I think the disclaimers are great. They satisfy legal requirements, while also using satire to point out how ridiculous these requirements can be.
For example, trusting your investment decisions to a paid advisor can be useful, but you also need to ask, how is that advisor being paid? Are they getting commission based on what you buy? Are they frequently buying and selling different instruments because it is in your interest, or because greater fees are gained this way? What if just buying and holding certain assets or stocks might be the best strategy, but the advisor would make no money doing this. Will they recommend such an approach? How about buying a no-load mutual fund with a very low MER versus a high-load, high MER fund that gives (legal) kickbacks to the advisor? Which one are they going to recommend and encourage you to purchase?
The exception to the above is a fee-only financial advisor. The only money they make is the money you pay them. No commission, no kickbacks, no BS. That doesn't guarantee good advice, but at least it precludes biased advice.
