While I applaud and support the idea that planning cannot be a "one-size-fits-all" proposition, I was dumbfounded to read that you and your magazine now accept, and promote, the gay and lesbian agenda!
The union of same sex couples is not a civil rights issue, but a moral issue. Since the beginning of humankind, the union of two people has consisted of one man and one woman. As you correctly point out, our society, laws, customs, and protections are built upon the institution of marriage. What is wrong with that? Because a minority of the world's population choose to live in a perverse manner does not entitle them to a special set of "rights."
If you support "marriage rights" for gay and lesbian couples, do those same "rights" apply to relationships involving one man with multiple women or one woman with multiple men? Would you argue that polygamists have "marriage rights" What about all the other "charming, refreshing and smart" people who choose non-conventional (one man-one woman) relationships? "Charming, refreshing and smart," do not make right.
You state that "denying that right to a significant portion of the citizenry is plain wrong." The only thing wrong is your records. Please delete my name from your mailing list.
Let's see how your magazine and its advertisers flourish by focusing on serving a minority of the population.
Columbus Investment Advisory
"Much ADOO About nothing"
On his arrival from London recently, Shakespeare observed tens of thousands of brokerage firm executives, working with several million investors, frantically re-categorizing their brokerage accounts to "fiduciary" status, or to non-discretionary status, as desired by the client.
According to sources available to Bill, each conversion required 10- to 60-minute conversations with each investor, client review of five pages of disclosures, signatures on two documents, manager and regional manager review of each document, hand input and scanning of documents and information into massive data storage banks, 12- to 16-hour days for reps, daily overtime for sales assistants, and a substantial supply of Ibuprophen. He wondered how firms will pass on these expenses.
Bill further learned that this massive effort is a result of a judicial opinion solicited during a four-year campaign by The Financial Planning Association. Assuming, at first, that the campaign, and related expenses, must have a concrete, tangible, beneficial purpose, Bill asked "what is a fiduciary?" Strangely, he found that no one could answer. Nothing had changed. "The risks of investing in intangibles," he said, "have been well known since the time of the East India Companies. Those risks are down markets, bad companies, inflation, poor judgment, incompetence, and, on occasion, unscrupulous behavior."
"Since 'fiduciary status' does not modify risk," Bill said," I cannot determine why this change is necessary." He then spent several hours trying to determine whether the story is a tragedy or a comedy. His conclusion was comedy, which he titled: "Much Adoo About Nothing."
John Guy, CFP
Wealth Planning & Management