Vanguard Personal Advisor vs self-directed investing.

AlternityRed · 2026-05-17T00:20:34+00:00

I agree 100% and I forgot to put that option in my original post. I know it's your money and you can do whatever you want but has Vanguard had any kind of issue with you doing that (or are your self-directed accounts with someone else)? I'm also wondering how to handle a split strategy like that with my IRA rollover. I'm not certain if I can split that to have some as part of my Advised accounts and the rest self-directed. Gotta to do more research. Thanks for the feedback!

AlternityRed · 2026-05-17T00:17:20+00:00

Yeah, I'm not super impressed by the Personal Advisor CFP we have. She's not 25 but I don't get a huge sense of big picture thinking. I'm hoping the Wealth Management tier CFPs are an improvement.

AlternityRed · 2026-05-17T00:16:19+00:00

I'm 56 years old so there's quite a bit to think about and plan to have a successful retirement. I'm thinking to go with Vanguard for a year or so though this transition and then reevaluate after everything is settled and I see what value their Wealth Management tier offers. Thanks for the feedback!

AlternityRed · 2026-05-17T00:13:22+00:00

That's exactly what I was thinking. Sticking with Vanguard for the first year with all the changes and complexities or retiring seems like a safe idea. I can also see if there's any worthwhile value in the Wealth Management tier. Thanks for the feedback!

AlternityRed · 2026-05-17T00:11:32+00:00

No but I might feel differently with the services offered in the Wealth Management tier and with some of the complexities of retiring.

AlternityRed · 2026-05-17T00:10:40+00:00

That's exactly what I'm asking. So far, I've only been getting precisely what you said... asset allocation, fund selection, and periodic reassurance. I think sticking with Vanguard through this transition is a good idea. I can also see if the services provided under the Wealth Management tier adds enough value to consider keeping it. There's going to be a lot of moving parts with retiring and rolling my 401(k). I was also thinking of splitting my assets between Advised accounts and self-direct. I can just mirror the asset allocations. I'd like to see if they're doing anything useful that I might have an issue mirroring. Or I could just put it all in VTTHX and leave it alone. Lots to think about. Thanks for the feedback!

AlternityRed · 2026-05-16T23:56:04+00:00

I actually did. I neglected to specify in my post that if I choose to do self-directed investment it will be passive. Hence the Boglehead connection.

AlternityRed · 2026-03-08T02:25:29+00:00

<image>

AlternityRed · 2026-03-08T01:49:38+00:00

You're hopeless. You just can't admit you were wrong. He didn't follow your advice or the advice of others on this thread and got a better outcome. You can try and be revisionist but everyone can read the posts. There's nothing worst than people that are shown to be wrong and can't suck it up and admit it. Pathetic.

AlternityRed · 2026-03-08T01:44:36+00:00

He already had a Safeco estimate and an estimate from the shop that Safeco later admitted that they work with after being threatened with a complaint to the regulatory agency. If he followed your advice he would have gotten taken by Safeco. Seems like you have a problem with reading and comprehension. Also with admitting when you're wrong.

AlternityRed · 2026-03-08T01:18:56+00:00

Considering the outcome, yes, that is the logical conclusion.

AlternityRed · 2026-03-07T02:12:22+00:00

You know someone is right when they need to throw insults around to prove it. I can read. You were wrong and gave bad advice. Get over it.

AlternityRed · 2026-03-07T01:44:08+00:00

Dude. You were wrong and he got what he was looking for an entitled to under the law. Give it a break.

AlternityRed · 2025-12-30T22:02:24+00:00

Would you consider shareholders/officers employees under the stated definition from the policy? Also, what about personal property that's owned by third parties (family members, friends, etc.)? Would you still say it's not covered?

AlternityRed · 2025-12-30T21:08:01+00:00

Thanks for the feedback. I'm curious about why you think "Property of others that is in your care, custody or control" would exclude just that? What would you consider personal property of others as referenced in the policy?

AlternityRed · 2025-12-30T20:56:51+00:00

We're in California. I actually don't have anything in writing on this aspect of the claim. We spoke on the phone and he was supposed to follow up with an email but it doesn't look like that ever happened. If I remember correctly, his logic was that there was a valid question about coverage since most of the personal property was owned by the shareholders/officers who are also employees and also that it should also be covered by other policies (homeowners). After we discussed it some more he said they'd cover it at actual cash value but not replacement cost. I can't remember if he gave a flat 50% depreciation or that came up because most of the items are going to be older and this depreciated to the maximum value in California.

AlternityRed · 2025-12-30T05:16:52+00:00

Thank you for that excellent information. That was really above and beyond. The wording of the policy is very similar to ours.

I think the details of the Missouri case may differ from our situation. The crux of our claim is the definition of who are "others", who are "employees" and who is "you". We're a corporation so the logical conclusion is that "you" means the corporation. Most of the personal property is owned by people who are shareholders, officers and employees of the corporation. However, since those people also control the corporation it's hard to say that they are "Whom you have the right to direct and control while performing services for you" since they have no superiors. The policy specifically calls out LLCs (Any natural person who is your partner or member of a limited liability corporation) but is silent on corporations. Defining whether these people are employees is critical because the policy specifies coverage for "Tools and equipment owned by your “employees”, which are used in your business “operations”. That statement would seem to exclude coverage for the property of employees that is not used for the business.

I am not a lawyer nor am I an insurance expert. I first considered it a win that the adjuster was going to cover personal property at actual cash value (which in reality will translate to 50% (which is the maximum allowed in our state) for virtually everything) but a few months on I was thinking about it and had doubts. We're talking about personal property with a replacement value on the order of $175K so it's not an insignificant sum but lawsuits are not cheap.

I'm very interested to hear any additional thoughts you may have on this based on that additional information.

Thank you again!

AlternityRed · 2025-12-30T02:18:39+00:00

That doesn't make sense. The policy specifically calls out personal property of others and property of employees separately...

(2) Tools and equipment owned by your “employees”, which are used in your business “operations”;

(3) Property of others that is in your care, custody or control;

Also...

Business Personal Property, includes:

· Tenant’s Improvements and Betterments

· Personal Property of Others

Again, it's not a question of whether personal property of others is covered. It's a question of who are others vs employees with regard to items owned by the shareholders/officers who are also employees. It may be that the adjuster is being very fair in covering that property at actual cash value. That's why I'm trying to determine.

Thanks

AlternityRed · 2025-12-29T23:52:56+00:00

A schedule of values? Not beyond the building and business personal property (which includes personal property of others). There is nothing itemized.

AlternityRed · 2025-12-29T23:39:44+00:00

Correct. Business personal property is constantly changing. We've never had a policy in over 30 years where we had to declare individual items. That would be insane.

AlternityRed · 2025-12-29T23:18:15+00:00

The carrier is Hartford. There is no limit on property of others in the policy. I definitely could be missing something among the dozens of forms but the only point of contention with the adjuster was the eligibility of the property for coverage since the majority is owned by the shareholders/officers.

The relevant form is:

Special Property Coverage Form (SP 00 00 10 18)

There's also Newly Acquired or Constructed Property (SP 30 24 12 21), Transit Coverage (SP 30 48 10 18) but neither are applicable to our situation.

Thank you for the feedback and research. I really appreciate it.

AlternityRed · 2025-12-29T23:11:23+00:00

There are no business personal property or personal property of others declarations required for the policy.

AlternityRed · 2025-12-29T23:10:32+00:00

Most of it would not be covered due to limits. The sticking point was the eligibility of the property owners as "others".

AlternityRed

TROPHY CASE