are STOCK BROKERS as that term is understood by Mom & Pops across the kitchen table.
Dorothy Stanley lost money on her variable annuity last year thus all variable annuities must be bad.
Correct. The statement posted above is "typical" of MOST ALL variable annuities. Variable Annuities VIOLATE the fundamental aspect of Safety of Principal inheirent in ALL annuities EXCEPT variable annuities.
The vast majority of people who bought homes within the last few years have lost money, thus home ownership must be bad.
Homes and Annuities have nothing to do which each other. People lost money on homes over the past few years because they foolishly BORROWED double the money to pay for an overpriced house to begin with.
The homes didn't lose value, people paid too much and more than the house was ever worth to begin with.
Most people who bought fixed indexed annuities and then needed their money within a few years, lost money, thus FIAs must be bad.
Annuity rhetoric.
You'd have to go out of your way to find any fixed annuity that doesn't have a 10% free withdrawal provision, waive surrender charges at death, waive surrender charges for nursing home confinment and waive surrender charges for terminal illness.
VAs make sense for many people. In fact, it may have made sense for Dorothy. If she couldn't afford that loss for the year, her money could have been in a guaranteed option and she wouldn't have lost a penny, and in fact, would have made money.
That's nice to know, great information.
Too bad their Stock Broker, Registered Representative, Financial Advisor, Insurance Agent, Financial Planner didn't protect his client's money BEFORE they lost 39% of their life savings.
Add your comment