Unlocking Real Value Blog

Advisor Tidbits – A Roundup Of Industry Thinking - August 23rd, 2013

I’ve read a number of interesting articles/reports lately that merit a mention – and could help lead to business-building ideas.

1) Referrals – a recent study by Prudential about referrals indicates that while clients think it takes 4.8 years on average to build up enough trust to make referrals, most advisors think that such trust is built in half of the time – just over two years. Perhaps advisors need to be a little more patient! The good news, however, is that while clients believe that referrals have a lot of social risk, more than half of the people surveyed have made referrals, and another third said that they would.

2) Fee-based compensation – According to Cogent Research LLC, two-thirds of industrywide compensation will come from asset-based fees by 2015, up from 59% today. The study included 1,700 financial advisors with an average of just over $100 million under management. The likely biggest loser from this continuing and growing trend – actively managed mutual funds.

3) Advisors too focused on baby boomers – a recent Cerulli Associates report (conducted in conjunction with Phoenix Marketing International) warned that advisors are focusing too much of their time on baby boomers, just at the time when these investors are going to be retiring and entering the spend-down phase of their lives. Simultaneously, fewer than 20% of investors under the age of 40 feel that they are getting enough attention. Advisors, by ignoring these younger investors, could miss out not only from the growth in assets of these investors as they become more successful, bus also from the more than $2,3 trillion in investible assets estimated to be transferred via inheritance between 2026 and 2030.

4) Wirehouses face continued threat from RIAs – the Aite Group, in a new report, indicates that independent shops and discount brokers should continue to benefit from their ability to tailor customer experiences more easily than wirehouse advisors. While there is no denying the continued growth in market share of wirehouse competitors, I for one still believe that a wirehouse advisor can be successful and create a very good client experience – they just have to work a little harder at it! (According to the story, RIAs boosted assets last year by 18.2%, discount brokers by 12% and the wirehouses by 8.2%.)

 

 

Merrill’s Fee Debacle - August 5th, 2013

Your near the top of your industry and a cash cow for your parent (Bank of America). The future looks bright as the financial crisis of 2008 fades. So, what do you do? You announce a complicated new fee structure that on the surface looks like it may increase fees for many of your top clients in a fast growing (fee-based) business. Then you explain it in murky terms. Not, in my opinion, too smart!

These fee changes are part of a platform restructuring that merges five separate managed account platforms on to a new one called Merrill Lynch One (set to rollout in September). While currently, minimum fees are based on the amount a client has in a particular account, the new system will see a unified fee based on all of the assets a client has with Merrill. Great if you have multiple accounts, not so great if you don’t,and your account happens to be in one of the programs whose current fee structure is less than the new one.

It appears that the greatest change will be seen for clients with accounts in the Merrill Lynch Personal Advisor (MLPA) platform – currently about 1/3 of the total of all fee-based assets at the company. According to the Wall Street Journals, fees on some accounts might rise by as much as 60% by the end of 2015 (advisors have until that time to adjust/negotiate client fees).

Now the catch – according to Merrill spokeswoman, the changes will not be automatic. Clients can choose to use the new single platform and will pay “an agreed-upon fee” reflecting the value the client “places on the overall advice and services delivered by the advisor and the firm.” (As quoted in FundFire, a Financial Times Service, on August 2, 2013.) So, what exactly does that mean?

I have been doing this a long time, and I don’t really understand that statement! It seems that perhaps current clients will be exempt from fee increases; or will they? Grumbling among financial advisors has already begun, as has some negative press in some of the industry on-line publications. I’m all for transparency, and maybe this makes the system more transparent. But “making” your financial advisor negotiate fees with current clients now, when many people are still leery of the industry?

The debacle is not necessarily the new fee schedule or the new platform, which should make Merrill more efficient (and good at least for Bank of America shareholders). The debacle is the confusing the way in which the firm has handled this announcement and is potentially disrupting client relationships at just the wrong time.

Great way to destroy all of your positive momentum guys!

AK In The News: RIA Trends / Bullying In The Workplace - July 31st, 2013

I was quoted in two articles this week – one on the trends in the RIA space and the other on bullying in the mutual fund industry.

The first story, published in yesterday’s GatekeeperIQ (A Financial Times Service), had to do with the announcement by Securities America that they were unveiling a new hybrid platform geared toward smaller RIAs. The platform allows for the use of multiple custodians and can accommodate fee-based as well as commission business.

I was asked to comment on whether this was part of a greater trend in the industry and if asset managers would be able to benefit from new platforms such as this. To quote from the article: “The custodian-agnostic platform is an attractive proposition for small advisors who want to make the switch to a fee-based practice, say Andrew Klausner founder and principal advisor of AK Advisory Partners. “This is kind of a stepping stone into that, because they don’t necessarily have to change who their custodian is and therefore move client accounts,” he says. While reaching small dually registered advisors might not be a top priority for managers, they shouldn’t ignore this space. Still, he says, such advisors require support and attention. “You’ve got a larger number of smaller producers, so to have an impact is a greater effort,” Klausner says.”

The second articles was published in today’s Ignites (A Financial Times Service) and dealt with the results of a survey about bullying in the mutual fund industry. In the survey, nearly two-thirds of respondents said that bullying was prevalent in the mutual fund industry (30% actually said “very prevalent.”) This compares to 50% in the U.S. overall.

To quote from the article: “”Bullying should never be allowed or tolerated,” says Andy Klausner, founder and principal of AK Advisory Partners. “It should be specifically defined in the employee manual, including what bullying is [as] defined by the company … and what the penalties are.””

I was also asked about the different between bullying and competition. Again, to quote from the article: “Moreover, firms should not confuse fostering competition among employees, which can be healthy for a firm, with allowing bullying to occur, experts note. As Klausner says, bullying is “completely different” from competition. He defines competition as “setting goals and rewarding appropriately” and bullying as “forcing someone to behave in a manner that you want them to.””

Any thoughts?

Product Missteps That Can Hurt Relationships - July 25th, 2013

I was asked to write an opinion piece for FinancialAdvisorIQ (A Financial Times Service) about the types of mistakes advisors make when presenting products to clients. Mistakes can result in lost opportunities for clients and a loss of revenues for advisors. Advisors should always be upfront about fees and discuss the potential for underperformance.

Top mistakes include:

Too much jargon. Advisors sometimes use too much industry jargon when explaining how products work, rather than stressing their benefits to the client. Clients don’t care about the name of the program they are investing in. They want results. Advisors should “sell” the concept and its benefits through the consultative process and bring in the specific product names only when they have to.

Whether the strategy is a mutual fund or individually managed accounts, advisors need to explain how these products will help the client reach his or her goals. It helps to ask clients about how much detail they want. Advisors should never oversell products, because the goal in the case of underperformance should be to replace the investment, not the advisor who pushed it.

Lack of transparency. Another cardinal sin in this realm is failing to explain fees clearly and openly. Costs should be discussed up front. If the client has to ask about them, it is probably too late. Advisors should describe the types and frequency of fees and be sure to distinguish between different types of investments — a no-load mutual fund versus A shares, for example. Further, advisors should ensure that clients are able to conduct apples-to-apples comparisons between different product types when needed.

Failure to understand the product. While advisors don’t want to inundate clients with too much product information and detail, they also want to avoid getting stuck with unanswerable questions. Presentations should be customized for each client; engineers will probably want to know more of the nitty-gritty of a product, whereas doctors might be more curious about what other doctors are invested in.

Jumping on “hot dot” products. While advisors are well served by researching new products and incorporating them into their business as appropriate, running to sell the new hot product is rarely the right strategy. The product needs to be the most suitable investment at this point in the client’s investment life. The client’s larger investment goals, their unique needs and the state of their existing portfolio should play the most important role in a product recommendation.

AK In The News: Even Fund Pros Have Personal Retirement Fears - July 17th, 2013

I was asked to comment on the results of an Ignites (A Financial Times Service) poll of financial services employees and their thoughts on retirement. About 84% of respondents say that they are saving enough for retirement, although 52% said that while there current savings rates are sufficient, they still feel that they should be putting more money aside.

This contrasts to a recent Gallop poll which found that 46% of non-retireed Americans do not feel that they will have enough money to retire comfortably.

First, why are we in the financial services industry so much more comfortable with our outlooks for retirement? To quote from the article:  “As Andy Klausner, founder and principal of AK Advisory Partners says, “You would expect fund industry employees to be more tuned in to retirement and saving for retirement than the average person simply through their day-to-day exposure to the issues.

“Even if they aren’t directly involved in the products, for example, they are certainly more aware of the advertising and marketing that their firms do. This goes for all [fund industry] employees,” he writes in an e-mail response.

Additionally, fund firms themselves are taking an active role in helping their employees prepare for retirement. One way that firms, such as Invesco and Vanguard. accomplish this is by making their employees eligible to participate in their 401(k) plans from the day they start employment, rather than requiring a waiting period.”

Secondly, however, why do we feel that we should still put away more? I think there are a number of reasons: 1) people are living longer than ever before, so the fear of outliving your savings, no matter how large it may be, is great; and 2)  to quote from the article again: “A number of factors can hinder professionals from saving enough, Klausner acknowledges. For example, living costs usually are higher in the large cities where financial services firms tend to be located, such as New York. Plus these professionals may not be seeing their compensation rise as quickly as it did before the 2008 financial crisis, he says.”

Any thoughts to add?

 

Creating A Successful Marketing Strategy - July 16th, 2013

Our latest White Paper, Creating A Successful Marketing Strategy, is now available!

While referrals are great, and will always be part of growing a business, many who have relied on referrals exclusively in the past have more recently needed to supplement these referrals with a more active marketing approach. And the world has changed – competition has increased, clients have become more discerning and social media has had a dramatic impact on the types of marketing activities that are the most effective.

In order for a marketing strategy to be successful, it must be multi-faceted, realistic and implemented consistently over time. The messaging should be focused on developing awareness of your brand and on building trust around that brand.

  • Detail specific activities you intend to undertake;
  • Identify the audience each activity is targeted to;
  • Specify how you’re going to measure success;
  • Be flexible enough to allow adjustments as necessary; and
  • Stipulate who on your team is responsible for each activity.

 Click here to download the entire White Paper.

Retail’s Dangerous Shift Toward Alternative Investments - July 8th, 2013

I’ve been warning about the trend toward retail alternative investments for a long time. With yields so low, many investors have been looking for ways to increase return; and the financial services industry has been more than happy to introduce many new products for retail investors. (The alternatives market has been historically an institutional one, with high net worth and income requirements.)

Now FINRA – the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority – has woken up ,and is warning investors of the risk of alternative investment mutual funds. These warnings are good for investors, and can be good for advisors who heed the warning and ensure that they only employ alternatives for clients that truly understand the risk/reward trade off.

(As an example, Morningstar’ alternative funds category includes the following types of funds: bear-market, multi-currency, long/short equity, managed futures, market neutral, multi-alternative, nontraditional bond, trading-inverse commodities, trading-inverse debt and trading-miscellaneous.)

To quote Gerri Walsh from FINRA: “Investors should fully understand the strategies and risks of any alternative mutual funds they are considering. FINRA is warning investors to carefully consider not only how an alt fund works, but how it might fit into their overall portfolio before investing.” Other warnings include the fact that many of these funds are new, and thus don’t have long track records, and many have higher fees than traditional mutual funds.

I agree with these warnings, and in fact, the reality is that most individual investors don’t have the capability to analyze these investments on their own and make informed decisions.

Advisors do have an opportunity to fill the knowledge/information gap and provide advice and education. Advisors would be well served to talk to their clients about alternatives, especially given the publicity they are now getting. Even if such investments are not appropriate for a client, given their risk profiles, clients should appreciate the fact that the advisor has taken the time to explain why such investments should not be purchased; this will also probably dissuade them from doing it themselves, outside of their accounts with the advisors.

While alternative investments might be appropriate for some retail investors, advisors should address the issue head on with their clients and prospects and take the lead role as educator and counselor. Use this FINRA warning as an opportunity to proactively contact clients and help them through the haze of information. You are potentially helping them avert large investment mistakes.

Advisors – Website Content And Presentation Matters - June 18th, 2013

J.D. Power & Associates just released its 2013 U.S. Self-Directed Investor Satisfaction Study, and overall client satisfaction declined from last year. This headline is good news for full-service advisors, many of whom have been fighting the trend of investors trying to go it alone.

Hidden behind this headline are some other interesting tidbits of information for all advisors as well:

1) The reason that Scottrade finished in first place was the clear communication about their pricing which could be found on their website. Investors – especially those that do self-direct – are extremely fee conscious. For all advisors, however, the message is clear – be upfront and transparent about your fees, and explain them clearly and prominently. (Scottrade was followed by Vanguard, T. Rowe Price, TD Ameritrade, E*Trade Financial and then Fidelity in the study.)

2) The study concluded that these firms were struggling to “find the right method and frequency of communication with investors.” Yes, client communications does matter. Especially in today’s world of social media and mobile communications, advisors must be able to deliver to clients what they want, when they want it and how they want it.

3) A major reason for the decrease in satisfaction was dissatisfaction with the websites of the firms. The complaint was that there was too much information on their websites, and many investors felt that much of the information presented was irrelevant to them. Content does matter – you don’t want too much information, and you have to make the most relevant information the easiest to find.

4) And related to (3) above, because there is so much information out there, and so many new products, investors are looking to the websites for educational materials.

I think that there is great information in this study for all advisors. It provides hope that perhaps the trend toward self-advice is waning (a positive for full-service advisors) and it emphasizes the importance of client service and transparency. And it reemphasizes the importance of having a great website that provides clear and useful information to investors.

AK In The News: Opinion – SMA Death Rumors Are Greatly Exaggerated - June 11th, 2013

I was asked to write an opinion piece in today’s Fundfire (A Financial Times Service) on the future of SMAs and SMA managers; please contact me and I would be happy to send you the complete piece.

As a summary:

1) While other types of fee-based programs have been growing more quickly than SMAs recently – including UMAs, model portfolios, advisor-managed, alternative investments and ETFs – SMAs still have by far the largest share of assets under management and will not be going away anytime soon. While the growth of these other programs may limit their growth in retail wrap programs, I still see them doing well on the institutional side – where assets are stickier – and with advisors who see themselves as “purists,” and who avoid ETFs and alternative investments for most clients.

2) SMA managers that adapt will do well; those that don’t will probably suffer. But the world will look different to these managers: growth will be greater on the institutional side, at lower fees, which will eat into profit margins. But since sponsor firms on the retail side are taking a greater role in running model portfolios, these managers can probably reduce their distribution and marketing costs (as fewer wholesalers will be needed). In addition, as technology advances, for example on the currency and fixed income trading sides, they may be able to increase the breadth of their product offerings and venture into new areas.

The fee-based investment world is ever evolving, and many of the programs we see today were probably never envisioned a few years ago. But there is room enough in this growing area for multiple products and programs. The rumors of the death of the SMA are truly greatly exaggerated.

AK In The News: UMA Programs Face Advisor Adoption Challenge - June 6th, 2013

I was asked to comment on a piece in yesterday’s FundFire (A Financial Times Service) concerning the future of UMAs. While UMAs have grown considerably – assets have grown 84% in the past two years – the overall size of such programs, at $237.5 billion according to Cerulli Associates, is still far below that of SMAs (which are approaching AUM of almost $750 billion).

There are a number of reasons why UMAs have not grown as quickly as forecast when they first were introduced – among them the market crash of 2008. More recently, a plethora of new types of managed account programs – including, ETF, advisor-managed and alternative investments – have introduced competition that many had not foreseen a few years ago.

While the growth until now has been somewhat disappointing, many in the industry remain hopeful that the future is still bright for UMAs. I agree, but also think that these other types of fee-based programs – including SMAs – will also continue to grow, and therefore UMAs will not become as dominant as many thought they would once be. Certainly not an SMA killer!

A few things do bode well for the continued growth of UMAs – the move toward model programs being run by the sponsor, which should actually help grow all types of programs, the emphasis at the traditional brokerage firms on promoting UMAs to its newer and younger advisors, and the conversion of some platforms to UMAs (some might call it “forced” conversions.)

Technology is also going to keep advancing, and this may help UMAs in particular because of their flexible nature and because unlike some of the more product-specific programs, the ability of UMAs to hold multiple types of investments makes them attractive to a wide variety of investors and advisors.

What do you think the future holds for UMAs?