Our Sponsors
____________________
Note: Comments are moderated so be sure that your responses are expressed in a respectable and friendly way. We are here to express our thoughts toward controversial issues, not to scold or defame anyone. Watch what you say, and remember that by using this site, you agree to our Terms Of Use and Privacy Policy.
Yes. Financial advisors who are under 21 put a risk to the clients and sometimes, the client is unaware of the advisors' age.
Bad financial advice knows no age limits.
So no.
I agree with STS, however, I also believe that anyone who gives financial advice for a living should be licensed, certified and insured. Licensed by the state that they have their business in, certified by an accredited institute of higher learning, and hold a liability certificate of insurance for at least a million dollars.
That is typically what they do require, yes.
Although in most cases, there is no requirement that you hold any accredited degrees. The various licenses are typically tough to get for the average person for example (the average person, not so good at math I take it).
The license for the state you have your business in is actually usually a license for the state you are doing business in, not the state you have your business in, a subtle distinction. I have some clients out of state and have to maintain licenses for those states.
Should it be disclosed though?
If you need to know and feel it's important enough to ask, sure. I do not think people typically (will/should) care as long as a) the advice is legal and b) the advice is "working".
Given that the question was whether there should be a minimum age (to even work) and not whether there should be a disclosure of age/information to clients, I'm not sure why you're asking me as though I missed something.