Enjoy the current installment of "weekend reading for financial planners" - highlights this week include several recent pieces about behavioral finance (both by, and about, research luminary and Nobel prize winner Daniel Kahneman), some interesting glimpses of how social media and the online world is shifting the process of finding a financial advisor and delivering financial advice, and a few investment pieces about the unraveling European (and now especially, Italian) sovereign debt situation and a growing likelihood the ECB will be compelled to "start the presses" to address it. We also look at two pieces highlighting trends in the industry, especially the RIA space. Enjoy the reading!Read More...
A common complaint about the use of tactical asset allocation strategies - which vary exposure to bonds, equities, and other asset classes over time - is that they are "risky" to the client's long-term success. What happens if you reduce exposure to equities and you are wrong, and the market goes up further? Are you gambling your client's long-term success?
Yet at the same time, the principles of market valuation are clear: an overvalued market eventually falls in line, and like a rubber band, the worse it's stretched, the more volatile the snapback tends to be. Which means an overvalued market that goes up just generates an even more inferior return thereafter. However, greedy clients may not always be so patient; there's a risk that the planner may get fired before valuation proves the results right.
Which raises the question: is NOT reducing equity exposure in overvalued markets about managing the CLIENT'S risk, or the PLANNER'S?Read More...
The common refrain from practice management consultants for years is that to survive and succeed, planning firms need to clearly define their target market. After all, if you don't know who you're trying to serve, you can't create unique value for them, and you can't focus your limited resources. The good news is that after years of this messages, a recent trend suggests that financial planners are finally getting it... sort of. Planners are saying that they've defined a target market in increasing numbers; the problem is, their target market is often defined as no more than "people who can afford my services" - and that is NOT a target market!Read More...
There is way too much dogma surrounding annuity commissions. The commission argument against annuities is most often posed by registered reps, or investment advisor reps who stand to gain by keeping money out of annuities. In the spirit of fairness, I compared the commissions for annuities in general against the fees that would be earned by an advisor charging an AUM fee and came to a simple conclusion: the "annuities are bad because they pay high commission" argument simply needs to be retired.
This past week featured the 2011 FPA NorCal regional conference. Pulling over 600 attendees, don't let the "regional" label fool you - the event is on par with any national financial planning conference! The opening general session event featured Neel Kashkari, currently a managing director with PIMCO, and former chief of the Trouble Asset Relief Program (TARP) for the Federal government. Here are the highlights... as captured on the #FPANorCal twitter hashtag!Read More...
This past week was the NAPFA 2011 National Conference in Salt Lake City. Pulling almost 500 attendees from across the country, it's one of the top financial planning events of the year. Unfortunately, though, many did not have the time or opportunity to attend the conference. The good news, however, is that a growing cadre of Twitter users "live-Tweeted" the conference for all to enjoy, using the #NAPFA11 hash tag. So for those of you who missed the conference, here's a quick synopsis of the entire 3-day conference from start to finish... from those who Tweeted it!
In the standard framework of portfolio management, changing a client's exposure to risk is essentially analogous to changing their overall exposure to risk assets. Want conservative growth? Invest in a portfolio with 40% equities and 60% fixed. Want a more moderate growth portfolio? Increase to 60% equities. More aggressive growth? Allocate your portfolio further towards an equity tilt. At its core, the proposition is pretty straightforward: increase your overall portfolio allocation increasingly towards risk assets to increase the overall risk (and hopefully, return) profile of the portfolio. But what if there was another way to increase overall risk? What if, rather than increasing overall risk by adding a little risk to the whole portfolio, the risk was increased by adding a lot of volatility to a very small portion of the money?
As the terms "being tactical" or "tactical asset allocation" become increasingly popular, more and more advisors now must decide whether they, too, are "tactical" or not when describing their investment process and philosophy to current and prospective clients. Traditionally, the dividing line was simply whether one was active or passive, a determination that could be made pretty clearly by looking at the portfolio: were there a bunch of actively traded stocks and bonds, or a series of actively managed mutual funds that did the same thing? With tactical, though, it's no longer sufficient to simply look at whether there are stocks and bonds in the portfolio, or actively managed mutual funds; instead, some tactical investors implement their strategies by selecting only passive index funds, but still utilize them in an active, tactical process. Which begs the question: where exactly do you draw the line on being tactical?Read More...
Rebalancing is a investing staple of the financial planning world. The execution of a rebalancing strategy helps to ensure that the client's asset allocation does not drift too far out of whack, as without such a process a portfolio holding multiple investments with different returns would eventually lead to a portfolio that increasingly favors the highest return investments due to compounding. Yet in practice, most financial planners often discuss rebalancing not only as a risk-reduction strategy (by ensuring that higher-return higher-volatility assets do not drift to excessive allocations), but also as a return-enhancing strategy. However, in reality, there is nothing inherent about rebalancing that would be anticipated to generate higher returns... unless you get the market timing right.
For many planners, passive and strategic investment management is the way to go. As such planners often point out, the evidence is mixed at best that any money manager can ever consistently generate alpha by outperforming their appropriate benchmark. Accordingly, as those planners advocate, the best path is to minimize investment costs as much as possible (since we know expenses we don't pay is more money we keep in our pockets), and investment allocation changes should only occur via a regular rebalancing process. Yet rebalancing does not always improve your returns; sometimes, it actually reduces future wealth. So if you try to come up with a "passive" rebalancing strategy that only enhances returns and doesn't ever reduce them... does that mean you're actually being active after all?
