You can make a fortune using seminars as a marketing tool. Smart financial advisors, attorneys, CPAs, real estate agents, mortgage brokers and other professionals and business owners use seminar marketing to pack a room of potential new clients and turn them into business. Rather than prospecting one person at a time, you have a room of 50 people.
First, do your research and know what your market wants. Call potential attendees and ask them:
What’s the biggest challenge in your business?
If there would be one thing you could change about your financial situation, what would it be?
What aspect of your life is most out of balance?
Or send a survey or do a teleconference but you must gather this information.
Too many professionals and business owners dive into seminar marketing and choose a topic based on their perceptions rather than asking their market. Okay, now that you have your topic, you must convert it into a message that packs the seminar room.
The next mistake in seminar marketing is not putting enough effort or applying enough expertise to the seminar invitation. AS THE MINISTERS SAY, YOU CAN’T SAVE SOULS IN AN EMPTY CHURCH. So if your attendance is poor, you’ve lost money and missed an opportunity to help potential attendees with your wisdom, product or service.
Your seminar invitation must be a super compelling, motivational piece that would sell ice to eskimos. You’ve got two choices—either develop the skills to write great copy or hire a copywriter to write your seminar invitation. To develop the skills, study books like Cash Copy by Jeffrey Lant, Magic Words that Bring You Riches by Ted Nicholas or any books by John Caples. Alternatively, hire a copywriter and simply pay them to do it. A good copywriter is about the best seminar marketing investment you can make.
Just to give you an example of the difference that copy makes, which seminar would you rather attend:
“What’s the Stock Market Doing This Year”
Or
“Five Ways these Wealthy Investors Make Consistent Profits in the Stock Market”
Is it any surprise that the second title will gain far greater seminar attendance?
Now you know what your target market wants and you’ve created a seminar invitation with compelling language. Attendees show up and they love the presentation. So what? How will you turn this successful seminar event into business? Just because you give a great and enlightening presentation does not mean anyone will call you. That’s our third common mistake: failure to have a mechanism to convert attendees into clients.
The seminar must end with an invitation to meet with you (or a colleague). Even though your presentation was great and showed your attendees several great ideas, you still need the final killer offer so that they make a commitment to meet with you before they leave. You must have such a process before they leave because if you think you can call later and set appointments, forget it. Your prospects will have cooled off.
Your final killer offer ties back to what you learned when you did your initial research. Let’s say you’re an estate planning attorney and you learned that a common and frequent concern was that your audience is worried that their heirs will spend their inheritance foolishly. In that case, your final offer sounds like this:
“You’ve learned a great deal about how to plan an estate well and I’d like to show you how to put these techniques to work in your situation. So I have set aside some free consultation times for which I normally charge $300. But for those of you who were nice enough to put up with me today, I can offer you those consultation hours for free. At that meeting I will answers any questions that you have about your estate plan and additionally, I will show you three ways to keep heirs from spending their inheritance and how to protect those assets from their creditors. Since I have fewer consultation slots available than people are here today, please check off a time and date right now…..”
Now, you have created a hungry audience for your scarce time and to get information that’s important to them. From a crowd of say 50 people, you can get appointments with at least half and 90% of those will become clients. Now that’s successful seminar marketing.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
The next evolution in how planners get paid
The last 15 years has seen a craze by the financial services industry: using fee-based accounts as a way to smooth out income fluctuations and insulate against fluctuating commission income. Additionally, fee-based compensation supposedly enhances trust as it positions the advisor as the investor’s advocate. However, the fee-based account is a false industry panacea for several reasons.
Most investors don’t care how they are charged. If they trust their advisor, they don’t worry about their advisor acting against their interest. They are interested in doing business with a trusted human being and are not focused on the mechanics of how they pay. To use a fee structure as a way of communicating concern with the client’s best interest is weak ethical footing at best. As an example, the medical industry charges on a “commission basis” (your doctor gets paid more when he sells you an operation), yet the medical profession does not suffer from a lack of public trust as does the securities industry.
Fee accounts may not even provide insulation from income fluctuation. I hear from advisors that their clients are leaving after years of zero return yet being charged a fee year after year. Clients are tired of the system “one for the advisor, none for me.” (The evidence of tired clients is anecdotal, as the industry does not break out separate account fee revenue from mutual fund asset fees).
The industry assumed that fee accounts had lower liability than commission-based trading accounts. While that might be so regarding client liability, the regulators have now fined at least one broker/dealer for inappropriately placing clients in wrap accounts when the client’s overall costs would have been less in a commission-based account. Although any financial planner knows that more money is made for clients by not trading and value is often created by telling clients to “sit tight,” the regulators seem to believe that value is created only when a trade occurs and that’s when the client should be charged. In other words, the regulators seem to favor turnover and justify its value even when the evidence shows that turnover reduces investment returns.
It takes years for industries to evolve but eventually, the underlying economics of the industry will form the industry’s most efficient revenue model. The underlying economics call for us to charge the client for value created. Currently, there is no correlation between client fees/commissions we receive and value we add. Enter the hedge fund. Here, the fee paid by the client can largely be based on gains (hedge fund charges are typically 1% of assets plus 20% of gains). So why isn’t this the dominant model in the industry?
As I understand it, the SEC’s rationale is that the investment manager who is motivated by a percentage of gains will take large risks. Therefore, the only people who may participate in incentive-based fee arrangements are rich folks, i.e., accredited investors ($1 million+ of investment assets or $200,000+ annual income). However, the problem of too much risk for the little guy is easily solved and thus we can forecast the next stage of evolution in the investment industry toward its underlying economics.
Specifically, the SEC could set prospectus guidelines for activities and ratios of any fund thereby limiting the potential risk. For example, if a fund states that it only buys or shorts stocks from the S&P 500 index and that not more than 5% of the fund may be invested in any one security, then the SEC and the investor now has assurance that the manager cannot take too much risk. These funds could be made available to the little guy who would pay incentive-based management fees. Of course, evolution is always slowed by those who like the status quo—investment firms, brokers and mutual funds that deliver no value, yet charge for it anyway. Eventually, the public demands a fair shake and the wall to a market-based system, like the wall in Berlin, comes tumbling down.
Most investors don’t care how they are charged. If they trust their advisor, they don’t worry about their advisor acting against their interest. They are interested in doing business with a trusted human being and are not focused on the mechanics of how they pay. To use a fee structure as a way of communicating concern with the client’s best interest is weak ethical footing at best. As an example, the medical industry charges on a “commission basis” (your doctor gets paid more when he sells you an operation), yet the medical profession does not suffer from a lack of public trust as does the securities industry.
Fee accounts may not even provide insulation from income fluctuation. I hear from advisors that their clients are leaving after years of zero return yet being charged a fee year after year. Clients are tired of the system “one for the advisor, none for me.” (The evidence of tired clients is anecdotal, as the industry does not break out separate account fee revenue from mutual fund asset fees).
The industry assumed that fee accounts had lower liability than commission-based trading accounts. While that might be so regarding client liability, the regulators have now fined at least one broker/dealer for inappropriately placing clients in wrap accounts when the client’s overall costs would have been less in a commission-based account. Although any financial planner knows that more money is made for clients by not trading and value is often created by telling clients to “sit tight,” the regulators seem to believe that value is created only when a trade occurs and that’s when the client should be charged. In other words, the regulators seem to favor turnover and justify its value even when the evidence shows that turnover reduces investment returns.
It takes years for industries to evolve but eventually, the underlying economics of the industry will form the industry’s most efficient revenue model. The underlying economics call for us to charge the client for value created. Currently, there is no correlation between client fees/commissions we receive and value we add. Enter the hedge fund. Here, the fee paid by the client can largely be based on gains (hedge fund charges are typically 1% of assets plus 20% of gains). So why isn’t this the dominant model in the industry?
As I understand it, the SEC’s rationale is that the investment manager who is motivated by a percentage of gains will take large risks. Therefore, the only people who may participate in incentive-based fee arrangements are rich folks, i.e., accredited investors ($1 million+ of investment assets or $200,000+ annual income). However, the problem of too much risk for the little guy is easily solved and thus we can forecast the next stage of evolution in the investment industry toward its underlying economics.
Specifically, the SEC could set prospectus guidelines for activities and ratios of any fund thereby limiting the potential risk. For example, if a fund states that it only buys or shorts stocks from the S&P 500 index and that not more than 5% of the fund may be invested in any one security, then the SEC and the investor now has assurance that the manager cannot take too much risk. These funds could be made available to the little guy who would pay incentive-based management fees. Of course, evolution is always slowed by those who like the status quo—investment firms, brokers and mutual funds that deliver no value, yet charge for it anyway. Eventually, the public demands a fair shake and the wall to a market-based system, like the wall in Berlin, comes tumbling down.
Tuesday, January 31, 2006
The Mistake Financial Planners Make with Life Expectancy
(You may download a copy of the Life Expectancy Table)
Planners use the wrong numbers for life expectancy and it means that much of the planning that’s been done needs to be revised. Planners typically consult life expectancy tables published by the IRS and most are well aware that these are the average life expectancies. A person reaching age 70 will live 17 years longer on average, with half dying before age 87 and half living longer. A planner adds a few more years for a margin of error (let’s plan to age 94 Mrs. Smith) and completes their plan. And that’s where most planners stop.
Stopping at this point presents a double jeopardy. Financial instruments may not perform for a sufficiently long period and the client may live too long. We could burn the client from both ends. The first danger we have already encountered with life insurance policies whose premiums did not vanish and variable investments (mutual funds, variable life, annuities, IRAs) whose balances collapsed insuring they would not last a lifetime.
We already make the second mistake with Social Security and in a minute, I will show you how to avoid this same error with your clients. Here’s a snippet from the Social Security web site to illustrate the problem:
If we look at life expectancy statistics from the 1930s we might come to the conclusion that the Social Security program was designed in such a way that people would work for many years paying in taxes, but would not live long enough to collect benefits. Life expectancy at birth in 1930 was indeed only 58 for men and 62 for women, and the retirement age was 65. But life expectancy at birth in the early decades of the 20th century was low due mainly to high infant mortality, and someone who died as a child would never have worked and paid into Social Security. A more appropriate measure is probably life expectancy after attainment of adulthood.
….the majority of Americans who made it to adulthood could expect to live to 65, and those who did live to 65 could look forward to collecting benefits for many years into the future. So we can observe that for men, for example, almost 54% of the them could expect to live to age 65 if they survived to age 21, and men who attained age 65 could expect to collect Social Security benefits for almost 13 years (and the numbers are even higher for women).
In other words, Social Security’s fundamental problem is based on life expectancy estimates that are too short and we as planners have made the same error. We have consulted data that often leads us to plan for too few years of retirement.
It’s always bothered me that the life expectancy tables and the averages tell me little. What I want to know is the probability of my client living to age 94 once the client has already reached age 70 (a table that shows life expectancy at birth is of no value). Your client wants the same information but probably doesn’t know the proper question to ask.
Why do we go to such lengths selecting our asset classes and using the standard deviation from the appropriate time frame for our Monte Carlo simulations and then just “wing it” with life expectancy? Why isn’t life expectancy one more factor that we input to our simulations with an average and standard deviation? After all, life expectancy, a natural phenomenon, adheres better to a normal distribution and the underlying statistics than do investment returns.
There are some crude attempts to provide this information to investors and advisors. On Fidelity’s website, buried in their pages on annuities, is a probability-based calculator (http://personal.fidelity.com/products/annuities/income/income_intro.shtml). However, it shows only the 25% and 50% chance of living to selected ages. It will not answer the client’s question “How can I be 90% sure that my money will outlive me?” So I created the table to help you answer that question.
I took the data from the Center for Disease Control Vital Statistics report, February 2004 and constructed a probability table just to see how surprised I might be. Using the table, I can quickly see that my client, age 70 has a 13% chance of living to age 94. At least now (before the programmers add this to their simulation software as I recommend), I can ask Mrs. Smith, “With high comfort, your portfolio can generate $xx per year until age 94 but there’s a 13% chance you’ll live longer. Can you do with less so that we can further decrease the probability of outliving your money?”
The client may then ask, “If I want to reduce the risk of outliving my money to 10%, how much do I need to reduce spending?” First, I can look at my life expectancy table and see that someone age 70 has a 10% chance of living to age 95. I can then use this forecasted age in my planning software or calculator to determine how much Mrs. Smith can spend.
Yes people are living longer. And that makes us responsible for informing clients of more accurate probabilities of outliving their money.
Planners use the wrong numbers for life expectancy and it means that much of the planning that’s been done needs to be revised. Planners typically consult life expectancy tables published by the IRS and most are well aware that these are the average life expectancies. A person reaching age 70 will live 17 years longer on average, with half dying before age 87 and half living longer. A planner adds a few more years for a margin of error (let’s plan to age 94 Mrs. Smith) and completes their plan. And that’s where most planners stop.
Stopping at this point presents a double jeopardy. Financial instruments may not perform for a sufficiently long period and the client may live too long. We could burn the client from both ends. The first danger we have already encountered with life insurance policies whose premiums did not vanish and variable investments (mutual funds, variable life, annuities, IRAs) whose balances collapsed insuring they would not last a lifetime.
We already make the second mistake with Social Security and in a minute, I will show you how to avoid this same error with your clients. Here’s a snippet from the Social Security web site to illustrate the problem:
If we look at life expectancy statistics from the 1930s we might come to the conclusion that the Social Security program was designed in such a way that people would work for many years paying in taxes, but would not live long enough to collect benefits. Life expectancy at birth in 1930 was indeed only 58 for men and 62 for women, and the retirement age was 65. But life expectancy at birth in the early decades of the 20th century was low due mainly to high infant mortality, and someone who died as a child would never have worked and paid into Social Security. A more appropriate measure is probably life expectancy after attainment of adulthood.
….the majority of Americans who made it to adulthood could expect to live to 65, and those who did live to 65 could look forward to collecting benefits for many years into the future. So we can observe that for men, for example, almost 54% of the them could expect to live to age 65 if they survived to age 21, and men who attained age 65 could expect to collect Social Security benefits for almost 13 years (and the numbers are even higher for women).
In other words, Social Security’s fundamental problem is based on life expectancy estimates that are too short and we as planners have made the same error. We have consulted data that often leads us to plan for too few years of retirement.
It’s always bothered me that the life expectancy tables and the averages tell me little. What I want to know is the probability of my client living to age 94 once the client has already reached age 70 (a table that shows life expectancy at birth is of no value). Your client wants the same information but probably doesn’t know the proper question to ask.
Why do we go to such lengths selecting our asset classes and using the standard deviation from the appropriate time frame for our Monte Carlo simulations and then just “wing it” with life expectancy? Why isn’t life expectancy one more factor that we input to our simulations with an average and standard deviation? After all, life expectancy, a natural phenomenon, adheres better to a normal distribution and the underlying statistics than do investment returns.
There are some crude attempts to provide this information to investors and advisors. On Fidelity’s website, buried in their pages on annuities, is a probability-based calculator (http://personal.fidelity.com/products/annuities/income/income_intro.shtml). However, it shows only the 25% and 50% chance of living to selected ages. It will not answer the client’s question “How can I be 90% sure that my money will outlive me?” So I created the table to help you answer that question.
I took the data from the Center for Disease Control Vital Statistics report, February 2004 and constructed a probability table just to see how surprised I might be. Using the table, I can quickly see that my client, age 70 has a 13% chance of living to age 94. At least now (before the programmers add this to their simulation software as I recommend), I can ask Mrs. Smith, “With high comfort, your portfolio can generate $xx per year until age 94 but there’s a 13% chance you’ll live longer. Can you do with less so that we can further decrease the probability of outliving your money?”
The client may then ask, “If I want to reduce the risk of outliving my money to 10%, how much do I need to reduce spending?” First, I can look at my life expectancy table and see that someone age 70 has a 10% chance of living to age 95. I can then use this forecasted age in my planning software or calculator to determine how much Mrs. Smith can spend.
Yes people are living longer. And that makes us responsible for informing clients of more accurate probabilities of outliving their money.
Friday, December 30, 2005
Consider this: Clients show up at the big securities firm in their Mercedes to see their advisor who came to work on a bus. What right (arrogance?) do advisors have to infer that they can help people build wealth when most advisors are not wealthy themselves?
If you want to get financially successful as an advisor rapidly, get the right training. Check Financial Advisor Training.
If you want to get financially successful as an advisor rapidly, get the right training. Check Financial Advisor Training.
Saturday, December 24, 2005
Javelin Marketing Findings on Successful Seminars
Six Features of Winning Seminars
After doing seminars for 15 years and teaching over 2,000 producers to do them, here are six of the most important items that we find at Javelin Marketing bring success.
Invite A Very Focused Audience
There’s no way to pack a room with a diverse crowd. The success of your invitation will depend on how focused it is. A title such as “Estate Planning for Apartment Owners” that is sent to apartment owners will get better attendance than a seminar “Estate Planning” sent to everyone over age 55.
To develop a winning invitation, you need to know how your audience thinks. Therefore, the invitees must be a homogenous group. You cannot assume that your market thinks like you do. If you’re 40 years old, you probably want to know about opportunities to make money, But people over 60 (in most cases) are not motivated to make more money. They care about preserving capital. Their biggest concern is fear of losing principal (this is their “hot button”). So, is it any wonder that your opportunity-oriented seminar, titled “How to Maximize Profits With the Right Mutual Funds,” doesn’t get much of a response from seniors?
Whichever target market you choose, you really need to know their most significant emotional concern. If you can title a seminar addressing that concern, you’re half way home. If you’re not sure, don’t make assumptions. Simply talk to 10 people from your target market and see what concerns they have in common.
Direct Mail To Attract Affluent Prospects
Direct mail is, by far, the most effective method to use in metropolitan areas. The cost per attendee is the highest, but the quality of the attendees is the highest and the seminar produces more business and the greatest profits. By sending 3,000 invitations to a highly targeted audience, you can attract and obtain 35 buying units—a mail cost of $42 per buying unit. I highly recommend using this more expensive method because it produces the best end-results—more qualified new clients that have money to invest.
Location Is Important
Select a seminar location that is well known, convenient and in neutral territory. Some financial professionals attempt to hold seminars in their office buildings. Bad idea. This is not neutral territory and some prospective attendees will not come for fear of being trapped in a high-pressure sales situation. Think about buying a car—whose turf are you on—is it comfortable for you?
Therefore, never use your office as a seminar location. Rather, use a local restaurant that has existed for 20+ years -- a place which everyone in town knows and likes. It’s familiar, neutral and well located. You do not need to feed your audience just because you use a restaurant for your location. Many restaurants are happy to rent an extra room or even open for your seminar at a time when they are normally closed.
Never Do A Product Seminar
If you are seeking to develop a high-end audience with substantial assets and who seeks to bond with an advisor, you cannot give product seminars. Such prospects will leave the seminar with little or no respect for you because in most cases:
A. They already understand the basic features of many investments.
B. They do not want to be sold a product.
C. They understand basic concepts, such as tax deferral, and will feel patronized.
To this group, you must present a concept seminar, ideas such as asset allocation, estate planning, providing for grandchildren, ways to reduce income taxes, socially conscious investing, using debt to create wealth, ways to dispose of real estate without tax, etc. All of these concepts can lead to lucrative relationships where you may indeed sell productS or services. But the product will be the tool to implement the concept. The product must be the subsidiary conversation after the prospect buys into the concept.
You Must Be The Speaker, Don’t Use Wholesalers
If you use a guest speaker at your seminar, you’re missing the whole idea and value of seminars.
The ultimate purpose of seminar marketing is for you to get appointments. Your job is not to get appointments for an accountant or an attorney or a wholesaler. If one of them does the speaking, who gets the credibility? They do!
In order for you to get the appointments, the seminar is your 90 minutes to build your credibility.
So why would you ever invite a guest speaker? Because you may think that they will help bring in attendance. If you think this way, you are selling yourself short. You believe your accomplishments or knowledge are insufficient, and this thinking will sink you in this business no matter how you prospect.
Close Appointments Right At The Seminar
It’s scary how much money advisors spend on seminars, only to give a great seminar, have the attendees clap, make nice comments and leave without a commitment. Checking a box that says “I would like an appointment” is NOT a commitment. A commitment is a time and day. For five years, 65% of attendees at my seminars have committed to a time and day for the appointment right at the seminar. You can do the same if you invite attendees to do so!
Here’s how it’s done. Announce that you need a small favor from them. You need them to complete the evaluation form they received at the beginning of the seminar (and without taking a breath) and that the evaluation form is also their lottery ticket today.
Let’s face it, most people could care less about filling out evaluation forms, so give them a reason to do so. They can win something by completing and returning the form.
To solidify the appointment, the attendees select an appointment time and date right on the evaluation form! Why leave this open and try and nail it down the next day? Or worse, if you can’t get the attendee on the phone the next day, your chance of ever having an appointment will fall precipitously.
Attendees sign up for the appointment because you promise two things:
#1 State that you will not sell them anything at that appointment.
#2 You will show them at least one significant financial mistake they are making and not even aware of. (If you are a knowledgeable advisor, you can always keep this promise. I have never met anyone that was not making at least one foolish financial mistake.)
Tell attendees to bring in their list of investments and tax return to the appointment. (For assistance, you can download a free copy of “How to Uncover Opportunities from a Tax Return” from www.nfcom.com/taxreturn.htm.)
Do you think you could do business with someone who comes to your office with their list of investments and tax return and wants to hear what you have to say? These are exactly the types of prospects every advisor desires.
More useful tips on winning seminars.
Three Essential Elements to
Make Ads and Direct Mail Profitable
Financial advisors and their firms waste millions of dollars monthly on promotions that don’t pay or produce anemic results. In many cases, these direct mail and advertising promotions can be profitable by insuring these three elements are included in the promotion.
An emotionally grabbing headline that you can only compose when you know your target market better than they know themselves. This first requires that you have a target market such as retirees, business owners, executives in the glass industry, etc. A general headline like “Seeking Higher Returns with Mutual Funds” is destined to flop because it has no focus on a target market. If, for example, you are interested in marketing mutual funds to retirees, then your headline should be “Losing Money In Mutual Funds? Learn How Retirees Can Preserve Assets.” (See sample at www.nfcom.com/ads). Run that ad in senior publications and you’ve got the beginnings of a winning ad.
It’s critical when composing your headline that you know your target market’s most powerful motivator. For example, if you prospect business owners, you cannot assume that more profits, or cash flow or lower taxes is their primary concern. Such an assumption is based on your logical thinking, not on the facts. You get the facts by meeting with 10 or more business owners and finding out what motivates them. People in the marketing department usually skip this research; they never meet with clients and often make their best guess in composing promotions. The worst case is when you have a 30-year-old marketing graduate, who has never met with clients, writing an ad targeted at seniors. The result is a promotion lacking sufficient profitability if any. To write effective copy for ads and direct mail, you need to know what your prospect’s think before they think it. Do your research because it pays larger dividends than you can imagine. Note that you must really listen when doing your research and free your mind of your own assumptions.
Ads as well as letters should have a headline. I know you were taught that a proper business letter has a specific format that does not include a title. That’s what your English teacher told you but a marketing or sales letter without headline will miss opportunities for response (see sample at www.nfcom.com/ads).
Secondly, your promotion must promise a benefit in the present. A benefit is not “Learn Retirement Strategies.” That’s a feature. A benefit is “Protect Yourself Against An Irreversible Financial Mistake” or “Start An Income For As Long As You Live—Guaranteed.” Notice that both benefits are to be gained NOW. Too many advisors and financial marketers make the costly and frequent mistake by stating benefits as a future gain. Such an approach yields weak response because humans have a hard time digesting the reality of their future. Take this example: you know that cheesecake is high in fat and could contribute to high cholesterol with the long-term threat of stroke or heart disease and death. That’s a future cost but you eat the cheesecake anyway because it tastes good TODAY.
Any benefit can be stated in the present. Let’s say you have an investment designed to produce a more financially secure retirement that may be 20 years away. You must pull that benefit into the present with any of the following phrases:
“Have Piece of Mind Today That Your Financial Future Is Secure”
“Ensure Your Family’s Well Being by Starting Your Plan Now”
“How Millions of People Have Invested To Retire Early”
Last, you must make a non-intimidating offer. You cannot say “Call 800-xxx-xxxx” as this is intimidating to many people. They are afraid being trapped on the phone in a sales pitch or being talked into something they don’t want or being told information that will not understand.
A non-intimidating offer is as follows:
Call for free booklet, leave your address 24 hours, 800-xxx-xxxx
Send in the reply coupon
Attend a free seminar in your town on August 25
In all three cases above, the prospect understands that there is no fear of being trapped, as they do not need to talk to anyone.
Make your promotions work. Develop a winning headline, state a present benefit aligned with your market’s emotional concern and make a non-intimidating offer. These three variables make a huge difference in marketing effectiveness and increase your income right away.
Other really good stuff on direct mail and ads
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
I have found another couple sites that have very good information I cannot find elsewhere:
Financial Seminar it's all about how to do seminars correctly
Registered Investment Advisor-- how to become a fee based registered investment advisor so that you do not need a broker dealer or to be involved with the FINRA
Financial Seminar it's all about how to do seminars correctly
Registered Investment Advisor-- how to become a fee based registered investment advisor so that you do not need a broker dealer or to be involved with the FINRA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
