Archive for the ‘General Interest’ Category

Not So Fast – Predicted Movement Among Wirehouse Advisors Overstated

Wednesday, June 22nd, 2011

There has undoubtedly been a lot of movement of advisors over the past few years. And there is no question that the wirehouses have been among the losers. But a recent prediction by Aite Group that 4,500 advisors at the four largest brokerage firms will strike out on their own seems way overblown.

The number of advisors surveyed? 151 – their prediction is quite an extrapolation! Now, I agree that as the lock-in effect of current contracts expire, as do some of the benefits of retention packages offered in the wake of the financial crisis, there is sure to be movement. But striking out on your own is not an easy proposition. It takes years of planning and a willingness on the part of the advisor to become a business owner – to work harder and longer for the promise of a larger payout at the end.

So there will be movement – but a great deal of it will be advisors switching from one B/D to another – and perhaps jumping between a regional and a wirehouse or vice verse. But all to the independent channel? Not likely. In addition, a number of the wirehouses have announced plans to reduce the overall number of advisors and to raise minimum production requirements. Being the largest is not viewed as being as important as it was in the past. So there will be movement, and advisors will leave the business. But not everyone who moves will go independent.

Another interesting fact from the survey is that most wirehouse advisors are either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with their current employer, and the number of advisors who plan to stick to their current employer has doubled since a 2000 survey by Aite.

So beyond the headline is the reality that there will always be movement among advisors – and yes, money and retention bonuses and lock-ins matter – but advisors who are contemplating moves must do so keeping in mind where they will be mostly likely to succeed. And for many traditional B/D advisors, that model works just fine.

Do Your Clients Understand Their Fees?

Monday, June 13th, 2011

If you’re an advisor, you should quickly determine if your clients understand the fees that they are paying. Why do I say this? Because a recent survey by Cerulli & Associates indicated that 33% of investors do not understand how they pay for the investment advice that they receive. And those who did not understand how they were being charged were more than likely to be unhappy with their advisors – and given recent market volatility and uncertainty, why take the chance?

Almost 8,000 households were interviewed for this survey. Another interesting result of the survey was that 47% of those surveyed said that they preferred paying commissions, while only 27% indicated that they preferred paying a fee based on assets under management. Pretty interesting results considering the overall move in the industry toward fee-based compensation.

Now, we don’t know how good or accurate this survey is. But Cerulli has a good reputation and there was a large sampling size. The results really caught my attention because the survey highlights the issues of fees at a time when clients are apt to be a little testy when their next statements come and their account valuations are down.

While explaining fees is one of the first things that you should do in a new client presentation, now presents a great time to revisit the issue of fees with clients. They should appreciate your taking the time to ask. Even when you are confident that clients understand the fees that they are paying, its always good to periodically review how you get paid and how you add value.

Take the initiative – because you don’t want to get that phone call from a client that just got approached by another advisor and is now questioning you and the fees that you charge.

For a primer on fees, click here to read our White Paper entitled “The Truth About Fees.”

AK Press – Can Regional B/Ds Maintain Their Momentum?

Tuesday, June 7th, 2011

Regional B/Ds, along with independents, have been the winners of the past few years, certainly as compared to the wirehouses. There has been a lot of press lately about whether or not this momentum can continue. My answer is that yes the regionals B/Ds can maintain this momentum, but they have to be careful not to be undone by some of their traditional weaknesses.

I wrote an article on this topic which was published in today’s FundFire. Click here to read the full article, entitled “What Slows Managed Acct Growth at Regionals? In the short- and medium-term, there is no reason that this momentum will not continue. Many long-standing advisors at regional B/Ds are not going to go independent for many of the reasons that they traditionally haven’t – namely it takes a lot to run a business. They are also unlikely to go to the wirehouses in large numbers.

And the recruits that have just joined the regionals are under contract for a number of years. To me, the danger to regionals will appear as these contracts expire. Regionals have often lagged in the fee-based area not because their recruits don’t do the business – but rather that the advisors that have been at a regional firm for the majority of their careers don’t tend to do as much of this business.

While strives have been made in the quality of the fee-based platforms at the regionals, many still lag. They have time to rectify this situation – especially on the training side, where significant investments are not necessary. The successful regionals will use the growth in their fee-based revenues generated by recent recruits to invest back into their businesses and to broaden the reach of the programs to advisors who have traditionally not done the business. This should make their platforms extremely competitive and provide the newest recruits little reason to jump ship again when their contracts expire.

Regionals have the time to do this – the only question is whether or not they will. My guess is that some will and some will not. But overall, I think the momentum will continue.

Manager Turnover Slows – A Double-Edged Sword?

Friday, June 3rd, 2011

A newly released study by Mellon Transition Management (a branch of BNY Mellon Asset Management) shows that manager turnover in the institutional marketplace is slowing back to historical, pre-financial crisis levels. (Click here to read the Fundfire article about the study.) On the surface, great news, right? Maybe – maybe not.

On the bright side, this trend could be an indicator that now that the dust has settled, and the market has been on an uptrend , committees are taking more time in evaluating their managers before deciding to make any switches. It could also be reflective, as the article points out, of the fact that changing managers can be costly and time-consuming. There could also be compliance reasons for this slowing of manager changes.

In addition, even if managers are underperforming their peers, there is less of a “rush to judgement” in up markets.

On the flip side, the negative here for the investment management industry is that whatever the reason – time, cost, compliance, performance or some combination – its going to be harder to grow your AUM and  get new clients. In a zero sum game like manager changes, one manager typically wins at another managers expense, a slowing trend is good for protecting what you have but not so good for growing your business.

The upshot is that if indeed manager transitions are slowing and taking longer when they do happen, then the importance of your marketing message and value-added proposition becomes more important than ever. In addition, client service takes on an increasingly important role in client retention.

To me at least, this slowdown in manager turnover is a net negative for most managers. What do you think?

Winning and Losing Clients

Wednesday, June 1st, 2011

In a recent survey of advisors conducted by IMCA and Cerulli Associates (the two organizations team-up each quarter to present industry research), the top reasons were given for both how advisors acquired new clients as well as why they lost others last year. (I give these reports a lot of validity since both of these organizations are top notch and the advisors they survey – IMCA members – tend to be high quality advisors.)

The top two ways clients were acquired? REFERRALS – coming in at number one were referrals from friends/family/existing clients and at number two were referrals from other professionals. These results are not surprising, and reinforce the notion that if you don’t have a formal referral program in your practice, and if you are not actively seeking referrals, then you are missing out on perhaps the best and surest source of new business.

The top reason why clients were lost? They passed away. (Clients unhappy with performance came in at number two and client has relationships with other advisors came in at number three.) While it is inevitable that clients die, this does not mean that you have to lose their family as clients. This result reinforces another notion that a lot of people in this business talk about, but not a lot of them do well – cultivating multi-generational relationships.

Just as referrals should be easy – a happy client should be more than willing to refer others to you – so should getting to know your client’s family so that they too become clients. Do you know your client’s children? Their birthday’s? If you don’t, there is no time like the present to start.

In a way, these results should be heartening because both the best way to get new clients AND not lose current ones, are relatively easy things to do – if you do them!

AK Quoted in Article on Private Bank RIA Acquisition

Friday, May 27th, 2011

The article I am quoted in concerns the acquisition of Analytic Asset Management by Fieldpoint Private Bank and Trust. Click here to read the article, which appeared in FundFire. Analytic is relatively small – managing approximately $275 million. But it represents the bank’s strategy of increasing its number of locations via strategic acquisitions of advisors.

The article explores the question of whether it is more important to expand into particular locations – in this case New York City – or expand in locations where you can hire the highest quality advisors. This is the topic the reporter queried me on, and I agree with the bank’s CEO that acquiring the right people – human capital – is more important today than hiring in particular locations.

This phenomenon is partly a result of the financial crisis, where firms are being more prudent in how they spend money. But it is also a result of technology and the growth of social media. With more efficient ways to communicate with your clients being discovered every day, the location of your office is less important. The one caveat here is if you are in a location that is isolated and makes it difficult for you to get to your clients.

The cache of being in one location versus another takes second place to acquisitions that make strategic and financial sense for a company and help it execute its plans. I know, this is ironic coming from someone who just move to NYC – but in all honesty, my clients don’t really care where I live!

 

What High New Worth Clients REALLY Want

Tuesday, May 24th, 2011
Last Friday’s blog was entitled “Do You REALLY Know What High New Worth Clients Want?” It discussed the results of a Cerulli Associates/Phoenix Market International survey of the top nine things that high new worth individuals look for in advisors. My blog listed the nine things, but not in order of importance – go back and read last week’s blog now, because this is your last chance to try and rank the nine things yourself before I show you the answers…….

 

  1. Maintain lifestyle in retirement – 31.4%
  2. College education funding – 19.6%
  3. Protect current level of wealth – 14.6%
  4. Aggressively grow wealth – 14%
  5. Leave an estate for heirs – 9.8%
  6. Charitable giving – 4.2%
  7. Minimize income and capital gains taxes – 2.4%
  8. Improve household cash flow – 1.9%
  9. Better manage market risk – 1.9%

 

Now – how does your marketing strategy and product and service offerings match up with these results? We all know that surveys will come-up with different results, but the general lessons are all pretty consistent these days:

Especially in light of the economic difficulties that so many people have experienced over the past few years, more and more people are worried about their retirement, about funding their major obligations – such as college – and about preserving the wealth that they have attained. Preservation has for most surpassed growth. The new mantra for many has become Retirement, Retirement, Retirement.

Consistent with the above, high net worth individuals are more concerned with long-term concerns than shorter-term ones – such as minimizing taxes this year and managing market risk. That is not to say that these concepts are not important and that they should not be addressed – they should. But they should be somewhat down the line in the presentations that you give clients and prospects.

Make your clients concerns your concerns and your focus and you will be more successful in growing your business.

Do You REALLY Know What High Net Worth Clients Want?

Friday, May 20th, 2011

Do you REALLY know what high new worth clients wants from their advisors? Are your services and strategy – whether you’re an advisor, RIA, sponsor firm or investment manager – aligned with what people REALLY want? Investment News recently printed the results of a Cerulli Associates/Phoenix Marketing International study which ranked the top nine reasons why high net worth clients use advisors.

(Full disclosure – the article did not detail how many people were surveyed, what their average investible assets were or what the definition of high net worth individuals was; but given that these guys are well known and respected in the industry, I’m going to assume that this was a fair sampling.)

In any case, the results should make you sit back and ask yourself the questions – Given my services, am I targeting the right audience? If not, what should I change and how should I change it? Do I change my target audience? Do I adjust/fine tune the services that I offer? A little of both?

Here are the top nine answers – I’m going to present them today in no particular order and provide the answers next week – take some time to think about the answers and rank them – also, think about the relative importance of each. Here’s an interesting point- the top answer was selected by 31.4% of respondents, while the second most popular answer was selected by 19.6% of respondents – quite a difference.

Here you go – the top nine answers – have fun sorting them out! Remember – today they are in no particular order.

  • Protect current level of wealth
  • Leave an estate for heirs
  • Better manage market risk
  • Minimize income and capital gains taxes
  • Maintain lifestyle in retirement
  • Charitable giving
  • College education funding
  • Aggressively grow wealth
  • Improve household cash flow

Have a great weekend!

Is Your Website a Dinosaur?

Tuesday, May 17th, 2011

As the financial services industry increasingly embraces social media, a natural question becomes the role of you or your company’s website vis-a-vis its overall social media strategy. The days of discussing whether or not your website is a dinosaur only in the context of how old it is and whether it serves more of a purpose than just being an electronic brochure, are long gone.

(By the way, if when you read the words “social media strategy” above and thought to yourself “what’s that?” your marketing problems probably run deeper than just the effectiveness of your website!)

If you haven’t updated your website in awhile it could very well be a dinosaur – especially if it is just an electronic brochure – and you probably need to update it, make it more interactive and make it more relevant.

If your website is up-to-date you have passed the first test. However, it still might be a dinosaur if it does not have a well-defined place in your overall marketing and social media strategy. In fact, given the interactive nature of social media, and the ability it gives you to form a community with clients, some are now even questioning whether you still need a website.

My answer is an emphatic YES. In fact, the issue is addressed quite well in the recent article Is It Time To Shut Down Your Website? There are definite advantage and disadvantages to social media – e.g, LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter – and to websites. Each tool has different strengths and weaknesses, which means that those who can integrate the best of each together into a cohesive marketing and asset gathering strategy will be the most successful.

For example, and most importantly to me as the article points out, while you will be able to reach portions of your clients with each of the social media tools mentioned above, you will be able to reach all of them with your website. Might there be some duplication? Sure. But overlap is better than missing anyone. Websites are also your property and you own it – unlike social media sites where you don’t have ownership.

I am a big fan of social media. But I am also a fan of well designed and integrated websites. At the end of the day, the first thing most people usually do to find out more about you is “Google” you or go to the website listed on your business cared – use this as a springboard to link to your social media sites. It is still a red flag in terms of credibility if your answer to a prospect is that you don’t have a website. A website ads instant credibility (of course as long as it is a good one!)

So it is actually now more important than ever to make sure that your website is not a dinosaur!

Why Can’t BofA Merrill Get it Right?

Tuesday, May 10th, 2011

With all of the money that BofA Merrill likely spends on PR and advertising, it amazes me that they can’t control their corporate message better – at least as far as their wealth management unit is concerned.

Yesterday’s Investment News is another example of this phenomenon, where an article entitled “Grumbling Herd Complains About Cross-Selling” appeared. I have blogged about this topic before – old Merrill Lynch brokers feel that their parent is pressuring them to sell BofA products such as mortgages and credit cards – and many don’t like it. (I use the word broker here, even though I don’t like it, because the article does.)

The headline is negative as are many of the unidentified brokers that “grumbled.” Not in the headline are the few brokers that also commented in the article that they actually like having these addition products to sell and that they feel that being able to address their client’s liabilities is actually a competitive advantage.

Reality is that whenever a bank buys a brokerage – or in any merger for that matter – there will always be some pressure to cross-sell. Whether we like it individually or not, it makes sense from a corporate point of view. In fact, whether you want to sell these additional products or not, it certainly makes sense to let clients know that you have the ability to sell them – an additional arrow in your quiver.

So what is the problem here? The problem is that BofA has sidestepped the issue rather than address it head on, and therefore the media and some of its more vocal brokers are controlling the issue. As an outsider, we don’t really know how much pressure is being put on brokers to cross-sell. There are always two sides to every story. But we do know that the company’s response has been less than adequate because the negative publicity continues.

What should BofA do? Grab the issue back from the media – tout the advantages to clients and the general public of the vast array of competitive products that are available – leverage your strengths! A PR or advertising campaign targeted on the advantages of the breadth of offerings would certainly silence some of the internal critics and demonstrate that the firm is on top of the issue. It certainly couldn’t do any harm – I for one am getting tired of seeing these headlines, and I’m not even a client or prospect!

Brokers have always had to fight the battle of being “pressured” into selling in-house products. But trust me, if the broker is successful enough, he or she will be able to resist the pressure and run their business however they want to – BofA is not going to lose a million dollar producer over credit cards – I guarantee it. But they are losing the public opinion fight right now – they should aggressively address the issue now before it gets any worse.