The Financial Planning Association of Canada | E129
The Financial Planning Association of Canada | E129
In this episode of Financial Planning for Canadian Business Owners, host Jason Pereira and guest Harold Geller discuss critical aspects of onboarding with a financial advisor. They delve into the importance of financial planning, understanding client-focused reforms, and distinguishing between competent advisors and salespeople. Learn about the significance of plain language communication, proper risk assessments, and the pitfalls of high-fee products. Get insights on how thorough information gathering and educational discussions set the foundation for a long-term professional relationship with your advisor.
Full Transcript
FPCBO 129 - What To Look For When Onboarding
===
Jason Pereira: [00:00:00] Hello. Welcome to Financial Planning for Canadian Business Owners. I'm your host, Jason Pereira. And today on the show, I have Harold Geller back. And specifically this time, we are going to be talking about when you're onboarding with an advisor, what are the things you should be looking out for specifically in Canada, in light of newer regulations on how or what the advisor is supposed to be talking to you about prior to even setting up your accounts.
And with that, here's my interview with Harold. Thanks for taking time again.
Harold Geller: It's a pleasure.
Jason Pereira: So Harold Geller, before we get started, tell us a little bit about what it is you do.
Harold Geller: Well, in some ways it's fairly simple. I consider myself a bit of a Robin Hood. I go, um, I help consumers and investors who have had a problem with Financial Advisors investigate what happened, identify what may have gone wrong, give them practical advice about whether it's worth seeking compensation for what went wrong, and help them through that process.
That's what I do.
Jason Pereira: Excellent. Uh, I like to say you are the go [00:01:00] to advisor for pun, oh, sorry... go to lawyer for punishing bad advisors. Uh, and, but I, what I will always say is that, uh, people are often surprised that we're friends because you would think that someone in your position is out to get people like me when no, I got to say the greatest thing about you is you are a massive advocate for planning done right, probably because you've seen it done right and you know how powerful it can be.
Harold Geller: Uh, and, and, well, you know, your question was originally what, what should a consumer look for? What should a new client look for? And I would put number one on the list, financial planning.
Jason Pereira: Yes.
Harold Geller: That's the most important uh, service or advice that a financial advisor, financial planner, whatever you want to call them, can offer to clients. It's thoughtful guidance. It's not sales, which is often what you get if you go to a investment advisor or a financial advisor who is not a full service, a financial planner.
Jason Pereira: Excellent. [00:02:00] So absolutely, and this is what the show is all about. So let's just explain the landscape here for a second. So there was a set of reforms called the Client Focused Reforms that came into act, um, I think it was about two years ago now, where they changed a number of rules for what was expected of financial advisors when onboarding a client, specifically around, understanding them and a number of other things we're going to dive into into a moment.
Unfortunately, uh, many advisors have not gotten the message about this. And frankly, that is a red flag because these are not just regulations. These are best practices that will, that basically ensure proper service. So let's talk about that. Um, Harold, I am a client who comes to an advisor and what is, you know, besides basically being told about all the wonderful things the advisor is going to do for me.
When it actually comes time to start doing work, what should I expect that advisor to do?
Harold Geller: Well, the number one thing is that they speak to you in plain language. If they're throwing around jargon, they're not [00:03:00] doing you a service. That's partially because the jargon often has different meanings than what common usage would be. So let me give you an example of that. Um, what is your risk tolerance? Medium? Low? High? What does that mean? It's all subjective to the individual answering the question, whereas a financial advisor is trying to investigate what your tolerance is for both, uh, for risk as well as your risk capacity. Those are complex concepts, so if they're talking to you using jargon, you're probably not following what they're trying to tell you and what they're trying to learn from you.
So
Jason Pereira: Well, I mean, let me actually interject here because this is one of my biggest bones to pick with this entire thing. Too much of this is left to advisor discretion or professional, uh, professional opinion. Professional opinion in terms of the hierarchy of evidence is literally the lowest possible bar.
The reality is, is that risk tolerance. There is an academic body of knowledge dating back like 30, [00:04:00] 40 years on this that helps us quantify what runs someone's risk tolerances. It's not perfect, but it's better than just picking my opinion. And capacity in itself is actually a quantifiable test as to how much risk you can take based on actual, the portfolio they're suggesting.
So to suggest that we are as advisors professionally going to basically establish what this is, given the fact we have literally no training in the methodologies of any of this, without using proper tool sets that are empirically backed up and valid and not made up by a marketing department or compliance department, is nonsense.
So that's my rant.
Harold Geller: Well, I, I appreciate that and, and, and you're right, but going to the process, I think it starts with information gathering. And this is what you just discussed, risk tolerance questionnaires are a part of that information gathering. uh, it's incredibly common for an advisor to say, what's your income?
What's your [00:05:00] fixed assets? What's your liquid assets? Well, assuming that you understand the basic terms, um, most people
don't
really know the answers. They've got ideas. Particularly for small business owners, it's very difficult to say what your income is. Does that mean what you declare as income? Does that mean what your holding company throws off in dividends?
What is meant from that? It's a complex process based upon fact gathering and the financial advisor should not just take the clients say so, they should ask the client to show the documents. Why? Because it helps the client reconsider the accuracy of their answer and it provides verifiable information for the financial advisor, financial planner. If is a difference between what the client's perception is and what they answered first and what the documents show,
this
is [00:06:00] a really important learning for both sides of the desk. It's a learning that, um, uh, there is a communication gap, there is an information gap, and an opportunity to go back make sure that the bases are covered piece by piece.
That was just with the first questions that often come off. What's your assets? What's your income? This continues throughout the whole process. The risk tolerance questionnaire, which you referred to, Morningstar has a wonderful one. Actually, they have two. Both of them are based upon large empirical databases and studies, using the academic literature, testing them through specific examples on large samples.
That's the only type of questionnaire which is fit for purpose. The ones that are often used by banks and things like that, when you read them, you get feeling like you're being driven towards certain [00:07:00] answers. That's because often, historically, these questionnaires have been sales tools, not information gathering tools. So, you ask me, what should the client expect at first? It's a detailed, plain language process to gather information. Any advisor who comes in to a first meeting with recommendations about products is clearly a salesperson and should be, the client should run. That's not competent advice.
Jason Pereira: You know, it's funny, I'm kind of smirking and laughing about that because I'm thinking of various, uh, interactions with prospects over the years where, you know, we sit down and we have a conversation about their needs and then we establish an understanding of them and we talk about our services and we tell them we're not going to make any recommendations, of course, until we go through our process.
And the response has often been that's really different than the other people I've seen and we're like... [00:08:00] what what has happened and my my response is typically let me guess they showed you what they would invest you in after talking to you for five minutes, I then told you they can make changes if necessary and universally the answer is yes, right?
So, you know, unfortunately that is too much of a default and if people go to five different advisors at random they're probably gonna get that answer probably unfortunately probably five out of five times. Um, so So I get how the consumer is used to finding that but hopefully those who are listening today understand that they need to look for something more. Okay, so
Harold Geller: Let me just jump in. There's another thing that they really should be a red flag. That is if they sort of slip in, if they mention that their shelf, what they're going to offer you is the proprietary products of the bank. Or the dealer, uh, bank associated company. You think of it as a bank...
Jason Pereira: Oh, but we have we have the sharpest minds in the country doing that. I love that line... we have the smartest minds in the country working on your portfolio. Give me every last institution has the [00:09:00] same sales pitch. They can't all be the smartest minds in the country.
Harold Geller: And the, the stats, as you well know, uh, quarter after quarter, year after year, they don't perform that way. These are high-cost, often, uh, uh, uh, products that are being pushed down the chain to simplify the dealer, the banks sales process to maximize their returns. That's not independence. That's, uh, they are dealing with the conflict of interest by slipping in this line that they're selling you something that's got to be good, but as opposed to explaining to you, uh, some bank products might be the best, might be suitable for you, but it is highly unlikely that their suite of products should be the only thing you hold, it's not in your best interest, it's in the bank or the salesman, sorry, the advisors best interest to put that in front of you.
Jason Pereira: Well, I [00:10:00] think all three words are appropriate. I think all three are appropriate use bank, salesman, advisor like that is best interest I think you nailed it, you know, even though you were trying to stumble yourself. Okay, so proprietary solely funds fair enough. Um, okay so basically lack of a of a systemized onboarding process.
I think is the first real real warning flag that specifically pays attention to the client's individual circumstances both financially and in terms of risk. Right, uh, and then you went on to again just kind of poop or or basically hard selling or or basically glossing over the fact that by the way also, my employer just happens to be the best investment country in the in the country company in the world... so therefore you're perfectly fine.
Good thing you came here as opposed to the other colored bank down the street. Um, you know, so that's that's number two. What else do we have coming down the process?
Harold Geller: Well, uh, well, I think that, uh, uh, part of what we glossed over was the personal financial, personal circumstances, not just the financial circumstances. We [00:11:00] really need the plan, the advisor to challenge the consumer about what could happen in the future. Look, 50% of us who get married over 50% get divorced. We don't think so on day one. We may not think so on the first day when we deal with a financial advisor or planner. But that's a realistic possibility. Or if you have children who are old enough to be married, it's a realistic possibility for them, even though you think that they're the best suited for each other ever. These are the types of personal financial circumstances that should be challenged, should be educated about by the financial advisor, not simply a question of... who's your kids? Are they married? Are they happy? Good, right? And moving on. We need to have an educational component in this, from this very first stage of information gathering.
[00:12:00] If you're not getting an educational component, then again, run, don't walk. That's not a building of a basis for a long-term relationship. It's somebody trying to make you feel good. Somebody trying to get to the sale. So, the educational back and forth is a key third component of the early stages of relationships.
Jason Pereira: Excellent. And yeah, I mean, by way of example, this happens in so many instances, whether it be initial or throughout, right? So for example, one of the more common ones that happens is to play on the kids one, like I really like to help my kids out. Okay. Your kids are married. Well, we have to be aware that they could end up separated.
You know, there's ways to get money in their hands while simultaneously protecting it through using gifts and whatnot. So we need to talk about the, how we're going to do this, right? Or, you know, the entire, I always love when the inheritance comes in and it's like, oh, I want to pay down the margin.
There's like. Look, we need to have a conversation about this. This is not a [00:13:00] commentary on your marriage, any way, shape or form. But the second you do this, it is now family property versus not. And you know, explain the implications. And then, you know, I will say to my experience, no one's ever gotten upset when one spouse says, you know what?
I think we want to, I want to protect the inheritance. Everybody's usually pretty good about that. So, um, but we'll see. I'm sure at some point in the future, I'll have to eat those words. But, uh, but absolutely there's, there's countless moments, whether it be in the onboarding process, especially if we're talking about, as we should
it'd be what it is they want out of life. Cause again, what is the point of the money? It's not about investing. It's not about the three quarter inch drill bit we're trying to sell them. It's about the three quarter inch holes. It's about the purpose and everything else we're trying to deliver to their lives.
So without having that conversation, I mean, yes, they could fill out a questionnaire, but questionnaires don't probe. Right. So we can, we can probe through conversation a lot more deeply and use that as an opportunity to educate them and deliver value. And this is the funny thing that always drives me nuts or makes me laugh about this industry is those who, who think that their value is delivering, you know, product, you know, a lot of the value is just explaining to them why they would [00:14:00] need a product that's best fit for them or, or a solution that's best fit for them.
And if you just take the time to educate them on, on, on unbiasedly on what that is, then you're actually doing them a service.
Harold Geller: And I think that this financial discussion, which I'm going to call planning, this financial planning is the real value in dealing with a professional. It's not the access to products. Frankly, any person
Jason Pereira: commodities.
Harold Geller: can give you access to products. It's all about the heartfelt discussion and challenging. We should talk about what happens if one of the spouses is what happens if someone gets ill?
What happens if they can't their mortgage expenses? What happens if you need, uh, uh, because you're just not satisfied with the medical care that you're getting advice, testing, you need money to go to the Mayo or wherever is the best place to get resources, uh, get medical resources. The testing about the bad days, not just the good days, is part of this [00:15:00] early discussion. And I know it's challenging. And I know we don't want to address our minds to these negative contingencies. On the other hand, if we're not, we're just gambling.
Jason Pereira: Yep, absolutely. So, okay, uh, we've taken the time to understand, the advisors taking the time to understand them as people and their needs and provide some of these cursory planning, if not more in depth planning. I personally am an advocate for putting, doing a financial plan before you ever even propose an investment because frankly, think about how screwed up the sales pitch is in this country, or just normally.
Give me your life savings and let me invest them. Then I'll take the time, if I do financial planning, to figure out, figure out who you are, what it is you want out of life, what you own, what you owe, what monies are coming to you, and what the challenges are that you want to face. I'll do that after. Like that is the worst part before the horse pitch I've ever heard at the end of the day really planning should be done first because only then through understanding do we actually truly know how [00:16:00] to implement.
Harold Geller: I would go further and throw a legal veil over this, a legal way of looking at this, and say it's negligent to do it in the way that get the money in, um, start making investments and then do an analysis. Why? Because there are three basic components to a financial advisor's initial obligations. It's know the client.
We talked about that a little bit. It's knowing the product. And determining suitability. I'm sure we'll talk more about
Jason Pereira: We're going to talk about those two shortly
Harold Geller: But, but I just wanna talk about the concept of suitability. You can't determine the suitability of holdings that are transferred over or anything you're recommending.
So should the transfer over be held or should something new be recommended... if you haven't gone through this whole process? Frankly, I think it's negligent to bring in the, uh, uh, the, uh, account. I mean, [00:17:00] that's the sales guy. I want the account. I'm gonna earn money off it. Give it to me faster. I'll worry about what you need later on. Partially because we know human nature. Once the account's over, there is a huge tendency to just push things down the line, avoid the real work, the planning work, the hard work, because what the advisor is looking at, and this is human nature, is the commissions. How much am I being paid? How do I minimize my effort, maximize my return? That's the inverse of a professional relationship. It's a sales relationship.
Jason Pereira: fair though. I think it applies in both directions, right? So on the advisor side the incentives there, right more work less less work less work more money fair enough but but on the client side also, especially one who's never been through a good planning experience to them, they've taken care of the thing they sought out to do in the first place.
So you're just asking me to do more work. I'll get to it eventually. [00:18:00] Right? Like that's it. And don't get me wrong. There are times where timelines or deadlines dictate the need to do something, but it doesn't preclude us from at least being able to do, let's call it a minimum viable product amount of planning and, uh, and fact finding and understanding as a means of minimizing the, the, uh, the potential for doing something wrong. But at the same time, it's, you know, ideally again, reduce, I think it comes down to the spectrum of negligence, right?
Like there's knowing everything. So therefore I'm taking all the considerations. So you're not negligent and there's knowing as much as you can in limited amount that basically you work within the constraints, right? But knowing nothing is not a starting point.
Harold Geller: I think your point is very valid, I was looking at it from the advisor's obligation, but the advisor dealing with the practical dealings with the client, they're only going to have short windows of the client's attention, concentration.
Jason Pereira: no
Harold Geller: If they
don't take advantage of the [00:19:00] opening window, the most important window, when the client is most interested in engaging in the process and learning about the process, making sure they're working with the right person. If they don't, if the advisor doesn't take advantage of that and make the client pay attention, then the opportunity will likely be lost. And it's never recouped in the same manner. And that's human dynamics. I, I hate to say that, uh, us professionals who aren't really trained at psychology should be attentive to human psychology, human behavior. But the fact is, we are responsible for the results of the process, doing the process correctly. And if we don't use these tools to get the client's full attention engagement early on, then we'll miss the opportunity, and we're the ones who are wearing the target on our back. We're the ones who will be negligent and be sued.
Jason Pereira: And no
doctor ever basically said, well, I didn't have time to do the [00:20:00] diagnosis properly. So I jumped right into the surgery. Like that's, that's not a thing, right? Like, and, and sometimes, well, sometimes you gotta go searching for the bleed, but nevertheless, at least he knows a bleed, right? So, okay. Uh, we've talked about a couple of things.
We haven't talked about the product obligations or the suitability obligations. I think you mentioned them both already. Let's, let's head down that road. So on the product side, what are the obligations of an advisor towards a client when it comes to understanding and knowing their product?
Harold Geller: So I'm going to correct one thing that you
said
Jason Pereira: Sure.
Harold Geller: in the
intro, which is, um, client focused reforms are not really new standards. What they are is a codification of the existing standards in almost entirety. And it was a codification was required, including the suitability standard and the know your product standards. Because advisors weren't fulfilling their duties. So, you know, the regulators had to be more obvious,
Jason Pereira: You have to spell it out.
Harold Geller: prescriptive. Um, and, uh, the, [00:21:00] the, uh, know your product goes through a number of things. It's now explicit that the cost of a product, is a required factor for consideration. Why is that? Well, the cost of the factor is one of the greatest controllable, uh, inputs that will result in good or bad performance of the investments. It's the fact.
Jason Pereira: Mm hmm.
Harold Geller: Ontario Securities Commission did this massive study over I think it was 11 years and 80 odd high percent of all transactions in mutual fund products tend to be higher fees but nonetheless representative because everybody was in that group. And what they found was the single largest determiner of outcome was the fees paid.
Higher the fee, the lower the outcome because of the compounding value, uh, impact of ongoing fees. Now let me distinguish that from the fee for [00:22:00] financial planning. Many financial planners have a separate fee. That's value for money. Just read Rob Carrick articles on this very issue. Probably one of the great, uh, consumer side reporters in from the Globe and Mail. Um, he's, he's very, very focused on fees. But he always says about the value of planning. So that's one of the qualifications that are considerations that must be done in suitability. There has to be, in effect, the marriage of the client's personal circumstances, their goals, their objectives, the products. How it's made up. And that's one of the reasons why certain products are close to toxic. I say that from the advisor's point of view. They're at great risk when they recommend them because they can't do their due diligence with any meaning. So, you can do due [00:23:00] diligence on some name brand, well, you know, a bank stock or Enbridge. Or Microsoft. I mean, these are all well, uh, uh, disclosed, great disclosure obligations on these big companies. They have lots of people looking into the details and making sure that there are truthful disclosures. Let's go to the other side of the market. Everybody apparently should invest like Buffett and not follow Buffett's advice, but invest like Buffett and buy private equity. Well, you're no Buffett.
Jason Pereira: Buffett also doesn't tell you to do that, but that's a different story.
Harold Geller: You don't own a Geico. You don't own an insurance company spewing off profits. You don't own Coca-Cola. You don't own Apple, or huge percentages of it. You don't have the resiliency that he, his investment at Berkshire Hathaway has. But also, you don't have the analytics. Not you [00:24:00] personally, but almost all advisors don't have the analytical skills to be able to do the in-depth analysis. Now let's go to something like private equity where there's almost no disclosure. So they, not only is the advisor unlikely to have the skills, but as importantly, they're not going to have the data to analyze. So, but coming back to fees, there's a real incentive on financial advisors to push exempt market products. That's a technical term, um, down the, uh, the, um, sales, uh, road. Why? Because they pay higher fees to the advisor and the firm. Um, of course, it's not the only reason why a advisor might recommend a private equity, but it's a blinding conflict.
If you're earning multiple times or selling a product like that, also be careful of insurance [00:25:00] investment products, because the guarantees tend to be meaningless to most people. The cost... the drag again is much higher and the fee to the advisory is higher as well. So it's easy to hold a hammer and everything looks like a nail. Um, so suitability is actually a rubric, a constellation of steps. And it goes from that initial learning about the client, in-depth due diligence about the products, and constructing a portfolio that meets the requirements. So usually, that would not be sector concentration. Usually, that would not be, uh, a particular holding concentration. And if they're fancy products, it almost never is a, uh, a concentration in fancy products like private equity.
Jason Pereira: Yeah, I mean, there's a lot to take [00:26:00] away there. I mean, to go back and pick out a couple of things. First off, you know, if the market performance is the average of all people, all participants in the market, then it stands to reason that the aggregate, that the aggregate net return to people will be the aggregate of the return minus fees.
That was straight out of Bill Sharpe's arithmetic of, of, um, of, of active management, which has been validated again through studies like that that say... hey, the fees had the biggest impact. Well, of course they do. On average, it would. The second piece is going back to due diligence on, on products. You know, I've often said like, when you actually look at how this should be done like passive investing straightforward if you have two ETFs that have the exact same exposure and one has a five basis point higher fee than the other one then why would you use the five basis point higher fee?
It's pretty easy to do due diligence on that when it comes to active management, you're just typically buying a story now going back to Buffett's Buffett's comments. I love I was I'm always amused by active management people who basically espouse Buffett because Buffett [00:27:00] literally tells you not to do this.
He literally says he's met like a half dozen people who can do this accordingly. Otherwise he should invest in, in low cost ETFs effectively. Yet everyone still thinks they can be the next Buffett. And it's just, and you know, let's leave aside the fact that he's underperformed his index for the last 20 some odd years.
The reality is it's just not going to happen. Right. And again, if the last,
Harold Geller: And
Buffett has given explicit, and this is public information for many years, he's given explicit instructions that his estate, is to invest in three ETFs, not his own company's,
Jason Pereira: I know.
Harold Geller: uh, stocks, but three ETFs, highly diversified, covering, um, US stocks, bonds, and internationals. He's telling the next generation that the best model is diversification. Without that active management cost and that active management. Oh, let me see. It's a crystal ball guessing. [00:28:00] Yes.
Jason Pereira: Yeah, people hear what they want to hear and the best argument against what Buffett's done is what Buffett says. Like, that's the reality of it, so it's hilarious. So, okay, going back to suitability, I mean, this is kind of where, like, peanut butter meets jelly in the sandwich here, right? At the end of the day, um, client gets profiled and segmented into an allocation that should meet their goal.
That should help them meet their goals based off of number of risk parameters, capacity, and, and, uh, tolerance. And I think you would agree like I can't, like I do, that there's other risk parameters that have been written about in academia and elsewhere, uh, like perception and otherwise that should be factored into this conversation to create a full holistic profile.
That tells us how much risk they can take. Proper portfolio on the other side, basically the way it's constructed, tells you what, how much risk you're expecting. Those two things should just be connected A to B, like straightforward. However a lot of that doesn't happen, does it? I mean, I, I'm sure you will attest to seeing cases where every advisor, the client, the advisor just happens to have a hundred percent, everybody in a hundred percent equity [00:29:00] miraculously, you know, a allocation that's suitable for less than 15 percent of the population just happens to be completely represented in his book, right?
So, you know, I think the question becomes is there anything in the allocation or what they're being besides the product itself? That should make people stop and pause or the conversation rather make sure people stop and pause and wonder if they're being given the right advice.
Harold Geller: Well, uh, yes. Um, if there are any strategies which are trying to beat the market other than diversification and low cost, then there should be red flags going up. And that's because, yes, an advisor might have got it right, I think. One year, two years, three years. I mean, conceivably, they could have a string, uh, that is longer than that, of guessing right, sorry, I'm sure it's, uh, as a result of a great deal of due diligence and
Jason Pereira: Oh, it's not
Harold Geller: making predictions, but it's guesswork and it's biases. And, so they might have a history, although they all say they have a history of great success. [00:30:00] Regardless of the facts. Um, uh, so that's not a reliable representation. What you should be looking for is not finding the next trend. Not, um, uh, saying they can beat the market with their brilliance, with their company's brilliance, because the stats just don't show that to be true. They show the inverse, that it's false. So what you should be looking for is whether they are providing low cost diversification. Now diversification can have different elements of it. And so there are differences between uh, uh, uh, fixed income, and we can discuss about how fixed income is not a very reflective of the true nature of the products, uh, for many of these things. But you should be something like bonds, something that is more secure. [00:31:00] There should be a cash wedge. So if there's an emergency, you don't have to sell anything. You've got the money to carry you through. And if it's a down market you're not high, selling low. Cash wedge.
And
Jason Pereira: You can't discuss that
Harold Geller: an element of it, which is, um, for the longer term, depending upon your age and stage. So, it's very different for somebody who's got a terminal illness, or is very elderly, than somebody who's at the prime of their life and, um, at their prime of their income. But I would say, much like Moshe Milevsky suggests in his great book, Are You a Stock or a Bond?, that that changes depending upon your circumstances.
So, for example, if you're a federal government employee, you have a great deal of security for risk in the very nature of your job employment benefits. Not [00:32:00] only is it difficult to be terminant if you're an indeterminate employee, but you have a pension that is guaranteed. You've got disability benefits. If you don't, if you're a small business, you should be looking at not just what your investments are for the future, but have you hedged the risk of losing your income. Anyone can have a tragic a health event. Have you secured your financial obligations for the next five years, for the next 10 years, for the next 15 years?
And it will change over time. So this whole planning suitability analysis is not a one size fits all, but very much a tailored to recognizing the risks and what your financial ability is to ensure either through investments or other products against that risk.
Jason Pereira: Excellent. Well, Harold, I think we covered anything else to cover on terms of onboarding?[00:33:00]
Harold Geller: Oh, I'm going to just re-emphasize. If you do not have that good communication back and forth with your advisor, then you do not have the makings for a professional relationship. So, jargon is one thing. Them not listening to you. Them trying to sell you on some product. Those are all examples of on the onboarding style stage, what the consumer should be watching for as red flags.
Jason Pereira: Excellent. Well, thank you so much, Harold. I think we covered it pretty effectively. And again, end of the day, don't buy a product, start a relationship for lack of a better term. That's the way to look at it. So as always, thank you for your time, Harold, and thank you for watching. As always, if you enjoy this podcast, please review wherever you view your podcasts.
And otherwise, if you're watching on YouTube, please like, and subscribe really does Thank you. Until next time.
Harold Geller: Thank you.