Archive for the ‘Sponsors’ Category

Do Your Clients Trust You?

Tuesday, March 26th, 2013

Most advisors would probably answer this question in the affirmative – “Of course my clients trust me.” While no one wants to admit that they aren’t viewed positively, asking yourself this question, and honestly reviewing your business practices and relationships might help lead you to a more prosperous future.

I say this after reading the results of another study showing that many investors really don’t trust their advisors and/or financial services providers. A study by Hearts and Wallets, which includes an annual study of 5,400 households, concludes that 55% of respondents are afraid that they will be ripped off by their advisor, and less than 20% fully trust their provider – down 5% since 2010.

Aside from the obvious, that you want your clients to trust you, the study also reveals that providers who are trusted enjoy an average share of wallet that is nearly double low trust relationships. These clients are also more likely to have their advisors help them in the planning process, and they are more likely to own more products and be open to new concepts, according to Hearts and Wallets.

So – the all important question is – what helps build trust?

  • How well the investor understands how the advisor and the firm earn money. People aren’t as concerned with specific fees as they are with understanding how the system of incentives works.
  • Investors want to feel that their provider is unbiased and puts their interests first, understands them and shares their values.
  • Investors want to work with people who are responsive.

It never ceases to amaze me that it always seems to come back to explaining fees – not the fees themselves – but clearly articulating how everyone is paid. The fee discussion should be at the forefront of meetings with prospects – if the client has to ask – it’s probably too late! It also comes down to client service – being responsive, and setting up your practice to keep clients informed on their own terms.

Finally, one last statistic from the report – 33% of investors report that their main motivation to consolidate their assets is based on rewarding proven results – another key trust builder. And with an estimated $16 trillion in assets ripe for some sort of movement (rollover, consolidation), this question is worth thinking about.

What Are Top Advisors Doing?

Wednesday, March 13th, 2013

While every advisor has his/her own unique business, there are common traits to be found among the most successful advisors that can be used as a helpful guide for all advisors. The most recent source of useful information in this regard is the always reliable PriceMetrix Inc., which just released its third annual Report on the State of the Retail Wealth Management.

(I always like their studies because of the depth and breadth of the data that they use – data representing more than 7 million retail investors, 500 million transactions and over $3.5 trillion in investment assets.)

While average (per advisor) overall production and assets under management increased last year, revenue on assets declined by 3%, as revenue growth did not keep pace with asset growth. Equity trade volume also declined, and while the shift to fee-based business continued, it did so at a slower rate than the year before. Among these somewhat mixed messages were some positive takeaways:

  • Advisors reduced the number of households that they serve from an average of 165 in 2011 to 159 last year – with the focus moving to deepening relationships with their largest clients.
  • The average size of households grew in 2012 by 13% (from $435,000 to $491,000) as did revenue per household.
  • The proportion of households with at least $250,000 in investable assets rose from 34% to 38%.

The key to future success, according to PriceMetrix, Inc. President Doug Trott, is that advisors “need to continue to increase the value of their service, by working with fewer households, deepening client relationships and increasing their capacity to service their remaining clients. Advisors also need to ensure that their pricing reflects their increase in value.” I concur with Mr. Trott.

Finally, and perhaps most useful to advisors, three areas of unrealized potential were identified by PriceMatrix in their analysis:

1 – 39% of households had less than $50,000 in investable assets, with the implication that advisors should consider dropping these smaller households if they can’t deepen these relationships. My guess is that the most successful advisors have a lot smaller proportion of these size accounts in their books of business.

2 – 42% of households have only one account with their advisors – somewhat surprising in the aggregate. Successful advisors leverage their relationships to open-up multiple accounts per client, including retirement accounts, and with multiple family members when possible.

3 – The average equity trade was priced at a 35% discount, meaning that the average advisor gave-up $46,000 in discounts last year. While these results are for equity trade, I think the same principle holds for fee-based business as well. The most successful advisors know their value and know how to price it without having to discount deeply.

Some good food for thought – every advisor should ask him or herself what changes they can make to their client mix to increase their productivity and spearhead growth in their businesses.

AK In The News: Another Blow To Wirehouse Advisors?

Thursday, March 7th, 2013

I was asked to write an opinion piece in FundFire about recent developments that seem like another slap in the face to wirehouse advisors by their own companies. Here is the text of the piece:

Last week’s Fundfire article about Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs letting a limited number of registered investment advisors (RIAs) tap their research capabilities raised some hackles.

It also raised some questions: Is this another blow to financial advisors working at wirehouses, regionals and other traditional broker-dealers? Should these advisors feel slighted that some of their competition is now going to have access to resources that were heretofore considered to be a competitive advantage? And rightly or wrongly, will it accelerate attrition of wirehouse advisors?

Personally, I don’t think so. Sure, one could argue that the firms are arming the competition with some of the same weapons their own advisors have at their disposal. But at the end of the day, high-net-worth and ultra-high-net-worth clients select their advisors based on relationships more than individual products. It would be a stretch to think that client relationships would be endangered by this move alone. In fact, large broker-dealers could use it to their advantage by pointing out to clients and prospects that their firm conducts such good research that many of their competitors value it.

Building and maintaining a top-notch research infrastructure is expensive, and frankly, out of reach for most RIAs and other independent advisors. This is the case for both traditional investment research as well as alternatives, which have become increasingly popular as clients search for income and return in today’s investment environment. Especially as the breadth of product offerings continues to expand, when it comes to sophisticated research, “building it yourself” becomes harder and harder, even for firms of substantial size.

From an RIA’s perspective, partnering with a wirehouse can bring instant credibility, since clients are more apt to have heard of large broker-dealers than they are of the many smaller, newer turnkey providers offering similar products. Even though their reputations have taken a hit since 2008, Merrill and Goldman are still big names.

So why shouldn’t Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs and other large broker-dealers look for ways to increase distribution and therefore the profitability of these areas? Especially in Merrill’s case, it’s perhaps partly a recognition that the number of advisors moving away from the wirehouses and other traditional broker-dealers continues to grow. More advisors are going independent, and wealth management firms need to go where the distribution opportunities are. Outsourcing investment research is an opportunity to boost revenue.

This is not to say that the wirehouses won’t continue to be a force in the industry, because they will. According to Cerulli Associates, wirehouses will still control more than a third of the assets in the advisory market at the end of 2014.

Additionally, there are many differences between RIAs and independents on the one hand and traditional broker-dealer advisors on the other. The former are running their own businesses in addition to providing financial advice. This is a huge undertaking. Wirehouse advisors do not want the hassle of the day-to-day minutiae of running a business – they just want to concentrate on their clients.

There are myriad issues that make an advisor leave his or her firm and go independent. It’s unlikely that advisors will be sufficiently angered by this alone to jump ship.

Advisors have gotten mad at their own firms in the past; for example, the uproar last year at Merrill Lynch when Bank of America tried to increase pressure on cross-selling. That to me was a more significant issue that this research one, and I don’t think that caused a significant run for the exits.

All in all, this issue of outsourcing investment research capabilities seems to be nothing more than a natural development in the wealth management business. While a few advisors might feel that their employers are slighting them, both the traditional broker-dealer firms and the RIAs have the potential to benefit.

Do Your Clients Use Social Media?

Tuesday, March 5th, 2013

Usually when I talk about social media – and advocate for its use – I focus on the benefits to you the financial services professional – the ability to provide better client service, the longer-term goal of obtaining new business, etc. But, an interesting study caught my eye the other day – it focused on the fact that 90% of high net worth investors use social media. What better way to convince you to use social media than to know that the odds are really good that your client is using it as well?

First, the study. Cogent Research, teaming with LinkedIn, surveyed mass affluent, affluent and ultra-affluent investors with more than $100,000 in investible assets, and specifically honed in on their use of social media, as well their perceptions of social media. The results are quite interesting:

  • Over 90% participate in social media in some form or another
  • Only 4% currently interact with their financial advisor on social media, but 52% said they would if their financial advisor utilized social media
  • 67% visit LinkedIn and Facebook on a monthly basis
  • 46% of investors using social media do not have a financial advisor
  • 28% perceive a financial company as “innovative” and “on the cutting edge” if they utilize social media

In the spirit of giving clients what they want, these statistics should at least provoke some serious thinking about how you use social media. Of course, just knowing that your clients utilize social media is not enough – you need to know what their preferred media are and a little more about what they are looking for.

When in doubt, the best thing is to always ask. Why not conduct a survey of your clients/prospects geared toward seeing how you can provide better information to them – timely information provided when they want it and how they want it. Clients will appreciate that you are soliciting their opinion and trying to improve your deliverables. You’ll be able to garner invaluable information in planning your client servicing efforts moving forward as well.

If you don’t want to do a survey, then incorporate social media into your next quarterly review with clients and/or conversation. Informally ask them their opinions – you can accomplish many of the same goals as a survey. Use whichever format makes you and your clients feel more comfortable. You will be glad that you do.

Does Going It Alone Increase Risk?

Tuesday, February 26th, 2013

We have talked in the past about the growing trend of investors deciding to “go it alone” – forgoing developing relationships with financial advisors to invest directly through intermediaries like Fidelity and Schwab. In all likelihood, investors likely to fall into this category probably have under $10 million to invest; those with more – considered by many to by ultra high net worth investors, are probably more likely to seek advice due to the complexity of their finances.

In many cases, the meager returns of the past ten years have frustrated investors who have been paying a fee. Intermediaries have responded by offering more investment options. Unfortunately, and what makes me nervous is that the increasing complexity of some of these investments make it hard for many investors to truly understand them – and the associated risks.

Many investors are seeking more income – and many funds have for example increased their allocations to equites to try and accommodate these needs. Many firms have also entered the alternative investment spaces, either by developing their own products or by partnering with hedge fund providers. One example is the large increase in long-short mutual funds over the past few years.

Firms expanding recently in the “retail” alternatives space include Janus, BlackRock and Franklin Templeton.

But do investors really understand the inherent risks associated with these investments? In most cases, I would argue that they don’t. Additionally, many of these new products have substantially higher fees than traditional mutual funds – are investors aware of this fact? Probably not. Interestingly, the SEC just announced the increasing use of alternative and hedge fund strategies by mutual funds, ETFs and variable annuities as a new and emerging risk.

This disturbing trend has a positive side in that it presents an opportunity of advisors to educate clients – and to promote educational materials that they produce to perhaps sway some of these “go it aloners” to come speak with them and allow them the opportunity to show them that partnering with a financial advisor may well be a sound risk-reducing strategy.

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.