Retired couple questions adviser after one awkward ‘you guyses’ meeting

A retired couple with more than $1 million in cash and investments is weighing whether to ditch a 39-year-old financial adviser after he addressed them as “you guys” and “you guyses” in a client meeting, according to a letter answered by MarketWatch’s Moneyist columnist Quentin Fottrell.

The 67-year-old woman who wrote to the column said she retired July 1 after originally planning to work until age 70. Her husband retired last year, and the couple has kept their finances separate.

In the letter, she said a brokerage firm managing about $500,000 of her investments contacted her. She also has $150,000 in a self-directed workplace account at another brokerage and an emergency fund equal to roughly two years of expenses, according to MarketWatch.

Her husband receives a government pension, as she does, and he has about $900,000 in cash, the letter said. The couple has no debt and has not decided when to claim Social Security.

The adviser they met is registered with the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority and has no disciplinary history, according to the reader’s account. The issue, she told Fottrell, was tone: she felt he spoke as if they were at a casual social gathering rather than in a professional financial meeting.

She said she told him politely that his wording sounded unprofessional. Afterward, her husband agreed with her concern, and she wondered whether they should ask for an adviser closer to their age.

Moneyist says give the adviser a second test

Fottrell’s answer: keep the next appointment and find out whether the casual style is just a communication mismatch or a sign of weaker judgment.

He wrote that the couple should focus on the adviser’s knowledge, plan and ethics. Fottrell noted that the couple appears to be retired comfortably, but that the husband’s $900,000 in cash needs attention because inflation can erode its value over time.

Fottrell suggested they ask the adviser what he would change about the current handling of the woman’s $500,000 brokerage portfolio, and how he would build a retirement plan balancing growth with safety as the couple moves through their late 60s and 70s.

He also said they should ask about sequence-of-return risk, the danger that market losses early in retirement can damage a portfolio when withdrawals are underway.

Among the topics Fottrell recommended raising:

• Whether shorter-duration bonds belong in the couple’s plan.
• Whether mutual funds or exchange-traded funds with maturities under five years make sense.
• Whether Treasury inflation-protected securities could be suitable for part of the cash portfolio.
• What yields are currently available on high-interest savings accounts and certificates of deposit.
• How the adviser would address taxes, inflation and income needs during retirement.

Fees, fiduciary duty and fit

Fottrell also urged the couple to ask whether the adviser is a fiduciary, meaning someone required to act in a client’s best interest under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, rather than working only as a broker-dealer.

He noted that certified financial planners have ethics rules, and that many investment agreements include arbitration clauses. Finra and the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association say arbitration saves time and money, Fottrell wrote.

Fees should be on the table too, he said. Advisers may be fee-only, fee-based or earn commissions from products they sell, and commissions can affect recommendations. Fottrell wrote that a fee-only adviser can help protect independence.

His bottom line: rapport still counts. If the couple loses confidence after a direct round of questions, Fottrell said they should choose someone else, but for reasons tied to competence, trust and planning, not just one clumsy bit of office chatter.

This story draws on original reporting from MarketWatch.