Unlocking Real Value Blog

Wealth Management Trends – The Good, The Bad & The Ugly - April 23rd, 2014

2013 was a mixed year for the retail wealth management business, with positive highlights – such as increases in assets under management, revenues and production – hiding some disturbing underlying trends. The results provide a good baseline for individual advisors, advisor groups and their firms to evaluate their businesses and plan accordingly for the future.

(The study being referenced is PriceMetrix’s Fourth Annual State of Retail Wealth Management Report. I give a lot of credence to these reports because of the firm’s reputation as well as the size of its database, which encompasses 40,000 advisors. seven million retail investors, 500 million individual transactions and $3.5 trillion in investment assets.)

First, the good headlines news – assets under management increased 12% for the average financial advisor last year and average production grew 5%. Average household revenue increased 11%. These gains signal the continuation of an uptrend in these categories that has been in place since 2009. The average financial advisor managed $90.2 million  and had revenue of $578,000 last year. Average household revenue was $3,670 per household.

But given that the market was up close to 30%, is this growth really that impressive? Here comes the bad news! Much of the growth came from market appreciation rather than growth in new clients. In fact, 6% of the growth came from existing clients and only 5% from new clients. Client retention dropped as well, with departing clients providing a 5% negative drag on growth. The average client retention rate decreased 2% to 90% in 2013, deteriorating in every size of household category. This statistic counters the often heard argument that advisors are only getting rid of smaller less profitable clients. (Bigger households actually left at a fast pace than smaller households.)

Wait – it gets worse.  Average return on assets (ROA) dropped for the second year in a row, down to 0.68% from 0.72% in 2011. While part of this was due to the continuing trend of advisor’s increasing the percentage of fee-based business in their overall businesses, advisors need to grow assets faster if they are going to transaction to lower margin business. And the average age of clients is older for the second year in a row, growing faster than the overall North American population.

The overall results of the survey were well summarized by Doug Trott, President and CEO of PriceMetrix: “Advisors and their firms have a lot to consider. A key challenge, however, remains how to create, articulate and deliver a value proposition that helps to attract and keep desirable wealth management clients. Another challenge is how to create a sustainable book that is not overly reliant on aging clients.”

Growth is only good if it is the right growth.

AK In The News: Baird Ramps Up Northwest Exposure, Snags $10B Wealth Shop - April 11th, 2014

I was asked to comment on an article in today’s Fundfire (a Financial Times Service) about Baird’s acquisition of Seattle-based B/D McAdams Wright Ragen (MWR). To me, the deal makes a great deal of sense. It extends Baird’s footprint in the Nortwest, and the employee owned boutique-firm seems to have a similar culture and operating philosophy.

But mergers are never easy – no matter how good the fit. There will inevitably be growing and consolidation pains; even the best merger partners experience some pain when they integrate operations, and any change is always traumatic on clients and in turn financial advisors. Having said that, the long-term gains from a successful merger do outweigh the pain. And in this case, I think the similarities in the firm’s cultures will keep the pain to a minimum – if they get the rest of the stuff right.

Contrast this to a merger between a B/D and a bank, or a regional B/D and a wirehouse, where in both cases the cultures are quite different and the odds of trouble in a merger are greater. The results of a merger are never perfect or easy to predict, but from what I can tell, I feel positive about this one.

To quote from the article: “”It seems like culturally the firms are a good fit – two regional players. This will help Baird increase its footprint in the Pacific Northwest. Baird has a reputation as a good regional firm and this step seems logical as they continue to expand,” says Andy Klausner, principal and founder of AK Advisory Partners. “Certainly the merger of two regional brokerage firms – from both a cultural and operational point of view – would be easier than the merging of a regional firm with either a bank or a larger brokerage firm. While Baird is larger and the acquirer, it is more a merger of equals than you see in many other mergers.””

AK In The News: Industry Split On Greater Allianz Scrutiny Of Pimco - April 9th, 2014

I was asked to comment on an article in today’s Ignites (A Financial Times Service) about the industry’s reaction to reports that Allianz, the parent of Pimco, is going to increase its oversight and be more hands on with the subsidiary because of the continuing bad publicity the firm is getting in the wake of Mohammed El-Erian’s resignation in January. El-Erian was the heir apparent to CEO Bill Gross, and his departure has raised questions about the culture of the firm, among other things.

The article detailed results of a reader poll in which 43% of participants said that increased oversight would hurt Pimco (26% of these respondents felt that the negative effects would be significant). 38% of respondents believed that increased oversight would benefit the firm. 20% said such action would have no impact.

Parent companies in the asset management business traditionally give their subsidiaries large amounts of autonomy. In fact, Allianz increased Pimco’s autonomy in January 2012 when it gave Pimco control of its worldwide distribution. The overall fear is that micro-management of subsidies, in an industry where people are so important, could potentially lead to mass defections.

My belief is that if Allianz does become publicly involved, it is more of a way to shore-up public confidence in Pimco then to actually get in there and make significant changes. Perception is reality, and the perception in the industry today is that Pimco is broken. If Allianz can help shore-up confidence, and get the firm out of the media spotlight, perhaps it can help the firm turnaround.

To quote from the article: “Overall, the perception of damage has already taken its toll on Pimco, experts say. Andy Klausner, founder of strategic consultancy AK Advisory Partners, expects any Allianz involvement in fixing Pimco to be enacted more for public relations reasons than any other purpose, particularly due to doubts that Allianz has the appetite to restructure Pimco’s culture. With immense media coverage of Pimco recently, the real issue is that the firm’s reputation has suffered, he says. “Whether Pimco is right or wrong in the debate about their future, it does not matter,” Klausner says. “The perception of their culture being broken is important to note and it cannot be ignored.””

What do you think?

AK In The News: Morningstar Downgrades Pimco’s Stewardship Grade - March 19th, 2014

While the bad news continues for Pimco in the wake of CEO Mohammed El-Erian’s departure two months ago, I continue to believe that the outlook for the firm and Chairman Bill Gross is positive. I am quoted in an article in today’s Ignites (A Financial Times Service) about Morningstar’s downgrading of Pimco’s Stewardship Grade.

I don’t make much of this action to be honest. Morningstar is not the first firm to put the firm on watch, it took them two months to do so, and frankly it could have been worse. I think they are really just covering themselves in the event the turmoil continues.

To quote from the article: “But Morningstar is not the first “to essentially put Pimco on watch,” Andrew Klausner, founder and principal of AK Advisory Partners a strategic consultancy, says in an e-mail.  However, he is not too worried about the future of the firm. “The key is going to be if performance suffers and if there are major defections in the coming months,” Klausner writes. “Further downgrades to ‘sell’ from ‘watch’ by large pension plans or consultants, based on future moves, would be of concern.””

I did a longer opinion piece for Ignites, which was published on March 4, 2014. The title was “Bill Gross Should Stay Right Where He Is.” It is included below and provides a more detailed analysis of my thoughts on the matter:

The resignation of Pimco CEO Mohamed El-Erian, the expected successor to Bill Gross as head of Pimco, has sparked a lot of chatter over Gross’s own future at the firm.

A recent Wall Street Journal article titled “Inside the Showdown Atop Pmco, the World’s Biggest Bond Firm” recounted bad blood at Pimco ahead of El-Erian’s exit. Some pundits have predicted or even called for Gross’s resignation, as reported.

Reacting to the Journal piece,  Reuters columnist Felix Salmon wrote that “if Gross cares at all about the long-term fortunes of the company he built, the best thing he can do right now is simply retire.”

Despite all the noise, the reality of the situation is that Gross can and will continue to lead the firm. Thoughts of forced resignation or retirement are shortsighted and highly unlikely.

Let’s review some of the arguments that the “Gross must go” proponents are making and dispel them:

Poor recent performance and outflows in the Total Return Fund in particular. It has been a tough time for bond managers as anxiety about rising interest rates intensifies. But Pimco is certainly not alone in this respect, and it seems unfair to single out the company on this account.

After all, 14 Pimco’s bond mutual funds ranked in the top third of their category in 2013 and several had very strong performance. For example, Pimco’s New York Municipal Bond Fund stood in the top 1st percentile of all funds in its category based on its annual returns. Further, Pimco’s Emerging Markets Corporate Bond Fund (Institutional) performed in the top 9th percentile in its category peer group, according to Morningstar.

To be sure, some results have been disappointing; for example, the double-digit losses suffered by at least four bond mutual funds in 2013. However, given the difficult environment for bond funds across the board, there is nothing in Pimco’s 2013 performance that should set off serious alarm bells, particularly when the long-term returns of its bond funds are considered.

There have also been some complaints from various industry voices about Gross’s strict asset allocation policy, especially during a period of increased bond market uncertainty. However, highlighting one investment decision during a tough market sounds a lot like armchair quarterbacking.

What about Gross’s steady long-term performance and success in creating the world’s largest bond fund and bond manager? Morningstar named Gross Fixed Income Fund Manager of the Year three times (1998, 2000 and 2007) and the Fixed Income Fund Manager of the Decade for 2000–2009.

Let us not confuse the exit of El-Erian with normal market cycles. Certainly Gross and the rest of the firm deserve more time to orchestrate a performance rebound before we write his Pimco obituary.

Concerns over a lack of succession planning. Certainly when any firm loses a major contributor and heir apparent people will raise questions. But in this respect, Pimco has reacted quickly and aggressively. The firm has clearly communicated who the six new deputy CIOs are, including the last two winners of Morningstar’s Fixed-Income Fund Manager of the Year award, Dan Ivascyn (2013 co-recipient along with portfolio manager Alfred Murata) and Mark Kiesel (2012 winner).

The firm also quickly appointed a new CEO, Douglas Hodge; a new president, Jay Jacobs; and a new head of strategic business management, Craig Dawson.

One could argue that Gross has built a very impressive organization with talented investment professionals even without El-Erian. His departure also frees up a large pool of capital to compensate current employees and recruit new ones. Multiple media outlets have reported that El-Erian’s annual compensation was in the $100 million range.

People at any organization always hate to lose quality employees and leaders, but it happens and firms can certainly overcome it with savvy hires and promotions.

I am not defending executives who use domineering behavior to achieve results; it is just a reality at many asset management organizations. Historically, employees in this industry are compensated very highly, in part to make up for the stressful work atmosphere. Few people were calling for Bill Gross to retire before this event. So what has really changed?

Pimco and Bill Gross will survive El-Erian’s departure. While it is far too early to predict the long-term effects of the resignation or how the firm will perform as the bond market recovers, the firm has reacted quickly and decisively. It still has the infrastructure and the vast majority of employees that have made it successful in the past.

I would bet on Pimco in the future, not against it. And the smart wager is that Bill Gross will be around as long as he wants to be.

What Clients Want - March 4th, 2014

Our last blog talked about the disconnect between clients and financial services professionals when it comes to the importance of ethics. Client views were obtained as part of a survey sponsored by the CFA Institute and entitled “The CFA Institute & Edelman Investor Trust Survey.”

The survey also asked respondents which of the following factors was the most important to them in selecting an investment manager (while the question in the survey related to investment managers specifically, but I would argue that the results are relevant to advisors and other industry participants as well):

  • Trusted to act in my best interest – 35%
  • Ability to achieve high returns – 17%
  • Commitment to ethical conduct – 17%
  • Recommended by someone I trust – 15%
  • Compliance with industry best practices – 8%
  • Amount/structure of fees – 7%

By more than 2 to 1, more respondents felt that the most important thing to them in picking an investment partner is that they feel that they can be trusted to act in their best interest. Returns were less important, and fees were at the bottom of the list.

These statistics reinforce the notion that trust is the most important thing in our industry (if you add the 17% who mentioned ethics, those two issues represent the most important thing to more than half of the respondents). Investment managers and others who fail to establish trust first – before they talk about what they do and how much they charge – are putting themselves behind with, on average, one out of every two prospects they will speak with.

This issue resonates with clients as well. While establishing trust and demonstrating ethical behavior is the key to getting clients, industry participants must reinforce this trust as the relationship matures in order to keep the client.

This issue reminds me of the old lesson that the best salespeople speak the least – they listen more than talk. I think the same goes here. The best advisors, consultants and money managers will allow their clients and prospects to talk – tell them what is important to them, what worries them, etc. – and only then will they talk. Listen and you shall prevail.

 

The Ethics Disconnect - February 27th, 2014

When it comes to ethics, there seems to be a pretty significant disconnect between investor perceptions of the financial services industry and those of industry participants. Advisors,  managers and sponsors who ignore this divide could be asking for trouble!

The above conclusion comes from two studies sponsored last year by the CFA Institute. One survey sought the views of a broad spectrum of financial services professionals, while the other focused on investors. While both groups view ethics as critical for the industry, part of the disconnect is that the professionals surveyed were far less likely to view their own firms as a source of distrust.

First the studies and results; and then some perspective. The industry study is entitled “A crisis of culture: valuing ethics and knowledge in financial services,” and was produced by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU). While 59% of respondents believe that the financial services industry has a positive reputation, 71% feel that the ethical reputation of their firm is better than the industry overall and that the actions of their peers was not as ethical as their own.

The survey of investors was entitled the “CFA Institute & Edelman Investor Trust Study,” and included more than 2,100 retail and institutional investors from all over the world. Only about half of those surveyed (52%) said that they trusted the industry to do what is right. Only 19% of respondents “strongly agreed” that they had a fair opportunity to profit from participating in the capital markets. (A majority felt that they had a “fair” chance of success.)

While these results are not surprising given the beating the industry has taken over the past 5 or so years, industry participants would be well advised to keep this disconnect in mind when speaking to prospects and clients. Acknowledge their discomfort and give them specific examples of what you do to be ethical, to always look after their interests AND how this benefits them and gives them a fair chance at success.

Neglect to do so at your own peril!

Our Newest White Paper: Refresh And Extend Your Brand - January 28th, 2014

It’s a new year, and while many of you are probably like me and no longer make New Year’s resolutions (which we wouldn’t have kept anyway), the kick-off to a new year is a great time to think about how to refresh and extend your brand. Sure, we all talk about doing our planning at the end of the year, but in reality, the period between Thanksgiving and January 1st usually turns out to be pretty unproductive.

Come January, however, everyone seems to be more focused. So it’s not too late to make some changes to your business that will not only help you grow in the long run, but also still have an impact this year.

What Is Your Brand? Before we talk about refreshing you brand, it’s important to understand what your brand is – because it’s much more than a logo or the color of your marketing materials. Your brand is what you are to the marketplace and more importantly to your clients – it’s your reputation and the value that you bring to clients and the reason that they do business with you

An effective brand will:

  • Associate you with a value-added service;
  • Distinguish you from other market participants; and
  • Be viewed as being meaningful and beneficial.

Click here to download the entire White Paper.

AK In The News: The War Between B/Ds And RIAs Is A False Rivalry - January 22nd, 2014

(The following opinion piece written by me appeared last week in Financial Advisor IQ (A Financial Times Service):

One of the most discussed issues in the financial-services industry over the past few years has been the competition for advisors between traditional broker-dealers (wirehouses and regionals) and independents or RIAs. Everyone is speculating over which type of sponsor firm will be the ultimate winner.

Last year reaffirmed the position I have held for a long time — namely, that it’s a false rivalry. Each group is now well positioned to succeed. Sure, the market share of each type will fluctuate, and some observers will see any gains as one business model’s victory over another. But we have come a long way since the midst of the financial crisis, when many traditional B/Ds changed ownership and the very existence of some was in question.

Over the past few years, traditional B/Ds have made a pretty miraculous comeback, while independents and RIAs have simultaneously seen impressive growth. The bad press aimed at the wirehouses has largely dissipated, as has a lot of the investor anger targeted at them. According to InvestmentNews’s 2013 year-end ranking of firms that were the biggest beneficiaries of advisor moves during the year (as measured by net new AUM), the top five firms were Wells Fargo Advisors  (adding $7.6 billion in assets) , UBS ($5 billion) Raymond James ($3.1 billion), Baird ($2.3 billion) and LPL Financial  ($2.3 billion). Quite a diverse group, don’t you think?

So rather than ask whether one business model will dominate, I think the more important question is: How does each firm position itself to be as successful as possible? The real winners will be those that make their advisors the most productive, not necessarily those that become biggest.

Let’s first talk about the traditional B/Ds. Advisors in these organizations typically rely 100% on their firms to provide office essentials, investment products, training, due diligence, reporting, etc. In general, these firms are also very restrictive in what advisors can do that might be considered “outside the box.” Individual websites and marketing materials are discouraged, for example, with guidelines so limiting that many advisors decide not to bother.

While some advisors find that atmosphere too restrictive, others like the comfort of showing up at an office where all the infrastructure is in place. It’s a good environment for those who want to serve clients more than they want to run a business.

As to the difference between the wirehouses and the regionals, I think it’s fair to say that advisors at the regional firms often have a greater ability to influence strategy — for example, via product offerings. Upper management and product heads tend to be closer to advisors at the regionals, especially the larger producers. Compared with a wirehouse FA, an advisor at a regional can be a bigger fish in a smaller pond.

Advisors who want to participate actively in running and building a business are generally more likely to join an independent B/D or an RIA. They certainly have more freedom, but they have to worry about things like office space and health insurance. Most advisors in this world tend to be a little more entrepreneurial.

Within these broad generalizations, the firms that will be successful are those that offer the services their advisors need to grow AUM. For independents, that means providing the best support team to help advisors organize their businesses when they first join. For traditional B/Ds, it means offering new and innovative product choices and trying to keep compliance as business-friendly as possible. These are the firms that will wind up with the most satisfied and productive teams, regardless of their business model.

 

The Keys To Client Retention - January 15th, 2014

Retaining clients is one of the most important components of a successful advisory practice. After all, there are costs associated with obtaining new clients, and to lose them results in not only lost revenue, but makes the entire endeavor a waste of time.

PriceMetrix, a practice management software and data services company, just released a new study on client retention. I like the company’s work and find it very credible, in part based on the size of their database, which encompasses 7 million investors, 500 million transactions and nearly 40,000 financial advisors.

The study concluded that advisors who retained 95% of their clients during the period 2010-2013 increased total assets under management (AUM) by 25%, while those who retained 80% increased assets by just 12%. Growth and success are definitely related to client retention.

Some of the  key takeaways from the study include:

  • The most critical years of a relationship are years two through four. The first year of relationships is often viewed as a honeymoon period, and retention was found to be 95%. But retention dropped dramatically overall in years 2-4 to just 74%. Advisors should demonstrate – or reprove – their value added to clients around the first anniversary as part of their standard client servicing practices.
  • Advisors with larger client households do better than those managing less than $250,000. The average household with $100,000 in assets has an 87% retention rate, while the average retention rate for $500,000 households is 94%. In this case, size does matter.
  • Pricing matters. The moral of the story here is not to price either too low, because clients will not see your value-added, nor too high, because as we all know, no one likes high fees. The optimal pricing range was found to be between 1.0% and 1.5% of revenue on assets (ROA).
  • Fee-based accounts are slightly more likely to stay than transactional accounts (91% v. 89%), but hybrid households – which include both fee-based and transactional accounts – are the most likely to stay at 95%. This result is very interesting and somewhat contradicts the trend toward fee-based business (and managed accounts). Perhaps the best strategy when trying to convert clients to fee-based business is to suggest they keep  their current accounts rather than necessarily replace them.
  • Advisors who have multiple retirement accounts with a household are much more likely to keep the relationship. The retention rate of clients with no retirement accounts is 85%, one retirement account 86% – but 94% for those with multiple retirement accounts.
  • Older clients are far more likely than younger clients to stay with their advisors. 30 year old clients were found in the study to have an 82% retention rate, 40 year olds an 87% retention rate and 50 year olds a 90% retention rate. This is not completely surprising given everything we know about todays’ younger generation. But it does indicate that advisors should diversify their books by age in order to keep stability.

I think these are all important points to keep in mind. I wouldn’t necessarily recommend changing your marketing strategy because of the study, but it should influence the way you talk to clients, how you treat current clients and provide some points on how you can fine tune what you do.

Top 10 Predictions For 2014 - December 17th, 2013

2014 is shaping up to be a very interesting year- both politically and economically. A few months ago, this did not seem to be the case. But the recent government shutdown, launch problems with Obamacare, the rise of Elizabeth Warren and other events have combined to set-up an intriguing year ahead. So here I go with my top predictions for 2014 (they are in no particular order of importance):

10 – The Republicans will keep the House of Representatives but fall short of capturing a majority in the Senate (although they will pick up net seats). The Republicans should be able to pick-up enough seats to take control of the Senate, but self inflicted primary wounds, led by Tea Party challenges, will hurt them once again.

9 – Riding off of the momentum of the budget agreement, there will be no threats of government shutdown next year, there will be a small increase in bipartisan cooperation, but given that it is an election year, there will be no far reaching immigration reform or gun control legislation passed. The only progress I see next year, and it would be in the Republicans best interest to pursue this course, would be some smaller pieces of immigration legislation. On the gun control side, momentum only seems to be on the side of an overall of the mental health system. The debt limit discussions will be contentious, but will be solved without the US defaulting.

8 – The problems with the Obamacare website rollout will seem minor next year as the reality of the totality of the massive law and its implementation move forward. The benefits of the program will be outweighed by younger people not signing up, choosing instead to pay the penalty, growing anger at not being able to keep doctors, and as the year progresses, the reality that costs will go up in 2015 as insurance companies lose lots of money.

7 – The Federal Reserve will begin to taper in the first quarter, although I don’t think the taper will be significant early on. The overall path of the Fed will remain the same under Chairperson Yellon. (It is a little dangerous making this prediction now since there is a chance that the Fed will begin the taper this week, but I fall in the camp that says they will wait – they may announce something, however.)

6 – The stock market will have an average year. I think the markets have, to a large extent, priced the taper in already, so I don’t think Fed actions will significantly impact the market. Coming off of a banner 2013 (which I did not predict), it is only natural that the market revert to more normal returns. There will be a natural bull market correction during the year, and by next December I see the S&P 500 up a modest 7% – 10% for the year.

5 – Europe will continue to grow modestly and I don’t foresee any large crises within the EU or the Euro bloc. The worst seems to be behind most of these countries from an economic standpoint. No countries will exit the Euro – there won’t even be much or any talk about that anymore.

4 – Hillary Clinton will finally signal that she will run for President in 2016. While it is too soon to make any predictions about how that will go, I think her record as Secretary of State will come under increased scrutiny, and while she will remain the front runner, my only preview of my thoughts on the actual election is that the campaign will be a lot tougher than people think. There is no certainty that she will actually get elected.

For Financial Services:

3 – Elizabeth Warren will continue to raise her public profile and try to “stick it” to banks and other industry participants. This will be part of the Democratic election strategy – along with helping the middle class – that will be utilized to overcome the Republican’s continued slamming of Obamacare. Actual progress on new legislation will be slow.

2 – It will be a good year for the wirehouses as they continue their comeback from 2008. There will be less negative news about them in the press. The RIA and independent markets will continue to grow – but there is room enough for both!

1 – ETFs and retail alternative investments will start to get some negative press. As first ETFs and then alternative investment mutual funds have grown, they have received generally favorable press. I have been leery of both, particularly retail alternatives, and I think the press will finally start to raise some questions.

Finally – sports. (I usually go over 10!). Florida State will win the collegiate national championship, ending the dream season of Auburn. The Seattle Seahawks will beat the Denver Broncos in the Super Bowl – yes, Payton and his pals will choke again.

I would love to hear your thoughts on my predictions. Have a great rest of 2013 and an even better 2014.