Archive for the ‘Advisors’ Category

What’s Holding Back UMA Programs?

Tuesday, August 31st, 2010

Published on August 31, 2010 – FUNDfire – An Information Service of Money-Media, a Financial Times Company- written by Andrew Klausner, Founder and Principal of AK Advisory Partners LLC.

The growth of unified managed account (UMA) programs has been far slower than many industry experts had predicted when the investment vehicles were first introduced. Assets under management in the investment vehicles stood at $79.5 billion at the end of the first quarter, compared to $566.2 billion in separately managed accounts (SMAs) and $317 billion in programs where the advisor acts as the portfolio manager, according to Cerulli Associates. What are the reasons why the UMA has so far failed to live up to its potential?

To start with, a current focus of many UMAs – to provide a model-based investment solution – goes against two important trends:

1) The bias of top-end advisors to migrate away from “packaged products.”

2) The desire for top-end advisors to position themselves at the center of relationships and to provide many of the services that UMAs do – namely rebalancing and tax-advantaged investing.

The events of the last two years have only increased the importance of advisors retaining control of their client relationships. This has only made the road even tougher for UMAs.

I mention top-end advisors because they generally have larger clients and far greater assets under management. In fact, UMAs are more appealing to smaller accounts, where access to a diversified portfolio of individually managed accounts is not available. However, in this space for smaller accounts, UMAs are competing with – and at a cost disadvantage to – emerging exchange-traded-fund programs and established mutual fund wrap programs at most brokerages.

Another reason for the disappointing growth of UMAs is that the industry has not been able to truly make these accounts as all-encompassing as first hoped. For example, alternative investments and other less-liquid investments still do not work in the typical UMA structure. If advisors still have to do their own work to provide comprehensive client-level reporting, a main rationale for investing in UMAs disappears.

A further twist is that what some consider to be the next generation of managed accounts – the unified managed household (UMH) – is really a client-level reporting vehicle rather than an investment vehicle per-se. If, as I believe, this type of total-client reporting and functionality is what top-end advisors really desire, the growth and development of the UMH bodes poorly for the future of UMAs as well.

In order to differentiate themselves and attract larger clients, advisors must be able to demonstrate their value-add on an ongoing basis. Packaged products are a commodity, and while they have their place, successful advisors don’t build their practices on a foundation of such offerings.

In addition, the industry has not done itself any favors by selling UMAs as a primarily model-based solution and by melding their SMA programs into UMAs, as some firms have been doing recently. Pushing UMAs as a by-product of reducing the number of products you offer may increase assets under management in these programs. However, it will not really make the UMA the product the industry has long touted. UMAs seem stuck between SMAs and the next generation UMHs with no place to go.

What Makes For a Good Financial Services Website?

Friday, August 27th, 2010

A recent report by Dalbar (a well-respected research firm in the financial services industry), which ranked the websites of top mutual fund companies, has some interesting implications for the entire industry. (I believe that the findings are germane to all segments of the industry – sponsor firms, investment managers, RIAs, etc. So take notice!)

Let’s start with the overall conclusion – it’s critical that websites are easy to navigate and that content is easy to find. In addition, continuity among the different features being offered is important; for example, the use of social media should complement the functionality of the website and fit naturally.

Poor functionality will lead to frustration on the part of the user and any value-added contained in additional content will be lost. An effective website must have good design (which includes the look as well as the functionality) as well as good content. One without the other is not enough. To quote an executive at a large fund family, “It’s all about getting the right content to the right person at the right time.”

In designing your website, make sure that you dedicate the necessary resources to both design and content!

There were a few other interesting findings in the report as well. The use of mobile, social media and interactive features is increasing. Again, while this is not surprising, it’s important to reiterate that the most effective sites allow clients as well as prospects to utilize the information and access the resources of the company the way that they want to – it’s all about the user! Make it user-friendly!

Finally, the “viral” component – the ability for readers to share the information with others – is growing significantly (the phenomenon is called social sharing.) People want to share content that they find useful, especially when it comes to their finances, and making it easy for them to do so helps spread your brand further – and faster!

Who Controls the Client Experience?

Friday, August 20th, 2010

I wasn’t surprised to see that Raymond James just announced that it was hiring a Director of Client Experience. What was surprising is that the design of this position is to communicate directly with clients. The firm acknowledged the slippery slope that it is now embarking on – how to directly interact with clients without upsetting its advisors.

This should be an interesting “experiment.” Personally, I like the idea of hiring a Director of Client Experience, but would rather have this person work with the training department to help provide advisors the resources to enhance and promote the activities that they do to make their individual client experience unique – this is part of each advisors unique value proposition and is a point of differentiation between them and their competitors.

Especially scary is the analogy the new Director made to Starbucks and how they have been able to institutionalize the client experience. (The article mentions that Starbucks is famous for bringing fast, fun friendly service to customers on a highly consistent basis.) Most sophisticated clients choose their advisors for the services they provide first and the hope that they will become long-term partners; the firm they work for, or the broker/dealer they are associated with is usually far less important. Given that fact, I for one do not see the value-added of the firm engaging in this new enterprise, and in fact see it doing potentially a lot more harm than good if it alienates enough advisors.

Call me an old dog – and I may be proved wrong – but institutionalizing client service deemphasizes the importance of the individual advisor and is more of a strategy aimed at the mass market – successful advisors today are reducing the number of client relationships that they have, concentrating on fewer larger relationships where they can make a difference. I am not sure how this new strategy can help top advisors.

Am I missing something?

Social Media and the Financial Services Industry

Thursday, July 29th, 2010

Needless to say, I am a believer in the important role that social media has in helping to build a financial services business; it has helped me in my practice tremendously. I reviewed the best book that I have read on the topic – The Digital Handshake by Paul Chaney – in this blog on March 13th. I still think you should read the book for a great overview of the many social media outlets that are available and how they might be relevant to your particular business.

For those that are ready to jump in though, I wanted to introduce an exciting new online resource called Jarupa. Jarupa offers online courses in learning WordPress, Email Marketing, Social Media, Search Engine Optimization and much more. Click here to learn more about Jarupa. Now – for purposes of full disclosure – Jarupa is the brainchild of Angela Nielsen, a strategic partner with AK in Zenith Creative Group.

Take a look for yourself – investing a few hours of your time in an on-line class is the quickest way to make social media work for you!

RIAs and Social Media – The “Truth” According To Some

Monday, July 26th, 2010

To use social media or not to use social media – that has become one of today’s most commonly asked questions among RIAs. I fall into the affirmative camp  – social media can be a great tool to accomplish any number of goals – growing your business, staying in contact with clients, etc.

A new study by Pershing-Aite yielded some interesting results on this topic. While the results of the study are interesting, I need to caution readers that the survey included only 144 financial advisors. Of those 144, 1/3 were from firms with greater than $1billion under management, 37% were from firms with less than $100 million and the remainder were in the middle. 55% of the respondents were hybrid advisors; 45% were fee-only advisors. A nice – but small mix of advisors. Some of the key takeaways from the article are:

1- Advisors using social media had growth rates of revenues, AUM and clients averaging 19% over the three categories, while those that don’t averaged only 6% growth in the three categories.

2- The fastest growers were big marketers in general, thus social media was only one component of their overall marketing plan; the above results may therefore be overstated (a victory for active marketing overall if not social media in particular!).

3- The biggest practices (as measured by assets) were not the biggest users of social media.

4- 43% of the respondents used social media (LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter, blogs, etc.) professionally (67% personally).

5- LinkedIn was the most popular means of social media used, following by Facebook, Twitter and then blogs. (I am a bit surprised that blogs did not score higher, although they do require a larger time commitment).

6- One in five surveyed said that they increased revenues and fees because of their use of social media. Most (42%) said they used social media primarily as a way to reach new prospects, followed by increasing awareness of their practice, differentiation themselves and then increasing revenues.

7- The primary reason cited for not using social media was compliance, followed by regulatory concerns and negative publicity.

Overall, these results are interesting and not surprising. The jury remains out for many Advisors as to the benefit of using social media. The positive of this reluctance by some is that it makes those advisors that do use social media stick out that much more!

Strong Websites Drive Sales for Investment Managers

Wednesday, July 21st, 2010

Today’s article in Ignites – Strong Websites Drive Sales: Study – highlights a recent survey of 536 financial advisors by kasina; these advisors spanned all channels. The results indicate that the quality of an investment manager’s website affects product decisions by advisors – particularly among higher-end advisors. If I were an investment manager, I would take these results to heart.

The survey, entitled “What Advisors Do Online 2010” had a number of interesting conclusions:

1- Advisors in the top 10% of assets spent the most time online each week; in particular, the majority of these advisors visited the sites for news and commentary.

2- For all advisors, the main information sought was pricing, performance and product-specific information, followed by news and commentary.

3- 68% of respondents said that they shared this information with clients (investors).

4- 77.5% of these advisors use social media in some way in their businesses.

So lesson number one from this article for investment managers is that advisors do find value in their websites. But the article goes further to point out that it is important that all of the components of a manager’s marketing efforts work together to be most effective. For example, wholesalers should encourage advisors to look at the website for information rather than view the website as internal competition that might make the advisor more reluctant to spend time with him or her.

Finally, the article mentions the important of the design and ease of use of the website – because reality says that if an advisor goes to a manager’s website and it is hard to navigate or it takes a long time to get the information that they want, they will 1) go to a competitors website; and 2) they will never come back! One good rule of thumb that is pointed out is the two click rule – it should never take more than two clicks to get information of interest.

To summarize, this article has some interesting implications for investment managers. Advisors are willing to use websites for information, integrating marketing efforts are effective and not to be overlooked is the functionality of the website – ease of use is key!

Wirehouses Lure Back Some Indie Brokers

Monday, July 19th, 2010

Wirehouses Lure Back Some Indie Brokers is the title of an interesting piece in today’s FundFire. The article highlights the story of a few advisors that have gone back to wirehouses after testing the waters as an independent – in some cases for many years. The reasons given for the moves back to wirehouses range from having to spend too much time running the business – thus reducing client-facing time – to the attractive and often times new banking offerings of some of the wirehouses (given mergers over the past few years).

Do these examples signal a reverse of the trend that we have seen over the past few years? I don’t believe so. I think that this article illustrates what we have been saying for some time – going independent is not for everyone. The reasons cited for returning to wirehouses are the very reasons that some wirehouse advisors will – or should – never go independent in the first place.

Independents run their own businesses. They go very quickly from advisors with a book of clients to business owners with drastically increased responsibilities. For some advisors, the move is a good one; for others, it’s not. This article could have just as easily focused on a few examples of independents that decided to join wirehouses and then regretted the decision.

The important lesson here for all advisors is that making any move is important enough that it should not be done without extensive research and introspection. There is no right or wrong answer – some people thrive at wirehouses while others thrive as independents. But it’s very difficult to ask clients to move more than once – so my advice is to take your time making the decision – over-analyze if necessary – because making two moves is more than twice as hard as making one move.

Advisors and the Fiduciary Standard (and Other Things on Their Minds)

Monday, July 12th, 2010

A survey of financial advisors in Today’ FundFire, entitled Falling Comp, Poor, Management Rattle Advisors, yielded some interesting results. The headline and initial focus of the article is concern over reduced compensation and the feeling by advisors that their companies were being poorly managed. Given that the majority of the respondents were from wirehouses, neither concern is surprising.

It’s also not surprising that wirehouse advisors felt that management was too concerned with the bottom line at the expense of investing in the future growth of the business. I have blogged previously my thoughts on how cuts in sales assistants, for example, were short-sighted.

But what I found to be the most interesting part of the survey was near the bottom of the article. Only 10% of the respondents, when asked what the greatest challenge facing the industry was, answered the fiduciary standard and other regulatory reform. This is both surprising and not surprising.

This low percentage is surprising given the large amount of attention regulatory reform has been getting in the press. Perhaps many of the respondents were 1) focusing on the fact that the currently proposed regulation is not too negative for broker/dealers overall; and 2) that the fiduciary standard is not currently part of the regulation unless a six month study by the SEC results in some further action (perhaps this also reflects the fact that not many people have confidence that the SEC will actually do anything!).

Why the results were not surprising to me is that many Advisors at wirehouses feel that even though they are not currently held to the fiduciary standard, they themselves do act like fiduciaries, and therefore even if the standard becomes law, it will not significantly affect them or their personal business. My guess is that they also feel that the broker/dealers themselves will have to make the majority of the adjustments. This view is naive, however, because if the standard were mandated, it would affect the products most advisors would be able to sell (as revenue-sharing would disappear), and it would greatly affect how broker/dealers are run in general. There would most definitely be a trickle down effect onto individual advisors.

Perhaps management of the wirehouses should spend some time over the next six months (assuming the legislation is passed) educating their advisors on the issue so that they can become advocates for their companies and their position on the issue. The odds still favor no fiduciary standard for broker/dealers in the foreseeable future; but why take the chance?

Creating a Compelling Client Experience

Thursday, July 8th, 2010

I’ve just finished a new White Paper entitled Creating a Compelling Client Experience, which was part of our third quarter Unlocking Real Value eNewsletter.

Given what has gone on in the markets over the past few months, many people are saying to themselves “Oh No, Not Again!” Personally, I think the odds of a double-dip recession have increased, as it has become evident that the economy is still struggling.

Yesterday’s market rally not withstanding, I think we are in for some rough times in the short-term. Let me emphasize short-term. As I have been saying for the past two years, the answer to the “Oh No…” is “This Too Shall Pass.”

Regardless of what happens this quarter, or next quarter, we are all in business for the long-term. And the challenge is to continually distinguish ourselves in our businesses. That’s the goal of the White Paper – it presents ideas for creating a client experience that will distinguish you from the competition – in any market environment.

Enjoy the paper and please let me know what you think.

How to Think Smarter About Risk

Tuesday, June 29th, 2010

There was an interesing article in the WSJ recently entitled How to Think Smarter About Risk. Many of the ideas are worth thinking about and incorporating into your business if you are an advisor, although I have to admit that there were a few things in the article that I disagreed with.

The primary point of the article is that while many advisors consider how clients feel about risk and how they feel about the market overall (bullish v. bearish sentiment) when devising an asset allocation strategy, they often neglect to take into account the client’s human capital – their personal balance sheet.

Human capital is essentially a measure of future earnings. For example, if you work in the financial services industry, even if you are very optimistic about the market and willing to take a lot of risk, since your job might be at risk in another market downturn, this risk factor should be incorporated into your asset allocation (in essence resulting in a more conservative approach). The article contrasts this to a professor with tenure, where their job is relatively safe. Human capital can be quantified in terms of beta – is your beta higher or lower than the market? Thought of another way, are you more like a bond (risk-averse) or a stock?

I agree that human capital should be considered when an investor and their advisor devise an asset allocation. Part of the value-added of hiring an advisor is that he/she is able to incorporate the many facets of your life into your investment plan. A good advisor will take the time to really get to know clients and not simply base the investment plan on the answers to a 10-question risk assessment. I also agree with the article that decisions to buy insurance should also take human capital into account. The more stable the value of your human capital, the more insurance you should have to protect it, and vice versa.

One point that I don’t agree in the article, however, is its contention that high beta investors – investors whose human capital tends to fluctuate with the market and who should therefore be somewhat more conservative in their investments – should have little invested in the market during the first decade or two of their working lives, and more than conventional wisdom recommends during the later years. This idea, in my opinion, fails to take into account the powerful value of compounding. Factor your human capital in – yes – let it dictate your investing – no.

I also disagree with the authors take on education. The premise that the decision of what degree should be pursued should be intertwined with a eye toward hedging your long-term human capital seems somewhat cynical. If my son wants to pursue an undergraduate degree in history on his way to law school or whatever else he does, I for one am not going to try and dissuade him.

My conclusion is that while the article takes the issue of human capital a little too far for my tastes, the concept itself is important and advisors that integrate this issue into their fact finding and asset allocation decision-making are not only doing their clients a great service, but perhaps distancing themselves from the competition at the same time.