Archive for the ‘General Interest’ Category

AK In The News: Challenges Facing The Mutual Fund Industry

Wednesday, February 20th, 2013

Ignites (a Financial Times Service) asked me to comment on the results of a poll that they just conducted on what industry participants feel is the biggest challenges facing the mutual fund industry. Respondents believe that the two biggest challenges are market volatility and overall economic uncertainty; competition from ETFs was also a popular answer.

While I agree that these are large concerns, I was surprised that two other choices – regulation and equity flows – were not ranked higher.

To quote from the article: ‘Yet, market volatility and ETFs should not be the only concerns on mutual fund professionals’ minds, according to Andy Klausner, founder and principal of AK Advisory Partners. Though he is not surprised that overall market uncertainty and competition from ETFs lead the list of concerns in the Ignites poll results because of the amount of press both issues have received, he says he is surprised that regulation and flows into equity products are not bigger concerns.

“Especially after last week when Elizabeth Warren made her first appearance on the Banking Committee, there is growing concern within the industry that regulatory issues will once again take center stage. While the first target may be banks, the fear is that other financial institutions will eventually be targeted as well,” he writes in an e-mail response to questions.

“As to equity flows in general, with bond yields so low, and the long-term return on stocks having been stagnant, more attention has been given to alternative investments,” Klausner continues. “I think that they, [like] ETFs, pose a threat to the mutual fund industry.””

What do you think?

Winning the Rollover Game

Tuesday, February 12th, 2013

More than $300 billion in rollover assets migrate from old DC plans every year, and a recent study by Cerulli Associates projects that annual RIA rollovers will reach $450 billion by 2017, thanks in large part to baby boomer retirements. A few thoughts on how to compete for these assets:

1) According to a recent report by Cogent Research, the most important factor is a participant’s decision of whether or not to move his/her account is brand recognition – more so than even performance and fees. Among the larger firms, Fidelity, Vanguard, Charles Schwab, T. Rowe Price and USAA have been gaining market share through increased advertising, educational information on their websites and other direct selling efforts to clients.

Fidelity has ranked first in Cogent’s report for each of the past three years. They have been successful in part because they attempt to talk to each client about all of their available options, including leaving the assets in place. This non-threatening approach – focused on client education – makes a lot of sense.

2) But let’s say you don’t have the advertising dollars available, or are a smaller firm. You can still compete for these assets. According to Cogent’s study, 71% of investors leave their assets in place for at least five years. This seeming lack of urgency in movement gives current providers a lot of time to talk to clients and get them comfortable with a move.

Any size firm can do a few things during this transition period – regardless of its length – to increase the odds that they can win the battle for the assets:

  • Offer clients consolidated reporting on all assets – including these assets that you do not hold. Even if you don’t get paid on them now, you can consult with the client on their total asset allocation and financial situation. Firms that provide this type of service tend to win when clients who utilize multiple advisors and/or keep assets in multiple locations, decide to consolidate; and
  • Make it easy for clients to move the assets when they are ready. Nothing will hurt your business more than making the transition process more cumbersome than it needs to be. Develop a system, train your staff, explain it to clients and implement it consistently.

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!

Finally Beginning To Get Social Media

Wednesday, January 30th, 2013

Sometimes fear drives action – and maybe financial services firms are finally becoming engaged in social media because they’re afraid that if they don’t, they’ll get left behind. I’m fine with that – I don’t care why social media is finally catching on in the financial services industry – but it’s about time!

According to a recent Cerulli Associates report on trends in retail product and marketing, 79% of firms say that the main motivation for embracing social media is to increase brand recognition. Enriching communications was also sighted by more than 70% of the 50 firms interviewed as a primary driver of their increasing interest in social media.

Why are these numbers encouraging to me? First, unlike consumer products companies, for example, where increasing sales is a primary driver of social media, that goal is secondary in financial services. Being a service industry, increased sales – eventually – would be a nice by-product of social media. Of primary focus, however, should be brand awareness, client servicing and establishing credibility; social media is a great way to do this and to increase the stickiness of assets and solidify long-term client relationships.

Also encouraging from the study is that 47% of firms – up from 13% last year – are integrating their social media efforts into their overall marketing efforts and consider them to be a main component of these efforts. It’s not only enough to utilize social media – you must use it correctly. It should be integrated into other marketing efforts – not stand alone.

(As an aside, sizable increases were seen in the use of LinkedIn, Facebook and Twitter.)

Whatever your motivation, or whatever segment of the industry you are involved in, their are invaluable uses for social media – if utilized correctly. There’s no time like the present!

Yes – Your Brand Does Matter – As Does Your Website

Tuesday, January 22nd, 2013

When advisors select an asset manager/fund family, what factors do they consider to be the most important? According to a recent study by Cerulli Associates, a well-respected industry research firm, client service comes in at first, with 51% saying that it has a major impact on their selection, and tied for second, with 34% of advisors each, is a firm’s website and their brand. Music to the ears of those of us who have been preaching this for years.

While this study focuses on the advisor/manager relationship, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to think that the results would be similar if clients were asked why they selected advisors. Recognizable names and brands go a long way in establishing credibility in our post-financial crisis world. The trick is to provide consistent messaging over a period of time to help build-up brand awareness – and then to deliver on your promises via excellent client service.

As we have stressed over the past month or so, if 2013 proves to be as bumpy as we think it will be, ensuring that you keep your current book of business satisfied will be one important key to at least maintaining your business. Building and maintaining your credibility via your messaging and servicing will also position you well for the future, regardless of what the economy is doing.

Importantly for small- to medium sized firms, developing and maintaining a brand – through your website, messaging and marketing efforts – is a lot less expense than advertising. Unless your the size of a Fidelity or Putnam or Schwab, for example, advertising can be prohibitively expensive. Developing a brand, a website and a plan to deliver your services consistently, is a lot more doable.

So listen to what the marketplace is telling you – trust is important – and part of being able to trust a potential partner is to receive reliable and consistent information from them – from their website and client servicing efforts – and to be able to rely upon them – via a recognizable and quality brand.

AK In The News: RIA Expansion Strategies In 2013

Tuesday, January 15th, 2013

Yesterday’s FundFire (a Financial Times Service) had an article on the expansion of an RIA into the NYC market in which I was asked to comment. Athena Capital Partners, a +$4 billion ultra high net worth client advisory firm from Boston opened a NYC office. The stated goal was to both service current clients as well as build the practice.

The firm had hoped to expand into this market in 2008, but those plans were put on hold because of the financial crisis.

Good strategy? Yes – I think in light of what is going to be a tough year (check our recent blogs on the 2013 outlook), this is a relatively low-risk, cost-effective means of trying to expand. Importantly, the plan includes efforts to better serve current clients, which I think is the key to 2013 success. It’s important for all firms to protect their current base of business in what is sure to be a tough asset-gathering year. What better way to demonstrate your commitment to clients than to move service personnel closer to them?

Opening a satellite office is certainly less risky than acquiring a firm and/or merging. While NYC is an expensive place to operate, it also does have a large concentration of assets.

As I say in the article: “Focusing on support of existing clients is particularly apt as a 2013 strategy, says Andrew Klausner, principal of AK Advisory Partners. “It’s going to be a tough year, politically and economically, and I don’t think clients will be willing to move providers,” he says. “So firms need to protect their current client base. Client servicing is an important theme this year, and for the ultra wealthy, it’s even more important.” Klausner also calls a firm moving closer to its clients with a new office a “low-risk strategy in a tough environment to grow.””

 

 

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.