Archive for the ‘Banks’ Category

AK In The News: Merrill Lynch, Fidelity Have Best Brands

Friday, February 8th, 2013

I was asked to comment on a Fundfire (a Financial Times Service) article about which financial services firms have the best brands. Readers were polled, and the firms that came out on top as having the best brand reputation were Merrill Lynch and Fidelity; BNY Mellon came in last. I was asked to comment on two things – why BNY Mellon did so poorly, and if I thought these results among financial services professionals would be the same if high net worth individuals were asked the same question.

On the BNY Mellon question, I honestly think that since most of the respondents were probably either RIAs or B/D brokers, they probably didn’t know that much about BNY, more of a boutique firm. I don’t think it reflects any problems with the firm itself; while being associated with a bank might hurt its standing, it certainly didn’t seem to affect Merrill Lynch’s standing.

The second question was more interesting, because I do think that if high net worth individuals would have been polled, they would have had a different answer. To quote from the article:

“Experts offer differing opinions on whether firms’ reputations within the wealth management industry differ from their reputations among the client population – high-net-worth and ultra-high-net-worth investors.

Klausner sees a potential difference in public image and industry image, particularly in light of the bad press that some types of firm have received since the 2008 financial crisis. “Especially with the term ‘too big to fail’ mentioned so often, it seems logical that any financial services firm associated with a bank – like UBS or Merrill Lynch – will probably have a worse image with the public than with people in the industry who know how these firms really operate and what their relative advantages and disadvantages are,” he says.

“I would imagine that Fidelity and Schwab have good images with investors as they have escaped a lot of the bad press,” he notes.”

I would be interested to see which side you agree with!

AK In The News: ETFs v. Mutual Funds in 2013

Thursday, January 3rd, 2013

I was asked to comment for an article in today’s Ignites (a Financial Times Service) on whether ETFs (passively managed investments) would continue to gain market share at the expense of actively managed mutual funds, as has been the case over the past few years. The article reviewed the results of a poll on whether or not investors would be putting more money into equities this year, and if so, in what types of investment vehicles.

Roughly 26% or respondents thought that investors would move back into equities this year, the most popular answer. This was followed by 23% which said that actively managed funds will lose ground to passively managed funds. These were the top two answers in a similar poll last year.

I agree more with the second answer than the first. To quote from the article: ” Andy Klausner, founder and principal of AK Advisory Partners, says that the trend of actively managed funds’ losing ground to passively managed funds and ETFs will likely accelerate somewhat this year. “Many individual investors are still on the sidelines, and there are still a lot of unknowns facing the economy this year, including the impending spending and debt limit negotiations in February or March…. I am not optimistic that overall inflows will be great this year, but whatever flows that there are should favor ETFs,” he explains.”

I continue to believe that this will be a very unsettled year in the markets, largely the result of geo-political issues here and abroad. Since there has been a lot of money on the sidelines, it is inevitable that some will come back into the market – but not nearly enough to compensate for the large outflows of the past few years.

What money does come back in, however, will favor ETFs over actively managed mutual funds for a number of reasons – including their lower fees, the ability they offer to easily diversify among sectors/countries and the fact that many brokerage/banks investment platforms have begun to include model ETFs programs to mirror their mutual fund offerings. This latter move will make ETFs more readily available to a larger number of investors.

What do you think?

Top 10 (or 12) 2013 Predictions

Thursday, December 20th, 2012

As 2012 comes to a close, it’s time to make predictions for next year. With no election, I at first thought it might be difficult to come up with predictions, but as I began to write down some ideas, I found that there is indeed a lot going on worthy of discussion. Unfortunately, I am anticipating a difficult 2013, in large part driven by political uncertainty here and abroad. Here goes:

10 – Regardless of how the current fiscal cliff negotiations end (I am thinking there will be a small deal to get us through either just before or just after Dec. 31), no grand bargain will take place next year – on either tax reform or entitlement reform. Obama’s continued campaigning to rally public support for his ideas has ensured that Republicans will do almost anything to block him next year. Not saying that this behavior is right – it’s just inevitable.

9 – The one area where we will see major legislation is immigration reform. The Republicans desperately need an image boost here, and so this is the one exception where the two parties will work together to pass something. (Given the events in Newtown next week, there will be some movement on gun control, perhaps a ban on assault weapons, but more far-reaching gun control will be hard to attain.)

8 – The Euro crisis will deepen once again after a relatively quiet 2012. Italian elections could become a farce, and Greece, Spain and Portugal remain trouble spots. I don’t see any exits from the Euro in 2013, but I do expect more dissent from the populaces of the Northern European countries.

7 – By the end of 2013 Hillary Clinton will strongly signal (if not outright declare) her intention to run for President in 2016.

6 – Merkel will win re-election in Germany, but her victory will be very small and her party will be weakened as German voters show their displeasure over the continued drain the Euro crisis is having on the country.

5 – The stock market will be down for the year, perhaps by 10%. I think January is going to be a very tough month as realty sets in that the country’s finances are in real trouble. Even if the fiscal cliff is partially solved, it will hit home that tax rates are going to go up (in part because of some of the provisions of Obamacare going into effect) and people will realize that the recovery is not as strong as believed. Encouraging employment numbers will reverse, and the reality will set in that the numbers have been skewed by more people leaving the work force – which is not a positive sign.

4 – The US economy will not go into a major  recession, though it may come close and may even technically experience a minor recession. As stated above, I see growth slowing. I also see declines in consumer sentiment and business confidence, but I don’t think the slowdown will be enough to push us into a major downdraft.

Specifically for financial services:

3 – I do see a major deal being announced among the major wirehouses – Bank of America Merrill Lynch, UBS, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo. I’m not sure what it’s going to look like – perhaps a bank selling off its wealth management division – but something major is going to take place.

2 – I see continued consolidation in the asset management arena, with a number of major deals being announced. Firms will continue to find it hard to go it alone, and will benefit from the operational synergies of combining forces.

1 – RIAs will continue to make news by taking advisors from the wirehouses, but I think the wirehouses will hold their own and have a pretty decent year. The negative news about the brokerage arms of these institutions will continue to abate.

Those are my top ten – but as I am doing them – I realize that I have to add two more:

11 – While I don’t see major changes to Dodd/Frank, I do think the banks are going to be beat-up on by Elizabeth Warren in her new role on the Senate Banking Committee. Bashing banks seems to be in vogue, and perhaps if my other predictions of other major legislation getting bogged down come true, the Democrats might use the banks as their way to show how tough they are.

12 – Alabama will win the BCS Championship and the 49ers the Super Bowl. You can’t have predictions without sports, now can you?

If Your Clients Are Worried, You Should Be Too

Monday, December 17th, 2012

As we approach the new year, according to at least one poll, advisors and their clients aren’t on the same page. Clients are  more worried about the outlook for the economy in 2013 than their advisors are, with implication that advisors should put their optimism aside for a minute and concentrate on how they can address their client’s concerns.

First, the poll itself, which was conducted by SEI, a provider of fund processing and investment management outsourcing services. 86% of the 275 advisors polled felt that the economy will be better or the same in 2013 than it was in 2012. However, 73% of these advisors also said that their clients are apprehensive or fearful about the prospects for the year ahead. Less than 1% felt that their clients were optimistic about the year ahead.

Additionally, while 75% of the advisors polled said that they were better off than they were in 2012 as compared to four years ago, only 55% thought that their clients would share that opinion about themselves.  This second point is pretty scary if you think about it. If more advisors think that they are better off than their clients are, what does that say about how they have performed over the time period? If I felt that way about my clients, I would be very worried about losing many of them, wouldn’t you?

Many of these same advisors expressed concern over what is going on with the fiscal cliff and government dysfunction, which is somewhat at odds with their optimism for the economy. In any case, the most important implication for advisors is that regardless of your personal feelings for the outlook for the year ahead, it’s vital that you put these feelings aside and ask yourself  how you can reassure your clients about their concerns.

Hey, it’s great if you are optimistic about the coming year and beyond. But you and your clients will be best served if you can frame this optimism and explain it in such a way that it makes clients feel better and helps them feel more comfortable about their own financial futures. After all, that is what your job is. And only if clients feel better about their own outlook will they remain loyal to you. Remember – it should always be about them, not about you.

A Look Back At My 2012 Top 10 Predictions

Tuesday, December 11th, 2012

It’s time to look back at my predictions from a year ago and see how I did. All in all, a mixed bag of results. Next week, I’ll have my 2013 predictions. (Each predication is followed by comments in bold.)

10 – The Presidential election is the Republicans to lose. I retain this view even as the Republicans (led by the House) are self-destructing and opening the door for Obama. If the candidate is Romney, Huntsman or someone with similar moderate views that can attract independents AND there is no third-party candidate, then Obama is out. If, on the other hand, the candidate is Gingrich, Paul, Bachman or some other candidate who can not attract independents AND/OR a third-party candidate emerges, then we will have four more years of Obama. I know that that is a lot of “ifs,” but we are still early in the race. My money is on a Romney presidency starting in 2013. I was wrong on this one. The Republicans did pick a candidate that could have won, however, I think it’s fair to say that he didn’t run a very compelling campaign – he let his opponent define him from the beginning of the campaign. I think over time, Republicans will view this as one of their greatest disappointments ever – if was their election to lose, and they did.

9 – The Democrats will retain control of the Senate, although with a smaller majority, in part because like in 2008, the Republicans will put up some unelectable candidates (can anyone say Rhode Island?). The Republicans will retain the House of Representatives, which will look pretty much the same as it does now. Sorry Nancy. Pretty much right here except that the majority is a little larger in the Senate although that doesn’t make a whole lot of difference. Again, this was more the Republicans losing than the Democrats putting up a compelling case.

8 – The Supreme Court will uphold the legality of Obama’s Health Care plan, but this will make it an even more polarizing issue in the election (since the decision should come in the Spring). If a Republican is elected President, it will be continue as an even more contentious subject in 2013 and beyond, as the legislative branch will take the lead in repealing parts of the plan. I got this one right – but since Obama was reelected it won’t be as contentious next year as it would have been. There will be no repeal.

7 – The stock markets will end slightly up for the year, helped by a year-end relief rally after the election. Volatility should be relatively low, as many investors will stay on the sidelines because of all of the political uncertainty. Another “lost” year like this one. It will remain a stock pickers market – driven largely by earnings in the few sectors of the economy that will do well. Pretty close here – although the year-end rally has been held in check by the fiscal cliff discussions. It has definitely been a stock pickers market though.

6 – The U.S. economy will not go into recession, though following continuing turmoil in Europe, will get dangerously close. Unemployment will dip somewhat then increase again to about 9% at election time because there will be no significant job bills enacted and political gridlock will dampen demand. Housing will remain in the dumps. The positive economic news of the past month is deceiving. Kinda right, kinda wrong. No recession in the US, but problems do remain in Europe. Unemployment has not gone back up – but it hasn’t gone way down either. Housing, however, has made a good recovery, which bodes well for the future.

5 – Europe will go into recession (maybe not all countries but as a whole). There will have to be a number of emergency summits once again, as everyone realizes that the actions enacted in 2011 were only band-aid measures and that real problems remain. The divergence between the stronger Northern European countries and weaker Southern European ones will continue. Many of the European countries have gone back into recession, and Euro problems are far from being solved. 

4 – The Euro will survive 2012 – barely – and I imagine a year from now the outlook for its continuation past 2012 will be very bleak. Back to those summits for a second – hopefully there won’t be 8 or 9 like there were this year! The Euro did survive. I’m not sure how many summits there actually were, but it does seem like there were fewer than last year.

3 – The Occupy movements will continue sporadically throughout the year as economic conditions stagnate. I don’t think they will pick-up significantly, however, and absent the emergence of any real leadership – to voice a unified concern or theme in a cohesive manner – the November elections might signal their end. I was on target here – the Occupy movement has pretty much disappeared from public view. I do have to say, however, if you walk in front of the Trinity Church, by Broadway and Wall Streets, there are still people there. However, the only reason I know that is because I was there recently – it has faded from media interest.

As for the financial services industry:

2 – At least one major brokerage firm will be sold or spun off by its bank-parent (this excludes Morgan Keegan; in this case, if MK is not sold by the end of the first quarter, I predict that Regions Financial itself will be gobbled up by a larger bank). The bank/brokerage marriages have in large part not worked, so 2012 could be the beginning of the end for many of these relationships. Hint – ML. I am a little early on this one – didn’t happen in 2012, but… On Morgan Keegan, the sale to Raymond James was a good strategic fit, but the jury is still out if Regions survives.

1 – The wirehouses will continue to lose advisors to the independent, RIA and semi-independent channels. The attractiveness of working for one of the big four is just not what it used to be – both from a reputational point of view as well as an ease of doing business one. The wirehouses aren’t going to disappear though – just continue to become less dominant. I was right on target here. The RIA space did continue to grow – but as I have said many times, the wirehouses aren’t going anywhere.

2012 was an interesting year from both political and economic prospectives. Can’t wait to see what 2013 holds.

 

AK In The News: UBS, Wells Fargo Best Positioned For 2013

Friday, December 7th, 2012

I was asked to comment on a survey in today’s FundFire (a Financial Times Service) about which of four wirehouses – Bank of America Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley Wealth Management, UBS Wealth Management America and Wells Fargo Advisors – is best positioned for 2013.

First, the poll results. Interestingly, respondents were pretty equally split in their predictions – with 26% for UBS and Wells Fargo and 24% for each of the other two. (UBS actually had four more votes than Wells Fargo even though the percentages are the same.) This is much different than the results a year ago, where Morgan Stanley garnered the support of 46% of respondents and UBS only 16%. Unquestionably, the general feeling is that UBS has recovered from a lot of the negative press that has hounded it for the past few years.

UBS may also have gained from reports that ranked its advisors as the most productive of the wirehouses in recently released third quarter data ( Wells Fargo was not included in this study). Additionally, dropping the Smith Barney might have hurt the results for Morgan Stanley, as many of the old Smith Barney advisors were not happy with this change and they may have participated in this survey and voted against their own firm.

Overall, however, the results reflect my general feeling that entering 2013, all of the wirehouses are pretty much on equal footing. A lot of the negative press that has hounded them since 2008 has abated (although that could have been a by-product of all of the press that was concentrated on the election). A potential negative facing all of them next year is Elizabeth Warren’s apparent appointment to the Senate Banking Committee. She will be a pain for all of the banks.

From the article: “Andy Klausner, founder and principal of AK Advisory Partners, agrees with the 27% of FundFire readers who say that Wells Fargo is best positioned. “I don’t see a clear-cut winner right now based on relative strengths, but almost by process of elimination, Wells Fargo has had the least amount of negative press surrounding them, and they have done well in the recruiting wars, so I would have to give them a slight edge over the others,” he explains.”

Why Are More Investors Going It Alone?

Friday, November 30th, 2012

So much of the focus today in the advisor world is on the relative growth of RIAs vis-a-vis their competition at wirehouses and other traditional B/Ds, what often gets lost is the investors that they are all going after. And recent statistics show a worrisome trend – the trend of investors deciding to “do-it-themselves” has taken on momentum.

This trend favors banks and self-directed firms and the expense of full-service firms. According to a recent study by Hearts & Wallets, most firms showed a decline between 2011 and 2012 in investors “intent to invest more” and “intent to recommend.” (Two exceptions were Vanguard and T. Rowe Price.) Full-service brokerages share of households with $1 million or more to invest fell from 36% in 2011 to 32% in 2012. On the other hand, banks share increased from 13% to 17% during the same period of time; the survey data used included 5,400 households. According to the results, less than 2/3 of investors now use an investment professional.

The question is, why are investors so frustrated? The study indicates that investors:

  • Don’t understand their advisors’ (or potential advisors) value proposition
  • Don’t understand the pricing models; and
  • Don’t feel that they have a way to evaluate advisors other than using absolute return.

I actually see some good news in this. All three of these frustrations, while understandable, are easily addressed. Let’s take them one at a time.

If an advisor doesn’t have an easily understandable and visible value proposition which they can articulate, then they don’t deserve the business. Whether you have an elevator speech, a tag line or a mission statement, you better make it clear very early on why you are different from the thousands of other advisors out there. If you don’t, shame on you.

As for pricing, if you aren’t upfront about your pricing, and if it isn’t fully transparent, then you have a problem. This is another issue that if addressed head-on early in the relationship can actually be used as a selling and differentiating point. If you wait until the client has to ask about it, then it’s probably too late.

And on the measurement issue, advisors would be well served to adapt some version of goals-based analysis. If you take the time upfront to learn about the client, help them define goals and milestones, and show them a pathway to get there (and measure progress along the way), you should have a long-term client; if you don’t, then maybe you’re in the wrong business.

There is great opportunity for those advisors that rise to the occasion – because I have no doubt that many of these investors who try to go it along are going to be very unhappy with the results and will be looking for an advisor again very soon.

What Do Successful Advisors Have In Common?

Monday, November 19th, 2012

PriceMetrix, a leading industry think tank, recently issued a new report entitled “Moneyball For Advisors.” The study’s name is a takeoff on Michael Lewis’ book which detailed how the Oakland A’s used statistics – rather than high priced players – to assemble a championship-caliber baseball team. If you would like a copy of the study, please contact me.

The question PriceMetrix set out to answer is whether or not analytics can be used to gain an informal advantage in recruiting and advisor development. Their answer – and the data do seem to support it – is definitely yes. While I will focus on how advisors can learn from this study, PriceMetrix also analyzed the data in a way that should help recruiters and companies hire advisors who have a better chance of succeeding in the long-run (and thus in many cases justifying the paying of a large up-front bonus).

So, according to the statistics, what should advisors do to maximize their future production?

  • Maximize the percentage of fee-based business in their book;
  • Have a high number of households with more than $250,000 in assets;
  • Have a willingness to “fire” households with less than $250,000 (and to minimize the number of them);
  • Have deep client relationships (measured by multiple accounts per client and having a large number of retirement accounts); and
  • Be experienced – all other things being equal, past success bodes well for future success.

Advisors can control every aspect of their future production except for the last one. While there is little new in these results, they do reinforce much of today’s conventional wisdom.

As advisors consider their 2013 business plans, unless they have a natural niche that goes against conventional wisdom (and I will be the first to admit that some advisors do and can do well in these areas), they should target larger clients where there is the potential to build a deeper relationship by capturing more assets (and more family members if possible), and they should focus their sales and asset management on fee-based (or recurring) assets.

Food for thought to any advisor looking to the future.

(As a side note, one of the reasons I like to use PriceMetrix, and have confidence in their reports, is the breadth of their sample size. This study use aggregated retail brokerage data representing 6 million investors, 500 million transactions, 1.6 million fee-based accounts, 7 million transactional accounts and over $3.5 trillion in investment assets.)

AK in the News: Mutual Funds and the Election

Wednesday, November 7th, 2012

I was asked to comment for an article in today’s Ignites (a Financial Times Service) which indicated (not surprisingly) that people in the mutual funds industry prefer Romney to Obama. (The ignites poll indicated that 58% preferred Romney to 39% for Obama.) The comments were made before we knew the results of the election.

My quote from the article: “Wall Street obviously would prefer a Romney victory because he is perceived as being pro-business. The hope is that business confidence would increase more quickly under a Romney administration which would translate into more hiring. If investor confidence increased, that would also be good for fund flows, as some of the money sitting on the sidelines might flow back into the equity markets.”

Further, “Regardless of who is the next president, a split Congress is likely, which makes earth-shattering legislative changes unlikely, according to Klausner. Regarding regulation, “Romney would push quicker for a reform of Dodd-Frank reform — not no regulation, but less strenuous regulation. Even some Democrats might agree that the legislation needs to be reformed — but again, under either scenario, large changes are unlikely,” he explains. Due to the fiscal cliff — expiring tax cuts, new taxes and automatic spending cuts that start in January if lawmakers can’t reach an agreement by the end of this year — Congress and the president probably will have to make a short-term deal on taxes, Klausner notes.””

So, now that Obama has won the election, businesses will remain jittery until there is some resolution to the fiscal cliff. The lame duck Congress is likely to come-up with a short-term solution to get us through the end of the year. Then – who knows. If the President can show some real leadership – leadership that was lacking in his first term – perhaps a grand deal can be struck next year. If not, the proverbial can will be kicked further down the road.
And on regulation – any changes to Dodd-Frank just became far less likely and the cumbersome nature of the legislation will continue to be a drag on business moving forward.

 

AK In The News: Bond, Index Funds Big Flow Winners In First Half

Friday, August 3rd, 2012

I was asked to comment on an article that appeared in today’s Ignites (A Financial Times Service) about the fact that bond and index funds were the top five asset gathers for the first half of the year.

These results are not surprising to me, as this reflects investors’ “overall negative mood on equities and aversion to risk. Investors in equities have not been rewarded over the past decade, and the gyrations of the past few years — where the calendar years have started out great and then fizzled — have not helped this confidence. Record amounts of money have been kept on the sidelines, and given that there is little optimism that the equity markets are going to perform very well until all of the political uncertainty here and abroad subsides, those individual investors who choose to leave cash are looking for safety. Institutional investors continue to dominate the marketplace.”

While there are risks to investing in bonds and bond funds, of course, is it typically less than investing in stocks.

The above explanation covers investing in bond funds, but why index funds as well? To quote from the article again: “The growing concern that institutions “have and will continue to have the advantage over individuals” is also partially responsible for making index funds the “vehicle of choice” for investors willing to take on the inherent risk in the stock market, according to Klausner. We all know that the stock market is a market of individual stocks, and it is becoming harder and harder for individuals to manage their own portfolios. Index funds are a good alternative,” he says.”

Do you agree?