I was asked to comment on a poll which asked Ignites (a Financial Times Service) readers on the impact that the Preferred Lists provided by their firms has on their investment selection process. More than half (57%) said that they regularly use them but don’t admit it to clients. 20% said that they were highly influential in their selection process.

Now, lets be honest, when you answer a poll question you have to pick the one that is closest to your thoughts. I chuckled when I heard the results because of that extra line “but don’t admit it.” I don’t think this answer is quite as scandalous as the headline might indicate. The reason is that there is often no reason to tell the clients that you do rely somewhat on the advice of your firm – as long as you do something above and beyond just taking their recommendations.

In fact, in my mind, that is what differentiates the better advisors from their peers – they take the available information and then add some layer of their own work above and beyond it. To quote from the article: “But the extent of that influence varies by channel and advisor type.

Advisors with investment expertise — as opposed to financial planning and client service specialists — are more likely to forgo consulting recommended lists and instead pick funds based on past experiences with certain products and managers, consultants say.

Even so, such advisors remain likely to at least evaluate these firm-approved products as a starting point for their own analyses. Whether advisors look beyond the preferred list likely hinges on their comfort level with technical investment concepts, says Andy Klausner, partner at AK Advisory Partners.

“It depends on the advisor’s sophistication, their experience and the size [of their book]. It’s the newer, younger, less experienced advisors that rely more on recommended lists and model portfolios,” Klausner says. “The more experienced people want to say, ‘I pick my own manager and do my own research.’

“It’s always a good selling point to address what you do above and beyond what the firm does.”

Certain segments of the industry are also more likely than others to balk at buying products prescribed by a central research unit. Both Klausner and Fronczke say that reliance on recommended fund lists appears highest in the wirehouse and regional broker-dealer channels and least prevalent in the independent RIA space.”

I was asked to comment on an article in today’s Fundfire (a Financial Times Service) about Baird’s acquisition of Seattle-based B/D McAdams Wright Ragen (MWR). To me, the deal makes a great deal of sense. It extends Baird’s footprint in the Nortwest, and the employee owned boutique-firm seems to have a similar culture and operating philosophy.

But mergers are never easy – no matter how good the fit. There will inevitably be growing and consolidation pains; even the best merger partners experience some pain when they integrate operations, and any change is always traumatic on clients and in turn financial advisors. Having said that, the long-term gains from a successful merger do outweigh the pain. And in this case, I think the similarities in the firm’s cultures will keep the pain to a minimum – if they get the rest of the stuff right.

Contrast this to a merger between a B/D and a bank, or a regional B/D and a wirehouse, where in both cases the cultures are quite different and the odds of trouble in a merger are greater. The results of a merger are never perfect or easy to predict, but from what I can tell, I feel positive about this one.

To quote from the article: “”It seems like culturally the firms are a good fit – two regional players. This will help Baird increase its footprint in the Pacific Northwest. Baird has a reputation as a good regional firm and this step seems logical as they continue to expand,” says Andy Klausner, principal and founder of AK Advisory Partners. “Certainly the merger of two regional brokerage firms – from both a cultural and operational point of view – would be easier than the merging of a regional firm with either a bank or a larger brokerage firm. While Baird is larger and the acquirer, it is more a merger of equals than you see in many other mergers.””

I was asked to comment on an article in today’s Ignites (A Financial Times Service) about the industry’s reaction to reports that Allianz, the parent of Pimco, is going to increase its oversight and be more hands on with the subsidiary because of the continuing bad publicity the firm is getting in the wake of Mohammed El-Erian’s resignation in January. El-Erian was the heir apparent to CEO Bill Gross, and his departure has raised questions about the culture of the firm, among other things.

The article detailed results of a reader poll in which 43% of participants said that increased oversight would hurt Pimco (26% of these respondents felt that the negative effects would be significant). 38% of respondents believed that increased oversight would benefit the firm. 20% said such action would have no impact.

Parent companies in the asset management business traditionally give their subsidiaries large amounts of autonomy. In fact, Allianz increased Pimco’s autonomy in January 2012 when it gave Pimco control of its worldwide distribution. The overall fear is that micro-management of subsidies, in an industry where people are so important, could potentially lead to mass defections.

My belief is that if Allianz does become publicly involved, it is more of a way to shore-up public confidence in Pimco then to actually get in there and make significant changes. Perception is reality, and the perception in the industry today is that Pimco is broken. If Allianz can help shore-up confidence, and get the firm out of the media spotlight, perhaps it can help the firm turnaround.

To quote from the article: “Overall, the perception of damage has already taken its toll on Pimco, experts say. Andy Klausner, founder of strategic consultancy AK Advisory Partners, expects any Allianz involvement in fixing Pimco to be enacted more for public relations reasons than any other purpose, particularly due to doubts that Allianz has the appetite to restructure Pimco’s culture. With immense media coverage of Pimco recently, the real issue is that the firm’s reputation has suffered, he says. “Whether Pimco is right or wrong in the debate about their future, it does not matter,” Klausner says. “The perception of their culture being broken is important to note and it cannot be ignored.””

What do you think?

While the bad news continues for Pimco in the wake of CEO Mohammed El-Erian’s departure two months ago, I continue to believe that the outlook for the firm and Chairman Bill Gross is positive. I am quoted in an article in today’s Ignites (A Financial Times Service) about Morningstar’s downgrading of Pimco’s Stewardship Grade.

I don’t make much of this action to be honest. Morningstar is not the first firm to put the firm on watch, it took them two months to do so, and frankly it could have been worse. I think they are really just covering themselves in the event the turmoil continues.

To quote from the article: “But Morningstar is not the first “to essentially put Pimco on watch,” Andrew Klausner, founder and principal of AK Advisory Partners a strategic consultancy, says in an e-mail.  However, he is not too worried about the future of the firm. “The key is going to be if performance suffers and if there are major defections in the coming months,” Klausner writes. “Further downgrades to ‘sell’ from ‘watch’ by large pension plans or consultants, based on future moves, would be of concern.””

I did a longer opinion piece for Ignites, which was published on March 4, 2014. The title was “Bill Gross Should Stay Right Where He Is.” It is included below and provides a more detailed analysis of my thoughts on the matter:

The resignation of Pimco CEO Mohamed El-Erian, the expected successor to Bill Gross as head of Pimco, has sparked a lot of chatter over Gross’s own future at the firm.

A recent Wall Street Journal article titled “Inside the Showdown Atop Pmco, the World’s Biggest Bond Firm” recounted bad blood at Pimco ahead of El-Erian’s exit. Some pundits have predicted or even called for Gross’s resignation, as reported.

Reacting to the Journal piece,  Reuters columnist Felix Salmon wrote that “if Gross cares at all about the long-term fortunes of the company he built, the best thing he can do right now is simply retire.”

Despite all the noise, the reality of the situation is that Gross can and will continue to lead the firm. Thoughts of forced resignation or retirement are shortsighted and highly unlikely.

Let’s review some of the arguments that the “Gross must go” proponents are making and dispel them:

Poor recent performance and outflows in the Total Return Fund in particular. It has been a tough time for bond managers as anxiety about rising interest rates intensifies. But Pimco is certainly not alone in this respect, and it seems unfair to single out the company on this account.

After all, 14 Pimco’s bond mutual funds ranked in the top third of their category in 2013 and several had very strong performance. For example, Pimco’s New York Municipal Bond Fund stood in the top 1st percentile of all funds in its category based on its annual returns. Further, Pimco’s Emerging Markets Corporate Bond Fund (Institutional) performed in the top 9th percentile in its category peer group, according to Morningstar.

To be sure, some results have been disappointing; for example, the double-digit losses suffered by at least four bond mutual funds in 2013. However, given the difficult environment for bond funds across the board, there is nothing in Pimco’s 2013 performance that should set off serious alarm bells, particularly when the long-term returns of its bond funds are considered.

There have also been some complaints from various industry voices about Gross’s strict asset allocation policy, especially during a period of increased bond market uncertainty. However, highlighting one investment decision during a tough market sounds a lot like armchair quarterbacking.

What about Gross’s steady long-term performance and success in creating the world’s largest bond fund and bond manager? Morningstar named Gross Fixed Income Fund Manager of the Year three times (1998, 2000 and 2007) and the Fixed Income Fund Manager of the Decade for 2000–2009.

Let us not confuse the exit of El-Erian with normal market cycles. Certainly Gross and the rest of the firm deserve more time to orchestrate a performance rebound before we write his Pimco obituary.

Concerns over a lack of succession planning. Certainly when any firm loses a major contributor and heir apparent people will raise questions. But in this respect, Pimco has reacted quickly and aggressively. The firm has clearly communicated who the six new deputy CIOs are, including the last two winners of Morningstar’s Fixed-Income Fund Manager of the Year award, Dan Ivascyn (2013 co-recipient along with portfolio manager Alfred Murata) and Mark Kiesel (2012 winner).

The firm also quickly appointed a new CEO, Douglas Hodge; a new president, Jay Jacobs; and a new head of strategic business management, Craig Dawson.

One could argue that Gross has built a very impressive organization with talented investment professionals even without El-Erian. His departure also frees up a large pool of capital to compensate current employees and recruit new ones. Multiple media outlets have reported that El-Erian’s annual compensation was in the $100 million range.

People at any organization always hate to lose quality employees and leaders, but it happens and firms can certainly overcome it with savvy hires and promotions.

I am not defending executives who use domineering behavior to achieve results; it is just a reality at many asset management organizations. Historically, employees in this industry are compensated very highly, in part to make up for the stressful work atmosphere. Few people were calling for Bill Gross to retire before this event. So what has really changed?

Pimco and Bill Gross will survive El-Erian’s departure. While it is far too early to predict the long-term effects of the resignation or how the firm will perform as the bond market recovers, the firm has reacted quickly and decisively. It still has the infrastructure and the vast majority of employees that have made it successful in the past.

I would bet on Pimco in the future, not against it. And the smart wager is that Bill Gross will be around as long as he wants to be.