Proximity irrelevant when choosing a broker


Share
Posted Online: March 19, 2013, 9:41 pm
Comment on this story | Print this story | Email this story
DEAR BRUCE: My wife and I, both retired, received a nice inheritance in the form of stocks and bonds. The investment company and the representative who dealt with us are in our hometown, but we have since moved many states away.

Should we continue with this same office and representative, or should we now deal with the company's office in our new town? Of course the original representative would like to keep us; we just don't know if this is wise or not. — Joseph in Michigan

DEAR JOSEPH: Given that the representative handling the stocks and bonds apparently has done a decent job and had the confidence of your benefactor, and considering your lack of knowledge in this area, I would have no problem keeping the investments with the original representative.

The fact that he or she is in another state has no relevance.

I originally lived in New Jersey and now live in Florida. I still have investments with a company in my first hometown. In today's world, no matter where the broker is, he's in your backyard.

DEAR BRUCE: Is there any way I can protect myself from my husband's debt? — Reader, via email

DEAR READER: You have asked a profound and deep question to which there is no absolute answer.

First, it depends on what you have signed during your marriage. Generally speaking, a husband and wife are both considered liable for debts incurred during the marriage. Even if the courts decide that your husband is responsible as far as creditors are concerned, you — as his wife — are very much on the notes.

If you are as concerned as you appear to be, you should consult an attorney in your state and find out precisely what you can do now to protect your interests. Time is your enemy; get on it.

DEAR BRUCE: Can you explain a little about CDs? I want to leave some extra money to one of my children, and a relative suggested buying CDs. This way it would not be in the will, as I don't want the other children to feel like I am favoring one over another. One child has more need, and one of the others cannot understand that. — R.P., via email

DEAR R.P.: As I have said many times in my column and on my show, I wouldn't feel any guilt about giving one child more than another. Needs vary, and everyone should understand that. You have every right to leave whatever to whomever.

You can buy a CD in your name with a provision that it will become that child's upon your death. Nobody has to know that you set it up this way. Just be certain the beneficiary knows the CD is there, so that he or she can contact the institution quickly and have the money turned over to him or her.

(Send questions to bruce@brucewilliams.com or to Smart Money, P.O. Box 7150, Hudson, FL 34674. Questions of general interest will be answered in future columns. Owing to the volume of mail, personal replies cannot be provided.)



















 




Local events heading








  Today is Monday, Sept. 15, the 258th day of 2014. There are 107 days left in the year.

1864 — 150 years ago: The Rock River Illinois conference of the Methodist Church will hold its annual sessions this week in this city. About 200 ministers are expected to attend.
1889 — 125 years ago: The Brush electric company had prepared a new schedule of rates to become effective Oct. 1, with slightly increased rates to consumers.
1914 — 100 years ago: The Rock Island Aerie of Eagles made plans for the laying of the cornerstone of a new $50,000 Eagles Home. W.C. Maucker is to be master of ceremonies.
1939 — 75 years ago: Col. Charles A. Lindbergh spoke on "America and Foreign War" in a neutrality debate over nation wide radio hook-up.
1964 — 50 years ago: Two awards of the National Safety council were presented to the city of Rock Island today at noon at a meeting held in the YWCA.
1989 — 25 years ago: The final tallies are not yet in for the summer 1989 Quad-Cities tourism season, but officials are expecting the number of visitors to the area to be at least as good as, if not better than, 1988.






(More History)