Archive for the ‘General Interest’ Category

Top Ten Thoughts on the Goldman Sachs Mess

Monday, 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

Tuesday, 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

Thursday, 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

The Importance of YOUR Brand

Tuesday, April 6th, 2010

We just released our new White Paper entitled “The Importance of YOUR Brand.” To quote from that paper:

Your brand is much more than a logo or the color of your marketing materials. Your brand is what you are to the marketplace and more importantly to your clients – it is your reputation and the value that you bring to clients and the reason that they do business with you. Viewed in this context, the importance of having an effective brand can’t be overemphasized.
 
A brand differentiates you from the competition and allows you to present your core value proposition. In fact, your brand and your reputation are interchangeable. You should invest in it and leverage it to grow your business.

Please click here to view the full PDF version.

We would love to hear your feedback.

Trends Affecting Financial Services Professionals

Monday, April 5th, 2010
While the outlook for the general economy is still somewhat uncertain, the performance of the stock market over the past year certainly has investors feeling more confident. 
 
Almost a year into the stock market’s recovery, several interesting trends have emerged which directly affect financial services professionals:
 
* Clients now have a year’s worth of data to evaluate their advisors on how they reacted to the financial crisis and if what they are doing for them is working;
 
* Movement among advisors continues – both those moving within the same channel (wirehouse to wirehouse) and among channels (wire to regional, wire to independent, etc.); and
 
* Investment management and advisory firms that have lost significant assets have had a year to see if they have been able to successfully adapt operationally and strategically.
 
The remainder of 2010 will be characterized by CHANGE – unhappy clients seeking new advisors, unhappy advisors seeking new homes and mergers among firms that recognize that they can’t go it alone any longer.
 
The common denominator among these trends is that to be successful, market participants must clearly articulate their differentiating characteristics – their brand.
 
Clients thinking of changing advisors need a compelling reason to do so. Merged firms need to articulate the benefits of their new organization. And advisors that have switched firms need to convince clients to move with them. Your brand will influence if you emerge from this environment of change as one of the winners or not.

Supreme Decision on Mutual Fund Fees … Or Was It?

Wednesday, March 31st, 2010

Both sides are claiming victory in yesterday’s Supreme Court decision about fees that mutual funds can charge investors. While on one hand the Court upheld the long-reigning standard for determining whether a fiduciary has breached its duties by charging excessive fees (called the Gartenberg standard), a victory for the mutual fund industry, it did state that courts reviewing such matters may give weight to the comparison of fees charged to institutional versus retail investors. Such comparisons, which are deemed to benefit retail investors, as institutional fees are usually lower, was seen by a victory by the plaintiffs in the case; previous decisions had not gone so far in allowing this comparison.

That there was a little bit of victory for both means that we have probably not seen the last of this issue. But investors will be the winners for sure if the opening of this door by the court – albeit a small opening – means that the Boards which run fund companies will have to keep the possibility in mind that such comparisons are possible. If these Boards take a little more time now when they review the fees associated with their funds than investors should benefit.

The issue of mutual fund fees has been in the news quite a bit lately. A recent article in the New York Times talked about the “hidden” trading costs of mutual funds. The moral here for advisors, especially if fees remain an issue in the news, is to have a policy of full diclosure of fees to clients. The total costs of investments should be explained in detail to clients before they make their investments. “Apples to apples” comparisons should be made between the total cost of one investment versus another (with this comarison including the split between what the advisor is paid versus what the investment charges).

Specifically as relates to mutual funds, such fee comparisons will help uncover whether one alternative fund is significantly more expensive than another. If an investor chooses an expensive fund, then they are doing so with their eyes wide open.