Archive for the ‘Press’ Category

Why ETF Criticism Stings – but Won’t Stick

Tuesday, November 23rd, 2010

Published on November 23, 2010 – Ignites – An Information Service of Money-Media, a Financial Times Company- written by Andrew Klausner, Founder and Principal of AK Advisory Partners LLC.

The recent negative publicity surrounding exchange-traded funds validates the old saying that success breeds contempt. Or, put another way, all good things must come to an end. The growth of ETFs since their introduction in 1993 has been impressive. Assets under management in ETFs are approaching the $1 trillion mark; trading in ETFs equals close to 25% of all trading on U.S. exchanges today; and ETFs are gaining market share at the expense of mutual funds.

But as the product continues to grow, so does the criticism about ETFs and the different risks inherent in these products. ETFs are now being haunted by two characteristics that have traditionally been seen as positive: their ability to be sold short and to be purchased on margin. A Nov. 8 report by the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation claimed that short selling of ETFs can generate liquidity risks when demand for the underlying security, even if it is from authorized participants and not the asset manager itself, overtakes supply. The report also seeks to connect the rise of ETFs to the May 6 flash crash.

The ability to short and purchase ETFs on margin stems from the fact that the product can be traded like stocks, continually throughout the day, as opposed to mutual funds, which are bought and sold at the previous day’s ending net asset value. What happened with ETFs is that as they became more successful, market participants found ways to create derivatives on them. Now today’s more aggressive leveraged ETFs are designed to move two or three times more than their underlying indices. The risky characteristics of these ETFs are a far cry from those of the SPY — the iShares S&P 500 ETF. Commodity ETFs have also been getting some negative press, with detractors claiming that they distort the value of the underlying assets; the jury on this is still out.

Without a doubt, it is these newer ETFs that are at the crux of today’s controversy. And unfortunately, controversy often overshadows business as usual. Many of the conclusions of the recent negative reports on ETFs, including the Kauffman Foundation study, have been diligently and effectively disputed by industry participants. A few of the criticisms, including that ETFs are responsible for the slowdown in IPOs and the flash crash, seem to be groundless. Similarly, the arguments concerning the shorting of ETFs, namely that this might cause the funds to run out of cash in a “short squeeze,” seem unlikely given the role of market makers in creating and retiring shares as demand increases or decreases.

However, we all know that when it comes to the market, perception can be reality. Even as the industry repudiates these studies, the fact remains that as ETFs have evolved, the number of risky derivative-like ETFs is increasing. And this scares people, and rightfully so, since they are inappropriate for most retail investors.

What the public needs to know is not that ETFs are bad or structurally flawed — because they aren’t. It’s that a small number of the most aggressive ETFs, which are in large part utilized by hedge funds and day traders, are driving the criticism with the help of those authoring these scathing reports. Let’s not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Most ETFs do what they are designed to do; they mirror the performance of the underlying index or commodity that they are modeled on.

More investor education on ETFs is crucial. Advisors need to proactively educate their clients on the characteristics of ETFs — both positive and negative — and make the argument that certain ETFs are effective investment tools that can be used as part of a diversified long-term investment portfolio. ETFs such as the SPY are not the ones being heavily traded by day traders and hedge funds. With more than 900 ETFs to choose from, advisors should also stress their due diligence process in identifying those ETFs that are most appropriate for their clients.

Mutual funds have had their good days and bad days, as have most other investment vehicles. Have no fear, this too shall pass for ETFs.

What’s Rationale for Picking SMAs over UMAs?

Tuesday, October 5th, 2010

Published on October 5, 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 debate over whether unified managed accounts (UMAs) are going to replace separately managed accounts (SMAs) has been raging for a number of years. There is no direct resolution to the debate. There are enough differences between the two that there will be room for both types of investment vehicles. Both products will continue to survive and garner the assets of high-net-worth individuals. This entire debate reminds me of the one that began soon after SMAs were introduced, and revolved around whether mutual funds or SMAs were more appropriate for the wealthy. The answer turned out to be that both were, and still are, depending on the individual circumstances being considered.

Below is my perspective on why SMAs and UMAs each have their unique advantages and disadvantages, depending on the specific advisor and client on hand.

For advisors, the decision of which vehicle to use – or whether to use both – in their practices is related to their overall business philosophy. Some advisors consider their role and value-added proposition as selecting the managers to be used in SMA portfolios and then managing both the rebalancing of accounts as well as providing tax-efficient management. They are thus reluctant to abdicate these duties to someone else, such as situations where those duties are outsourced to a sponsor’s UMA team or a third-party overlay manager.

Some advisors also prefer individually managed accounts over mutual funds or exchange-traded funds (ETFs) as a general investment philosophy. These advisors presumably have a client-servicing model that eases any paperwork or coordination issues that maintaining multiple investment vehicles and accounts poses. On the other side, some advisors are attracted to UMAs because the pre-selected models reduce the amount of the work that they must do.

For clients, there are three primary differences between SMAs and UMAs. First, many UMAs have ETFs and mutual funds as part of their portfolio makeup. Thus, in many cases, the investment minimum within each investment sleeve is usually much lower than the standard $100,000 to $250,000 level in the SMA world. As a result, clients with fewer investable assets can invest in UMAs and achieve diversification more easily. Secondly, because all of the different investment sleeves in a UMA are in a single client account, there is less paperwork, both initially and on an ongoing basis. Third, UMAs typically include, or have options for, automatic rebalancing and tax-optimized investing. Therefore, the relationship size and the overall importance of these other issues to a particular client will help the advisor determine which vehicle to recommend.

(I haven’t really discussed managers because while there was reluctance on the part of some managers to participate in UMAs when they were first introduced, a lot of this resistance has disappeared as UMAs have become more common. There are enough quality managers in the universes of both UMAs and SMAs.)

In reality, UMAs and SMAs both have a place in the business. An advisor who utilizes SMAs exclusively, for example, and who has high client minimums, might occasionally have a client with fewer investable assets. In that case, the advisor might opt to use a UMA for that client. Or, some clients might themselves have preferences for one or the other based on previous experiences. They might have used SMAs for decades and feel comfortable with the simplicity and customization that such investment vehicles provide. There are enough different clients and client profiles that neither of these investment vehicles are likely to disappear – in the same way advisors still use mutual funds for their wealthy clients after all of these years.

See AK Quote in Article on Social Media – Want-To-Have or Need-To-Have?

Thursday, September 23rd, 2010

Published on September  23, 2010 – Ignites – An Information Service of Money-Media, a Financial Times Company- written by Gregory Shulas

Fund companies may benefit from having a social media presence, but they don’t need a Facebook profile to effectively compete. That’s according to Ignites poll respondents.

Roughly 53%, or 147 voters, believe industry firms have no serious need to participate in social media networks such as Facebook and Twitter. That made it the top sentiment expressed in the Ignites survey about whether competing effectively today requires a social media presence.

Of the majority group, 38%, or 106 voters, said a social media profile is nice, but not a necessity today, while 15%, or 41 voters, were more cynical, calling it just a fad.

In contrast, 47%, or 130 voters, said firms must have a social media presence if they want to be competitive in the marketplace. The minority group includes 9%, or 26 voters, who said a social media presence is vital for a firm’s continued success, as well as 38%, or 104 voters, who believe it is “important” for firms to maintain a presence on social networks.

Ignites has reported on how fund companies are increasingly embracing social media strategies as a means to communicate and strengthen relationships with investors. An informal survey conducted by Ignites found that TIAA-Cref has the most popular industry Facebook site, with 13,000 “fans,” a number that exceeds Vanguard’s 9,500 fans.

Despite industry market leaders’ embrace of social media, many professionals remain cautious about adopting such strategies. Dennis Dolego, Optima Group’s director of research, says that while such platforms seem like the “thing to do” for mutual funds, there are some legitimate reasons why firms have reservations about them.

For example, the primary value a fund company offers is performance, which Morningstar provides data on, he says. So industry executives may legitimately question what real value — beyond performance figures — a fund can offer to investors through a Facebook or Twitter posting, Dolego says.

Additionally, fund companies can face problems if negative information about their product is posted online. “They see it as something to do but they don’t feel comfortable doing it; they see some of the problems involved,” Dolego says.

“Overall, social media is almost like Consumer Reports or referral marketing. You want an objective party to say positive things about what they do,” Dolego says. “The goal is to get the support from the consumer that is independent, objective and unsolicited, and then to build a buzz about products and services.” Negative postings can be counterproductive to such marketing campaigns, he adds.

Andy Klausner, founder of strategic consultancy AK Advisory Partners, disagrees with the 15% who said social media is mainly a fad. In his view, the growth of these social networks is part of a larger shift in information distribution. To succeed in this new age, fund families must be active participants in these social networks, he adds.

“Information flow and marketing has unquestionably changed from pull to push. In other words, rather than pull in clients by delivering the message that we want, clients are demanding information on their own terms — you need to push out your information, show your value-added and inform clients on their terms,” Klausner says.

“Because of this overall change, firms that successfully embrace social media are giving people the information that they want, delivered the way that they want it — and that is not a fad but a distinct competitive advantage,” he adds.

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.

Why Supporting 12b-1 Reform Will Pay Off

Monday, August 23rd, 2010

Published on August  23, 2010 – Ignites – An Information Service of Money-Media, a Financial Times Company- written by Andrew Klausner, Founder and Principal of AK Advisory Partners LLC.

The recently announced SEC proposal to revamp 12b-1 fees has already — not surprisingly — resulted in a public fight between those who advocate that the fee should be changed and those who do not. The general argument of defenders of 12b-1 fees is that they are a way to cover the expense of providing ongoing service to clients. Opponents of the fee argue that they are a needless drag on performance. They say that the ongoing nature of the fee goes against the reason they were developed in the first place: to cover initial marketing costs.

What’s getting less press is the fact that most investors don’t even know what 12b-1 fees are. This lack of investor knowledge about fees is not limited to 12b-1 fees; they just happen to be the fees that are getting the most press today. The problem is not 12b-1 fees per se, but the need for even more transparency in mutual fund pricing, as well as stronger disclosure rules.

Ironically, this debate comes at a time when the following has occurred:

*The popularity of institutional mutual fund shares and exchange-traded funds (ETFs) has also cut into sales of funds carrying 12b-1 fees.

*The SEC will be spending most of its attention and time deciding the much larger issue of determining whether advisors at broker-dealers are fiduciaries. This initiative will no doubt result in more scrutiny of compensation arrangements between funds and intermediaries.

So, cutting through the noise surrounding the current debate, I believe it’s clear that industry professionals can only gain by stopping any strong lobbying against 12b-1 reform. This is because if the SEC implements changes that simplify and increase mutual fund disclosure as it relates to fees, then investors win. Therefore, it would be dangerous for anyone to be perceived as arguing against simplifying fee structures and increasing disclosure. Those investment companies or intermediaries could be painted in a very anti-consumer light by those framing the debate in pro-investor terms, putting the former groups at a competitive disadvantage. Lobbying should concentrate on making sure that the changes do not result in unintended consequences. After all, there is always such a danger when new legislation/regulations are enacted.

Ultimately, the current proposal, though costly to implement, is the right thing to do despite the potential objection of some sponsor firms. (The proposed rule would require that mutual fund companies disclose marketing and service fees as well as continuing sales charges in every prospectus, shareholder report and investor transaction.)

I believe the proposed change to move the setting of pricing terms from the fund companies to the broker-dealers will increase competition, which is a positive thing. The argument that such a move will commoditize the industry and result in price wars fails to recognize the value that the advisor brings to the table. It also runs contrary to the above-mentioned fact that the industry has been evolving away from funds with 12b-1 fees in any case.

However, caution is still needed. There are some elements of the proposal that need further discussion. For example, currently more than 40% of retirement plans charge more than 0.25% to cover their administrative costs. Any changes to 12b-1 fees should not result in higher overall prices for retirement plan participants. Another problem is that the current proposal does not cover revenue sharing, such as when a fund pays a percentage of its fees to a broker as part of the sales agreement. If 12b-1 fees are capped, then revenue-sharing agreements might be used to offset the difference. The idea of making fees more transparent would be negatively impacted — another possible unintended effect.

In the end, change is always difficult, and this debate is sure to continue for at least the next couple months, if not longer. But the goal should be clear: Any changes to 12b-1 fees should increase competition, reduce unnecessary regulation, and, above all else, simplify fee structures so that investors can understand exactly what their fees are and therefore make rational decisions based on complete information.

What Have You Done For Me Lately?

Tuesday, July 6th, 2010

What Have You Done For Me Lately? Articulating your value as a financial advisor is more complex after two years of market turmoil. And more necessary. By Marie Swift – Printed July 1, 2010 in Financial Planning Magazine.

Almost two years have passed since the financial markets cratered in 2008. You may have been shaken, but if you’re reading this, you survived. Your clients regained at least part of their losses. They may have learned a few tough lessons about risk, trust and patience. And they appreciate you for holding their hands through the worst. They’ll be your clients forever. Or will they?

Do your clients understand the true value of what you do? It’s an important question, especially now that volatility appears to have returned to the markets. Are you sure your clients aren’t wondering why they’re paying you a percentage of their assets-and losing money? Again? Is losing less than the S&P a sufficient measure of your worth?

The clients are restless. Client service and retention are still Job One. Your best defense may be to make sure that you’re articulating the value of the various services you perform.

“No doubt about it, 2010 will be characterized by the word change-clients seeking new advisors, advisors seeking new homes and mergers among firms that recognize that they can’t go it alone any longer,” says Andrew Klausner, founder and principal of AK Advisory Partners, a brand creation and marketing firm in Boston. “The common denominator among these trends, and the need we see, is that to be successful, advisors must clearly articulate their differentiating characteristics-their brand. Merged firms need to articulate the benefits of their new organization, and advisors who have switched firms need to convince clients to move with them.”

QUIETLY DISCONTENTED

“There are lots of underserved clients,” says Chip Roame, founder and managing partner of Tiburon Strategic Advisors in Tiburon, Calif. “And while they may have been unhappy for a while, they were probably unwilling to move until now, because they were too scared. In addition, clients are aging, so we are going to see some account consolidation.”

Tiburon’s research shows that traditional full-service brokerage firms and banks are losing market share to independent advisors and, gulp, discount brokers. But contrary to popular assertions, he says, clients are not leaving wirehouses and banks en masse and running to independents.

One reason: It is easier and more tempting than ever for clients to go it alone. There is a wealth of information online via discount brokers (such as Vanguard, E*Trade and Schwab) and specialty online services (such as Financial Engines, Smart 401(k), Balanced Zone Investing and Folio Investing).

“Now that people have recovered from 18 months of seemingly endless bad news, they may be looking at you and the value you provide,” Roame says. “Clients now have a year’s worth of data to evaluate their advisors on how they reacted to the financial crisis and whether what they are doing for them is working. 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.”

SIMPLE COMMUNICATION

“The crisis was one of those near-death experiences,” says Bob Veres, publisher of Inside Information. “The best advisors have been quick to communicate to their clients things like, ‘I’m going to be here worrying for you,’ and ‘I’ll see you through.’ They have built closer personal relationships,” Veres says.

The most important service the client needs? According to Veres, it’s hand-holding: “Someone who’s adaptable enough to help with personal life planning issues and put together a well-organized portfolio, who’s a good communicator, who can help them understand what insurance to buy. Someone with deep knowledge who can quarterback the entire process.” But clients have to recognize this multifaceted expertise-which means you have to make it part of everything you do.

Sue Stevens, founder of Stevens Wealth Management in Deerfield, Ill., and author of Put Your Money Where Your Heart Is, agrees with Veres. “At the end of the day, clients are looking for peace of mind,” she says. “It’s especially true when there’s a lot of volatility and uncertainty. Anything we can do as advisors to keep things calm is valued.”

She continues, “So we are very clear in laying out expectations. We’ve boiled our investment policy statements down to two pages; they are plain English and simple to understand. We update them every year and talk about them so that people know what to expect. Then if the market is volatile, we can say, ‘Look, we’re still within the parameters you were comfortable with,’ and generally that helps.”

Stevens also puts a lot of emphasis on deep diversification. She builds portfolios with 18 different asset classes; each one has a purpose in the portfolio. She goes through that individually, with each client, in the annual review. She also writes a monthly newsletter called Radiant Wealth.

“Stepped-up communications help clients understand what they are getting-the goal being peace of mind,” Stevens says. The firm recently upgraded its website, adding a client vault-something that’s become more important for today’s mobile clients. “It’s part of our value proposition when we talk to prospective clients,” says Stevens, who also rolled out two new tools last year: The Financial Bridge Binder, which helps clients organize their important information and documents, and a Personal Score Card, a life goal report card of sorts.

“It’s amazing how a simple tool can reassure people,” Stevens observes. “We try to make everything as visual as possible because a lot of people respond to that. They like colorful communications, they like simplicity and there’s a lot of giggling when I tell them this is their report card. So I think it adds a little bit of lightness to everything.”

DEMONSTRATING INTEGRITY, BUILDING TRUST

Client retention may boil down to building trust, but the worst way to get anyone’s trust is to demand it directly. “The more you tell people, ‘Trust me,’ the more they won’t,” says Mark Tibergien, CEO of Pershing Advisor Solutions in Jersey City, N.J.

Even if you’re completely honest, don’t expect that to come across as obvious. You have to show, not tell, that you’re aboveboard, Tibergien continues. “Demonstrate the control processes, showing that you provide protection for your clients. Are you using an independent custodian? Are you affiliated with a well-known broker-dealer? Explain to your client whose interests are being served and how you’re compensated.”

Beyond your honesty, Tibergien adds, is the issue of your competence. You need to get across your expertise, not only the training that helped you become a financial advisor but also what you do for continuing education.

“My recommendation is a Rights and Responsibilities Manifesto,” Tibergien says. “This is a document you hand to clients, which explains both the expectations they should have about your performance and the responsibilities they have to meet.”

Stevens demonstrated her commitment to a transparent practice by writing a piece to her clients that described the rigors involved in completing the firm’s annual compliance review. “I talked about how the process helps us be better advisors. I also mentioned that the SEC will be checking independently with the custodian and possibly with our clients to make sure that the balances all tie up. It’s unnerving for the client to get a call from the SEC. The right thing to do is tell the client, ‘The SEC has a new rule, and you may hear from them. That doesn’t mean anything’s wrong, it just means they are trying to be more diligent.’ I try to communicate any time I can set expectations.”

BEYOND THE GOOD TALK

Of course, trust is not only about how you communicate-although that’s certainly important. Scandal has tarnished so many distinguished Wall Street names that branding has become problematical; why not go with advice from some blog or a financial news show, since you aren’t going to get a fair shake from the big guys anyway?

It’s actually a fair question, and one an advisor should be prepared to answer. Financial advisors can provide what websites, news shows and Suze Orman can’t: customized wisdom. According to Blaine Aikin, CEO of fiduciary training center fi360, “Professional advice, the kind people value enough to pay for, cannot be commoditized. Advice is personal. It requires a relationship of implicit trust.” For him, problems begin when advice becomes intermingled with product sales, muddying the waters of what exactly advisors are offering.

Today advisors have to work harder than ever to show they are competent professionals and not just salespeople. “Competence is best demonstrated by professional designations and newsworthy accomplishments in the field, such as published works, public speaking experience and professional awards,” Aiken says. “Good judgment is evidenced by a compelling depiction of the processes the advisor uses to develop sound recommendations and by impeccable references to attest to the efficacy of these processes.”

REINVENTING YOURSELF

With all the changes in the way the public is approaching financial advice, smart advisors have not been standing still. They’ve been working to grow and change with the new environment. “They are not so much reinventing themselves as continually improving,” Tibergien says. “These intellectually curious advisors ask themselves, ‘How can I better serve my clients?'” They display high integrity mixed with humility.

They also have a sense of history. Many of them have been in this business for years and have seen many changes. Individual advisors are holding one another to higher standards. “Anyone who has been around this business has seen the quality of the craft improve,” Tibergien says.

This may be in line with what Aikin sees-an evolution of fiduciary status, often embraced by high-end RIAs. He sees two kinds of fiduciary advisors today: the true, or what he calls “avowed,” fiduciary and the “functional fiduciary”-the advisor who provides ancillary advice without formally accepting fiduciary status. This kind of advisor is generally associated with a broker-dealer or insurance company. He or she is technically operating under the fair dealing or suitability standard. In these situations, by statute, advice provided is incidental to the advisor’s product sales role.

It is with this kind of advisor-the functional fiduciary-that Aikin sees radical change, as regulators, professional associations and the investing public push all advisors to become more accountable. In addition to regulatory change, there has to be cultural change as companies make the shift from a sales culture to an investor culture that makes clients’ interests paramount.

Aikin is optimistic about the advisors, if not the companies themselves. “The functional fiduciaries in the field are tired of being depicted as greedy salespeople,” he says. Indeed, Aikin sees a significant migration of top representatives to the RIA world. “They see that the future of advice is fiduciary, and they don’t want to be the last to adapt.”

If Aikin sees the moves as a big external change, George Kinder, founder of The Kinder Institute of Life Planning in Littleton, Mass., sees them as result of internal changes too. He’s seen advisors think about how they can deepen their relationships, improve their skills and deliver what clients want. “These past years have led to a lot of soul searching,” Kinder says.

All of these thoughts, of course, lead back to a discussion of value. What are clients getting from their advisors? What do advisors expect their clients to get? And is it more a matter of reality or perception?

Tibergien says the answer comes from listening. “You have to define value in terms of outcome you agree upon at the start of the engagement,” he says. “Let’s say you have a client who comes to you worried about being able to afford to retire or pay a child’s college tuition. You can characterize your value in terms of filling those objectives. But if they say, ‘I’m concerned about independence’ and you’re just talking about financial return, you’re missing the message.”

Aikin believes investors have taken a major turn in how they approach money management. “The financial crisis opened investors’ eyes to the fact that prognosticators of performance are of questionable value in long-term investing and serious financial planning. Most people will recognize value when they see it.”

So what’s an advisor to do? Not run away from the uncertainty, but embrace it: Aikin believes advisors can offer a message that will resonate with investors if they say, “I can’t predict what the economy and markets are going to do, but I can give you certainty about the sound approach we are going to take in working together to meet your financial objectives.”

OPENING QUESTIONS

All of this-a sense of value, the issues of trust and the historical understanding of investor attitudes-leads to your first meeting with a prospect. You never get a second chance to make a first impression. So what can you ask your prospect in order to start on the right foot in today’s environment?

“Broad, open-ended questions show that you really care,” says Kinder, who suggests these two key queries: Is there any thing urgent you need to talk about? If we were to work together over a period of time, what would you like to have happen? Kinder also stresses that how you deliver these questions is important. “Don’t leap in with spreadsheets. Pause after each question and leave several moments for them to say something else. Ask if they’re sure they’re done.” Follow verbal cues. For example, if they then answer, “No, not really,” that means a lot more is coming.

Steve Saenz, managing partner of Advisor Solutions Network in Atlanta, says the purpose of opening questions is to try to understand prospects’ relationship with money. What does money mean: A yardstick of how they’re doing in life? Flexibility and freedom? Creating a legacy? “You have to get to that understanding,” Saenz says.”

ARTICULATING YOUR VALUE

So how do you get clear on your value? Peter Boland, senior director of marketing at BlackRock iShares explains it this way: “You may think your appeal is your investment philosophy or service offering, but it’s probably a human quality you don’t realize you have.”

To find the key to your differentiation, Boland suggests talking to your loyal clients a couple of times a week for a few weeks. “In time, you’ll start to pick up on their language, rather than your own-and that’s where you’ll find the keys,” he says.

Now look inward, Boland continues. “Ask yourself: ‘Why am I doing this? Why do I like it?’ The journey in your mind and your client’s is, ‘What do I stand for?’ What part of that resonates with clients? Then meld those together.”

Stevens says the biggest value advisors bring stems from their critical thinking. “The ability to keep a clear head and to think things through, that’s why a client hires us-because we can think critically in completely new situations.”

 Marie Swift is founder and president of Impact Communications in Leawood, Kan.

Cutting Advisor Sales Assistants is Bad Business

Thursday, June 17th, 2010

Published on June  17, 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 continuing cuts by wirehouses of sales assistant positions have an amplified effect on how advisors run their practices and how clients perceive these advisors.

What was a trademark downsizing move circa fall 2008 is unfortunately showing no signs of abating. This was most recently witnessed by Morgan Stanley Smith Barney’s decision to cut sales assistants along with other support staff at the brokerage. An industry recruiter summed it up best by telling FundFirelast month that such cuts make it harder for advisors to be happy. “Sales support on the local branch level is very important…You will chip away at morale,” the observer remarked.

When firms eliminate the support sales assistants provide, the advisors must take time away from their most important business duties: client-facing activities and investment management. The cuts force advisors to take on tasks like processing trades, answering requests for account statements and other general administrative inquiries. In addition, these cuts also hurt the advisor’s ability to schedule client appointments that can build future business.

Consider, too, that the sales assistants at wirehouses today may be taking on other important duties, such as office receptionist work, due to previous support staff reductions. That means that it isn’t just the sales assistant’s work that may be piling up on the advisor’s desk.

The impact on client service quality is substantial. Remember that the more time advisors have to proactively call clients on investment issues, the better off their relationships are. If advisors must spend more time on administrative duties, they fall into a perpetual state of catch-up on client service matters. Their frustration increases while productivity decreases.

What makes the situation far more troubling is the fact that many advisors with sales assistants are not spending quality time with clients. Just look at the facts.

Wirehouse advisors reportedly spend only 27% of their time meeting with existing clients, according to a Cerulli Associates advisor time allocation study done in conjunction with the College for Financial Planning, the Financial Planning Association, IMCA and Morningstar. While this is more time than RIAs reported they spend with investors – about 22% – it is still much less time than most advisors would prefer. (Advisors actually say they have even less time to spend on investment management, which takes up 25% of wirehouse advisors’ time and 23% of RIAs’ time.)

Additionally, FA Insight research found that advisors spend just 50% of their time on client servicing, including meetings with existing clients and other revenue-generating events. Smaller practices tend to get hit harder in this regard.

The harsh truth for the wirehouses is clear. Their advisors are at risk of losing clients if they become spread too thin and also have less time to prospect for new business. While other types of firms have cut support levels, wirehouses especially can’t afford to neglect their primary producers while they also weather a large number of defections. And the argument that these brokerages are cutting back because of integration efforts following mergers shouldn’t apply to the sales assistants if we’re not seeing advisors being let go in the same proportions.

I understand that wirehouses must be bottom-line conscious in light of current economic conditions. However, I particularly question the continued cutting of sales assistant support. This may very well be one of the quickest ways to negatively impact an advisor’s business and alienate clients all at once.

Poll: Alt Mutual Funds to Face More Scrutiny

Thursday, May 20th, 2010

Published on May 19, 2010 – Ignites – An Information Service of Money-Media, a Financial Times Company
By Gregory Shulas

Mutual funds that embrace alternative investment strategies will face tougher scrutiny in the wake of the May 6 “flash crash.” That’s according to a vast majority of Ignites poll respondents.
 

Roughly 74%, or 124 voters, said mutual funds that use derivatives will face tougher reviews in the months ahead from regulators and investors. That made it the most popular option selected in an Ignites survey that asked whether the mysterious market gyration will result in more scrutiny of alt-style mutual funds.

Of the majority vote, 43%, or 72 voters, expect a moderate increase in scrutiny, while 31%, or 52 voters, said a significant increase in oversight awaits such funds.

In contrast, 26%, or 44 voters, said it will be business as usual for mutual funds that use alternative strategies, such as futures contracts, swaps or commodities. That made that option the survey’s least popular choice.

Waddell & Reed’s Ivy Asset Strategy fund came under a microscope after Reuters reported that it was responsible for an unusually large wave of futures selling that allegedly contributed to the “flash crash.”

The Kansas City area-based firm unloaded 75,000 e-mini contracts, or S&P 500 derivatives, during the 20-minute equities plunge, according to a Chicago Mercantile Exchange document that Reuters obtained. The document apparently identified Waddell as the unnamed trader that Commodities Futures Trading Commission chairman Gary Gensler mentioned in congressional testimony this month.

Waddell & Reed has refuted claims that it was responsible for the disruption. The company has cited an analysis showing how its trading accounted for 1% of the volume traded in the S&P 500 on May 6. The gyration at one point caused the Dow Jones Industrial Average to fall by nearly 1,000 points while temporarily pushing well-established companies into penny stocks.

Regardless of what investigators ultimately find, the incident is spurring questions about the effect alt-oriented funds can have on the market, acknowledges Andy Klausner, principal of AK Advisory Partners, a Boston-based consulting firm.

Until the pending financial reform bill is finalized, it’s hard to know where regulators will stand on retail funds that emphasize derivatives, Klausner says. A legitimate concern for the industry is whether Congress and other government agencies will rush to judgment and impose unnecessary restrictions on alt-oriented products, he says.

“I think there is still so much uncertainty with what happened on May 6,” Klausner says. “Let’s hope regulators don’t react too quickly to what happened. We… need to determine what exactly happened first.”

Alternative-oriented mutual funds have grown in popularity as financial advisors have sought exposure to asset classes that have low correlations with traditional equity strategies. By accessing alternatives in a mutual fund structure, investors receive lower fees and more transparency than they would in a hedge fund, industry experts argue. Further, alt-style mutual funds are free of the hedge fund gates that lock up clients’ assets until performance recovers.

Nearly 170 readers participated in the survey as of 3 p.m. Tuesday. The survey is an unscientific sampling of Ignites subscribers, who include money managers, service providers and financial advisors. Participants were self-selected and voted only once.

Brokerage Duo Forms $1.3B Indie Advisory Firm

Thursday, May 13th, 2010

Published on May 13, 2010 – FUNDfire – An Information Service of Money-Media, a Financial Times Company
By Tom Stabile 

Two formerCredit Suisse advisors who left the brokerage with nearly all of their $1.2 billion in client assets have formed an independent shop in Baltimore. Harbor Investment Advisorynow has $1.3 billion in assets just a few months after launching, and is aiming to hire advisors – especially wirehouse veterans – to join the founders, Robert Black III and Stephen Kelly.

Efforts to recruit wirehouse advisors could be buoyed by Harbor’s dual-registered model, which has a unique element: the partners not only filed as a registered investment advisor with the Securities and Exchange Commission but also built their own broker-dealer arm under Financial Industry Regulatory Authorityrules. Becoming a FINRA member is a somewhat cumbersome step for new independent advisor firms, and therefore uncommon, but it resembles the mix of fee-based and transaction-based services the advisors offered beforehand, says Betsy Brennen, who is the firm’s third partner and serves as its COO and chief compliance officer

“We didn’t want to disrupt the relationships we had with customers who have been working with us for 25 years,” she adds. The firm, which has 10 employees, serves high-net-worth clients, foundations and endowments.

Harbor opened its doors on Feb. 1, a few weeks after Black and Kelly left Credit Suisse, though Brennen already had been on board helping to set up the firm. All three had worked together at Alex Brown & Sons in the late 1990s, and remained when Bankers Trust bought it in 1997 and later when Deutsche Bank bought the whole organization in 1999. Black and Kelly left a few years later, at separate times, for Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette Securities, which Credit Suisse later bought.

“The vast majority of our clients migrated from Credit Suisse to Harbor, and that’s a reflection of the longstanding relationships Rob and Steve have with their clients,” Brennen says.

Harbor’s website states that the partners value the advantage of “having the focus and professionalism to deliver superior service” over being part of a large organization, and touts how it can “concentrate our efforts to provide a sophisticated suite of products and resources.”

Brennen says Harbor’s investment approach spans across options such as separately managed accounts, hedge funds, private equity, mutual funds, exchange-traded funds, and individual equity and fixed income securities. The firm custodies with BNY Mellon’s Pershing unit, and connects to a few of its managers through Pershing’s managed accounts platforms, but it does most resemble the set-up that Harbor’s clients previously had with the team. “It’s a bigger undertaking both financially and operationally,” she adds.

The partners assessed various other options, including joining existing platforms, before choosing to build the broker-dealer unit to handle transactional business from scratch. “This certainly wasn’t the least expensive option, primarily because of the net capital required [by regulators] and the capital outlay to build the infrastructure,” Brennen says. “Many advisors look into it and decide not to go forward with this approach. That’s why you see growth in the market of firms that cater to independent advisors with platforms and services. We simply wanted to be as independent as possible, and in this structure, we are beholden to no one.”

Among the added responsibilities of starting up and running a broker-dealer are extensive reporting, interview and filing requirements through FINRA, as well as the designation of partners for specific oversight functions and ongoing compliance duties. For instance, FINRA member firms have to designate specific principals or others responsible for compliance, financial affairs and operations. Harbor has outsourced some of its functions initially, but intends to fill all posts with internal resources as it fills out staffing, Brennen says.

Setting up a separate broker-dealer is a rare step for a new independent advisor firm, says Andrew Klausner, principal of AK Advisory Partners, a Boston-based consulting firm. It’s far more common for such firms to affiliate with another independent brokerage, he says.

Klausner says the move could make sense if the team plans to trade extensively or if the transactional side of the practice is a significant profit center. “But it’s a lot of work, a lot of expense,” he adds. “You don’t just do this as an accommodation for clients.”

He adds that there are some institutions that now are specifically seeking advisors that are separate from a broker-dealer arm, to ensure an “arm’s length” separation between advice and trading functions. But he says advisors in most brokerage formats will use external trading platforms when they need such access.

Poll: Morgan Stanley-Smith Barney on the Wrong Track

Wednesday, March 24th, 2010

Published on Mar 24, 2010 – FUNDfire – An Information Service of Money-Media, a Financial Times Company
By Gregory Shulas

The Morgan Stanley Smith Barneywirehouse is headed down the wrong track as the one-year anniversary of the firm’s creation approaches. That’s the consensus of industry professionals both inside and outside the company.

FundFire asked readers in a poll Tuesday whether management is leading the combined wirehouse in the right direction. Respondents could choose yes or no and had to identify whether they work for Morgan Stanley Smith Barney or are unaffiliated with the firm.

Poll respondents in both categories expressed dissatisfaction with the path the firm is on. Of the poll participants affiliated with the wirehouse, 58%, or 155 voters, said the firm is headed in the wrong direction. In contrast, 42%, or 113 Morgan Stanley Smith Barney voters, say they think the firm is headed the right way.

Of the survey respondents unaffiliated with the firm, 60%, or 78 voters, said the firm is losing its way. About 40%, or 51 voters, disagreed, saying Morgan Stanley Smith Barney is making the right strategic moves.

The Morgan Stanley Smith Barney deal closed on June 1, 2009, after Citigroupopted to spin off the Smith Barney brokerage as part of its larger efforts to restore profitability. The wirehouse’s opening months as a merged entity were marked by a drop in both assets and advisors.

At the start of 2010, the brokerage had approximately 18,135 advisors and managed assets of $1.56 trillion. This compared to $1.7 trillion in assets and 20,000 advisors in January 2009, around the time the deal was announced.

FundFire has reported on how escalating recruiting costs are putting the brokerage under pressure, forcing officials to reduce the numbers of new advisors they plan to bring on board this year. Morgan Stanley Smith Barney president Charlie Johnstonsays due to the changing environment the firm will concentrate on producing more revenue from existing teams, rather than poaching advisors from rival firms.

Andy Klausner, founder of strategic consultancy AK Advisory Partners, says he’s surprised that more affiliated voters did not register their dissatisfaction with the firm’s direction.

“Given the circumstances of the industry when the merger commenced, and the enormity of the task of integrating two such large and diverse companies, if I were the company, I might take these results as a small victory,” Klausner says. He believes a recent lift in the financial market may have lifted the advisor force’s optimism, further dampening the negative vote.

As of 3 p.m. Tuesday, nearly 400 FundFire subscribers participated in the survey.

Participants were self-selected and were only able to vote once. The survey is an unscientific sampling of FundFire’s audience, which consists of asset managers, institutional investors, consultants, financial advisors and service providers.