Unlocking Real Value Blog

Top Ten Thoughts of a Washington Veteran - May 14th, 2010

The keynote speaker at the Fi360 conference last week was Paul O’Neill – former CEO of Alcoa and Treasury Secretary under George W. Bush. His reputation is for being honest and straightforward – and he still is. Most refreshing was his willingness to admit that he has made mistakes and to give opinions even when they are unpopular – no wonder why he didn’t make it as a politician! Here are some very interesting things that he said:

10) The government is as guilty as anyone in showing a lack of fiduciary responsibility. He noted that in this meeting of almost 400 people focused on fiduciary responsibility, not one was from the government.

9) There should be a Chapter 11 mechanism for nations – especially those that do not live within their means (this was in a general comment about the events in Greece).

8) The real number for unfunded government liabilities is somewhere in the neighborhood of $63 trillion. If private sector managers ran their companies like the government runs its finances, they would probably be in jail.

7) The problem with the current 15,000 page proposed financial reform bill is that it is 14,998 pages too long.

6) Another problem with this bill is that people will still be allowed to purchase homes with as little as 5% down; the original proposal has this number at 2.5%.

5) While it is popular to say that the only way to deal with budget deficits is to either raise taxes or cut entitlements, this masks that real problems demand real solutions but are too hard politically. Examples include problems with our education system (see below).

4) 30% of ten-year olds in the US can’t read. How can this country remain great when 10% of its future workforce is ill-equipped?

4) Social Security is the greatest Ponzi Scheme in history – bigger than Madoff.

3) The recent health care reform failed to address quality and cost issues.

2) The US tax code costs $400 billion a year to administer and still under-collects taxes by 15%.

1) Politicians should educate not pander.

Finally, when referring to being fired by President Bush, he said that he is living proof that the true will set you free!

Brokerage Duo Forms $1.3B Indie Advisory Firm - May 13th, 2010

Published on May 13, 2010 – FUNDfire – An Information Service of Money-Media, a Financial Times Company
By Tom Stabile 

Two formerCredit Suisse advisors who left the brokerage with nearly all of their $1.2 billion in client assets have formed an independent shop in Baltimore. Harbor Investment Advisorynow has $1.3 billion in assets just a few months after launching, and is aiming to hire advisors – especially wirehouse veterans – to join the founders, Robert Black III and Stephen Kelly.

Efforts to recruit wirehouse advisors could be buoyed by Harbor’s dual-registered model, which has a unique element: the partners not only filed as a registered investment advisor with the Securities and Exchange Commission but also built their own broker-dealer arm under Financial Industry Regulatory Authorityrules. Becoming a FINRA member is a somewhat cumbersome step for new independent advisor firms, and therefore uncommon, but it resembles the mix of fee-based and transaction-based services the advisors offered beforehand, says Betsy Brennen, who is the firm’s third partner and serves as its COO and chief compliance officer

“We didn’t want to disrupt the relationships we had with customers who have been working with us for 25 years,” she adds. The firm, which has 10 employees, serves high-net-worth clients, foundations and endowments.

Harbor opened its doors on Feb. 1, a few weeks after Black and Kelly left Credit Suisse, though Brennen already had been on board helping to set up the firm. All three had worked together at Alex Brown & Sons in the late 1990s, and remained when Bankers Trust bought it in 1997 and later when Deutsche Bank bought the whole organization in 1999. Black and Kelly left a few years later, at separate times, for Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities, which Credit Suisse later bought.

“The vast majority of our clients migrated from Credit Suisse to Harbor, and that’s a reflection of the longstanding relationships Rob and Steve have with their clients,” Brennen says.

Harbor’s website states that the partners value the advantage of “having the focus and professionalism to deliver superior service” over being part of a large organization, and touts how it can “concentrate our efforts to provide a sophisticated suite of products and resources.”

Brennen says Harbor’s investment approach spans across options such as separately managed accounts, hedge funds, private equity, mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, and individual equity and fixed income securities. The firm custodies with BNY Mellon’s Pershing unit, and connects to a few of its managers through Pershing’s managed accounts platforms, but it does most resemble the set-up that Harbor’s clients previously had with the team. “It’s a bigger undertaking both financially and operationally,” she adds.

The partners assessed various other options, including joining existing platforms, before choosing to build the broker-dealer unit to handle transactional business from scratch. “This certainly wasn’t the least expensive option, primarily because of the net capital required [by regulators] and the capital outlay to build the infrastructure,” Brennen says. “Many advisors look into it and decide not to go forward with this approach. That’s why you see growth in the market of firms that cater to independent advisors with platforms and services. We simply wanted to be as independent as possible, and in this structure, we are beholden to no one.”

Among the added responsibilities of starting up and running a broker-dealer are extensive reporting, interview and filing requirements through FINRA, as well as the designation of partners for specific oversight functions and ongoing compliance duties. For instance, FINRA member firms have to designate specific principals or others responsible for compliance, financial affairs and operations. Harbor has outsourced some of its functions initially, but intends to fill all posts with internal resources as it fills out staffing, Brennen says.

Setting up a separate broker-dealer is a rare step for a new independent advisor firm, says Andrew Klausner, principal of AK Advisory Partners, a Boston-based consulting firm. It’s far more common for such firms to affiliate with another independent brokerage, he says.

Klausner says the move could make sense if the team plans to trade extensively or if the transactional side of the practice is a significant profit center. “But it’s a lot of work, a lot of expense,” he adds. “You don’t just do this as an accommodation for clients.”

He adds that there are some institutions that now are specifically seeking advisors that are separate from a broker-dealer arm, to ensure an “arm’s length” separation between advice and trading functions. But he says advisors in most brokerage formats will use external trading platforms when they need such access.

The F Word Rocks - May 10th, 2010

No – it’s not the word you’re thinking. The F word referred to here is Fiduciary. I was just at a conference sponsored by Fi360, an organization which provides fiduciary education and practice management training to the financial services industry (www.fi360.com).

This is a phrase that I heard – it is actually being promoted by The Committee for the Fiduciary Standard. You can gather from it that both organizations support the fiduciary standard for all industry participants (the current debate revolves around the broker/dealer world, where advisors are not held to this standard, and the RIA world where advisors are held to this standard).

Simply put, in the broker/dealer world (e.g., wirehouses), advisors are held to a suitability standard – know your client – is a given recommendation suitable for the client? The standard in the RIA world is higher – these advisors are held to a fiduciary standard – essentially, what would an expert in this area do in this situation?

It is unclear whether regulatory reform will mandate the fiduciary standard for all, but at this point it seems unlikely. Both sides have powerful lobbies and this issue is sure to rage on.

Interestingly, there were many wirehouse advisors at this conference and there are many that are members of Fi360 and have earned their AIF (Accredited Investment Fiduciary) designation. As this debate continues, I still believe that the key for any client is not where their advisor resides (wirehouse v. RIA), but rather what he/she has done to educate him/herself and what they do in their practice to help add value to their clients.

I have said it before and I will say it again – hiring an RIA who is held to the fiduciary standard does not guarantee the client that they will be satisfied any more than hiring a wirehouse advisor will assure dissatisfaction.

Until our regulatory agencies prove better at enforcement, the individual client is best served by doing extensive due diligence on their advisor or on advisor candidates regardless of which standard they are held to.

The Truth About Fees - May 4th, 2010

One of the most confusing things for many investors is understanding the fees that they are being charged on their investments. Especially when comparing various investment options, it is important that investors feel comfortable that they able to make an “apples” to “apples” comparison.

We have just written a new White Paper entitled The Truth About Fees  to help educate investors on fees in three of today’s common fee arrangements – commission accounts, working with a “fee-only” advisor or planner and “wrap-fee” accounts. We hope that you find this paper useful; feel free to pass it along to anyone else whom you feel would benefit from it.

How to Get Financial Reform on the Right Track - April 28th, 2010

I actually should have entitled this “How Not to Get Financial Reform Right,” but that didn’t sound as good! Most people agree that some reform of the financial services industry is necessary. The extent and details are of course quite controversial. But the only way that any legislation is going to be seen as legitimate is if it is bi-partisan and if it is done carefully – rushing a bill through as is currently being attempted is not in our best interest.

On one side you have the argument made by Christopher Dodd that we are 18 months into this crisis and no significant legislation has passed to prevent another crisis. Good point. On the other, however, the argument is that there is no rush or imminent threat, and that getting it right is the most important thing. The best articulation of this argument I heard was on NPR – it took three to four years following the Great Depression to get significant financial reform legislation reform passed. But those laws, passed in 1933 an 1934, are still in effect today and have proved to be very effective.

Now, I am not arguing that we should wait three or four years, but politics and elections aside, does it have to be done this week? Does the bill have to be 1,300 or so pages? And should the fact that many non-financial companies oppose some of the legislation make everyone think twice before rushing to judgment? For example, as I understand it, curbs on the derivatives markets in the current Senate bill would prevent some chocolate producers from hedging sugar prices, which would in all likelihood raise the price of your favorite candy. I know many people that would be pretty upset about this!

This is only one of many examples of unintended consequences. (I read yesterday that there are upwards of 100 examples of these types of unintended side effects from the bill.) Both sides of the political spectrum in the Senate seem to be negotiating in good faith at this time. Lets let them continue to do so until compromise is reached, or one side stops negotiating in good faith. This bill should not be rushed and it should not be politicized.

I am not being naive – I know that it is being rushed and politicized. It does, however, make me feel better to get it off my chest! Because so many people are frustrated today the attitude of something – some change – is better than nothing – or no change. I strongly disagree with this philosophy and think it creates many unintended longer-term problems.

Differentiating Your Business in the Age of Goldman - April 26th, 2010

We’ve talked in previous posts about differentiating yourself and protecting your reputation by defining a unique brand (The Importance of YOUR Brand). In addition, in light of all of the publicity today surrounding Goldman Sachs and financial services reform, all of us in the industry must adopt the mantra of “Transparency, Transparency, Transparency.”

When it comes to issues of trust, I firmly believe that if a client or prospect has to ask questions about what you have done to place their interests above your own, or how you are providing complete transparency, then it is too late. The only way to counteract the negative sentiment surrounding “Wall Street” is to proactively raise the trust issue with clients and prospects, to have an opinion and to be consistent in your behaviour.

Take the time to reread our White Paper Transparency = Client Confidence = Client Retention and formulate your own response to today’s events. Then take that message directly to your clients and incorporate it into the beginning of any presentations you make to prospects.

Keep in mind that people like to do business with people who are like them and who share their values. First, your brand should clearly differentiate you from the competition and highlight your unique value-added proposition; this will attract like-minded people to your practice. Once you have shown that you are someone that can be trusted, reinforce this trust by clearly articulating your views on the state of the industry and the steps that you have taken to safeguard your clients. Finally, commitment yourself to open and ongoing communications.

You can’t stop others from acting irresponsibly; but you can protect your clients, your business and your reputation.

Does Rebound Change Marketing Strategy? - April 21st, 2010

Published in Ignites – An Information Service of Money-Media, a Financial Times Company

Written by Andy Klausner, CIMA, CIS, the founder of AK Advisory Partners LLC., a strategic consultancy serving the wealth management industry.

It’s safe to say that most investment managers are certainly feeling better than they were a year ago, as are clients. However, it would be a mistake for firms to emphasize short-term performance over other longer-term changes that they have made in reaction to the financial crisis. I say this for a number of reasons:

• While markets have rebounded, most investors are still down close to 20% from the bull market peak. Happiness is a relative term. Therefore, it’s easy to understand why investors won’t be thrilled with performance that’s still a shadow of fourth quarter 2007 highs.

• Investors are focused on whom they do business with. That means they are interested to know in more detail why a manager performed the way it did and if such performance is repeatable. Investors have also educated themselves as a result of the financial crisis. They will be asking questions that go above and beyond performance. Managers that revise their marketing strategy to focus on the recent positive returns can come off as out-of-touch within this context. But a successful manager will proactively anticipate these questions rather than sit back and see if the client asks them.

• With all of the negative news about the industry over the past year — and certainly in light of the Goldman Sachs news — investors are focused more on issues such as transparency and disclosure. If managers are reevaluating their marketing strategy today, I would encourage them to keep those two latter themes in mind.

• Consider how the growth of social media has impacted the market over past several years. Investors are looking for partners who will address their particular concerns and ask the right questions  — a true partnership. Managers should be pushing out information to clients rather than trying to pull clients in, as was common in the past. This information must be about more than just performance. It has to add value to the client’s business.

Now, I am not saying that performance is not important. Certainly managers have to demonstrate how they have done in relation to their peers and benchmarks. But in today’s world, while this performance is the requisite to remain competitive, it’s not the overriding factor that investors are focused on. After all, there are literally hundreds of good managers out there today to choose from.

What differentiates one manager from another is the ability to add value above and beyond performance, and then to be able to clearly articulate that value to clients and prospects. They also must demonstrate that their organization is solid and has adapted successfully to the events of the past 18 months, and that they are interested in being a true partner with their clients. These are goals to which marketing efforts should be geared.

Top Ten Thoughts on the Goldman Sachs Mess - April 19th, 2010

I use the word “Mess” intentionally because there is so much noise surrounding the SEC’s actions – the timing of the charges, whether other firms will be charged, etc. In fact, I would venture to guess that few people know what the actual charges are! They just know that another large Wall Street firm is in the news – and not for a good reason.

So here are my thoughts on the matter:

10 – This is not an isolated incident – more dealers such as Goldman Sachs will be charged in the weeks and months to come; I wouldn’t be surprised if Goldman is charged in other cases as well.

9 – The greatest risk to Goldman Sachs is its reputational risk – not whatever fines they have to pay or other actions are filed (by New York Sate for example).

8 – Without passing judgment on Goldman Sachs’ culpability, the firm will survive this, and while they may lose some clients shorter-term, it will not significantly impact their long-term business. But their reputation and standing as an industry icon is diminished, regardless of the eventual outcome.

7 – The timing of these charges is suspect at best – coming in the middle of the financial reform debate and on the same day that the SEC is faulted for its handling of the Stanford Scandal and other cases. The SEC is attempting to revive its reputation and, as mentioned above, this is just the first of many announcements to come.

6 – While few oppose the idea of financial reform, I fear that the public outcry and political posturing will turn the debate and eventual regulation into more than it should be. Adding further bureacracy – as seems likely – is not the answer.

5 – It is not about the level of sophistication of the client – it is about the fiduciary responsibility for full disclosure. In fact, the mantra of our industry must be “Disclosure, Disclosure, Disclosure.”

4 – This and similar cases will demonstrate how little upper management at many firms really understand some of the most sophisticated derivatives products that they are selling – and that in and of itself is pretty scary!

3 – The actions of a few (individuals and firms) will continue to tarnish the reputation of the industry and the “us v. them” argument will continue in the headlines through this and perhaps the next election cycle.

2 – Proactive client service is more important than ever – need I say more?

1 – Did I mention the importance of disclosure?

More Black Eyes For Our Industry - April 13th, 2010

The financial services industry continues to get battered with bad publicity – last week saw the accelerated SEC/FINRA probes of bond funds at Morgan Keegan; today was news about Washington Mutual and their loan profile and a new name to most of us – Hudson Castle – an affiliate used by Lehman Brothers to shift investments off of its books.

The bad press also continues from Washington, where as financial reform is discussed, debated, and televised, the poor judgement and illegal actions of a few reflect poorly on the entire industry.  It is of course not nearly as news-worthy to focus on the vast majority of firms and individuals that don’t break the law. I am not sure about you, but the “Main Street” v “Wall Street” rhetoric has gotten really old!

My purpose here is not defend or judge these actions – but more so, since the tide of public opinion continues to flow against the industry, to suggest briefly how industry participants respond. The majority of industry participants do not engage in illegal activities and truly act in their clients best interest.

In this case the best defensive is offensive. If a client brings up these scandals to you – then it is probably too late. I recommend that you proactively contact clients to discuss the state of the industry and remind them of your standards and values – and remind them why they do business with you.

Clients will appreciate you taking the upfront approach, and being proactive will make you less susceptible to losing clients that for whatever reason begin to question you.

Top Ten Ways to Cross-Market to Grow Assets - April 8th, 2010

What are the best ways to deepen the client relationships that you currently have? How can you broaden your relationship with current clients – who should be your best referral sources?

10 – Give away what you used to sell

9 – Become part of your client’s community

8 – Have a consistent and identifiable brand

7 – Make sure that clients understand your value proposition

6 – Communicate, Communicate, Communicate

5 – Survey your clients

4 – Don’t try to be all things to all people

3 – Don’t over-commit

2 –  Listen – don’t talk!

1 – Push don’t pull