Even blue chips?
I know what you are saying - it's not a lot of money/a big portion, more of a habit from when we were little - an actual stock you can see signs for and physically visit is far more interesting than some fund.
Picking stocks is risky, for the broker, or so goes the thinking currently. Oh yeah, forgot that they don't even call themselves "brokers" anymore.
Brokers (now called Advisors or any other number of names except Stock Broker) don't like to pick stocks (i.e. earn their fee) anymore. The formula changed a while ago, to the following:
1. join clubs, golf, churches etc.
2. Always talk generally, never specifically about equities. Talk about markets, mutual funds, ETFS, "tools at the firms disposal", "allocations", 'managing risks", and "a personal plan based on YOU"
3. Get the clients assets in the door, put them in a basket of diverse assets that you don't personally manage, and nearly automatically adjusted based on age and stated "risk tolerance" or "appetite for growth and risk".
4. Put on Auto Pilot. Rinse Repeat, onto the next client to "onboard"
5. Send automated account statements out quarterly, or monthly and sit down for coffee with clients quaterly or annually depending on account size to "answer any quetsions"
6. If the portfolio or parts of the portfolio are obviously not working, then urge client to "stay the course", and if that doesn't work, then "let's get you out of some of these underperforming funds because these portfolio managers are not doing their jobs"
What's the upside in providing real advice, if no one else is.
I think that model is broken. I think we need brokers to once again (be brokers) pick stocks, and not be ashamed to make calls. Those are the guys I want to pay fees to. Not somebody who has me allocated on auto pilot and has outsourced the same function to some portfolio manager in some other city, who manages the mutual fund.
