Kitces.com - Advancing Knowledge in Financial Planning

Kitces & Carl Ep 22: Simplifying Your Life By Building Habits And Kitces Travel Tips

December 5, 2019 07:03 am 7 Comments CATEGORY: Kitces & Carl Podcast

Traveling can be an extremely taxing activity, and, especially now with the holidays in full swing, managing travel stress is a high priority for many people. Ironically, though, the source of much of this stress is not actually the travel itself – it’s often more about preparing to travel! Because in this day and age of abundant high-tech tools designed to make our lives easier and more efficient, it’s easy to instead become overwhelmed with all of the options available without knowing how to best select (and use!) the right set of tools to help us with our needs in the first place.

In our 22nd episode of Kitces & Carl, Michael Kitces and financial advisor communication expert Carl Richards talk about some easy ways to cope with travel by taking a look at how Michael keeps his own travel routines as simple as possible.

With the fall season of financial advisor conferences finally slowing down, Michael discusses some of the key habits he uses to manage his own hectic travel schedule. From how he keeps multiple “Kitces-blue” shirts on hand (so he doesn’t need to spend time planning out different wardrobe styles!), to having at least two of everything else he needs to make his pre-travel preparation as simple as possible. And instead of using multiple tech tools that need to coordinate information between different apps and devices, he relies simply on Google Calendar to keep track of all of his travel information including flight schedules, lodging details, and meeting times. Perhaps most importantly, though, is how Michael prioritizes getting enough sleep every night, so that he can physically keep up with the demands of his workload, which involves juggling his roles in multiple businesses.

Ultimately, the key point is that travel doesn’t have to be complicated, and by creating easy habits for yourself and consciously minimizing the cognitive load required to set up (and remember) a good travel routine, neither does planning or preparing for travel. Identifying essential needs and developing simple and easy-to-follow systems to meet those needs, will make it easier to implement an efficient travel strategy without getting bogged down with overly complicated tech tools or elaborate processes.

Navigating Social Security’s “Government Pension Offset” (GPO) Rule For Retirees With Non-Covered Pensions

December 4, 2019 07:04 am 7 Comments CATEGORY: Retirement Planning

Social Security spousal and survivor benefits were created to provide some level of Social Security benefits to households that relied primarily on a single worker, as a means to both financially support households with stay-at-home spouses, and to ensure that an earner’s widow was not left in poverty after the primary worker passed away. The caveat, however, is that in the early years of Social Security, some government workers had the opportunity to participate in jobs that did not pay into Social Security (so-called “non-covered” jobs), and instead directly received a private pension… with the end result that, in addition to their pensions, they also ended out receiving Social Security spousal and survivor benefits as though they were a stay-at-home spouse, when in reality they were simply a working spouse in a non-covered job.

To address this concern, Congress passed the Government Pension Offset (GPO) rule over 40 years ago to more fairly determine how Social Security benefits would be received by such non-covered government workers to ensure they were not effectively “double-dipping” into government pension benefits as workers and spousal and survivor benefits intended primarily for non-workers. Today, the GPO affects more than 695,000 Social Security beneficiaries.

The core of the GPO rule is that workers who receive pensions from government jobs that did not participate in Social Security will face a reduction of spousal and survivor benefits that they might otherwise be entitled to based on the work records of their spouses (who worked in covered jobs that did pay into Social Security). Specifically, the GPO rule applies to individuals who meet three criteria: 1) worked at a federal, state or local government job where they did not pay Social Security taxes; 2) qualified for a pension from that job (that did not pay into Social Security); and 3) are eligible to receive spousal or survivor’s benefits from a spouse who did work in a job covered by Social Security.

For those who are affected, the GPO reduces spousal and survivor benefit amounts by 2/3 of the government pension benefit received from the non-covered employer. And if 2/3 of the retiree’s pension exceeded their spousal or survivor benefit altogether, the net result is that they will receive none of that Social Security benefit at all! Importantly, though, this rule applies only to the person who actually owns (i.e., originally earned) the non-covered pension. Which means that if a retiree inherits their spouse’s non-covered pension, their Social Security survivor benefits are not reduced because the pension was originally owned by and based on the work history of another.

In some cases, an individual may have pension benefits based on earnings from covered and non-covered employment (having switched jobs over the years between employers who both paid into the pension). In these situations, the GPO will reduce the individual’s benefits by 2/3 of the pension portion attributable only to non-covered employment. This non-covered pension portion is determined by multiplying the full amount of the pension benefit by the ratio of non-covered months of employment to the total months of employment contributing to the pension.

While the GPO is generally difficult to avoid, there are a couple of strategies that financial advisors can consider for their clients who may be impacted by the rule. The “Last-60-Months” exception says that the “GPO does not apply if an individual was covered by both the government retirement system and Social Security throughout his/her last 60 months of Federal, State, and local government service. The 60 months need not be consecutive.” Thus, if a worker leaves their current job under which they would have been subject to the GPO, finds new employment that is covered by Social Security and the government pension, and stays in that job (or another job that contributes to the government pension and that is covered by Social Security) for at least 60 months of service prior to retirement, the GPO rule would not affect their Social Security spousal or survivor benefit.

Alternatively, a government employee has the option of withdrawing from their pension altogether. For this strategy to avoid the GPO, the worker would need to withdraw all of their own contributions (with interest) from the plan, forfeiting any employer contributions (unlike most non-government pensions, many government pensions consist of both employee and employer contributions). This strategy should be considered carefully, as while the GPO impact on Social Security benefits would potentially be eliminated, so too would any pension benefits to which the individual was once entitled (and the loss of the pension itself may easily end out costing more than the otherwise foregone Social Security benefits would have been in the first place!).

Ultimately, the key point is that advisors should be aware of when and how the Government Pension Offset may affect their clients, and if their clients can use a strategy to mitigate the GPO’s impact on their benefits. While there are stirrings of legislative proposals to eliminate the GPO rule (along with the WEP), the population actually affected by these rules is relatively small (approximately 1% of all Social Security beneficiaries in 2018 were affected by the GPO). Thus, traction on any amendments to eliminate or modify these rules may be difficult, especially since there arguably are good policy reasons for it to exist (to avoid the implicit ‘double dipping’ of earning a non-covered pension as a worker and a spousal or survivor benefit nominally intended for non-working spouses). In the meantime, advisors can help their clients by understanding when the GPO needs to be factored into a client’s financial plan, especially given that the GPO can heavily (or fully) eliminate Social Security spousal or survivor benefits that they might have otherwise anticipated receiving!

#FASuccess Ep 153: Generating More Productive Referrals By Closing The Gap Of Prospects Who Are Referred But Never Call, With Dan Allison

December 3, 2019 07:06 am 0 Comments CATEGORY: Financial Advisor Success Podcast

Welcome back to the 153rd episode of Financial Advisor Success Podcast!

My guest on today's podcast is Dan Allison. Dan is the founder of Feedback Marketing Group, a marketing and sales consulting firm that helps financial advisors to increase their growth by teaching methods to actually generate more referrals from existing clients.

What's unique about Dan, though, is the way he approaches the challenge of referrals with a background in clinical and behavioral psychology, an approach that's focused specifically on how to reduce the client's own mental and other barriers to make it easier for them to provide effective referrals in the first place. Based on his discovery that, in the end, the problem for most advisors is not that their clients aren't referring them actively, but that there's a gap to be closed between how often clients refer and how often that referred person ever actually follows through to contact the financial advisor for help.

In this episode, we talk in-depth about Dan's approach to referrals and the five key points he focuses on helping to generate more and more productive referrals:

Making sure that you are really offering the services your clients want and would be willing to refer, recognizing that, unfortunately, not all advisors actually provide services worth referring in the first place;
Ensuring that clients are well educated about your firm and the full breadth of what you really do, given that clients will often only think of their advisor services based on what the advisor did for them personally and not actually the full range of the advisor services;
Communicating that you're actually looking to help more people and have capacity, and the kind of people that clients should be trying to spot that would be a good fit for you;
Working with the client to figure out if they do refer someone, what their introduction strategy will be to ensure that you'll actually be able to connect with and have a chance to help that referral; and
Categorizing your own clients to figure out who the potential referral goldmines might be, and more importantly, who the referral landmines are that, once identified, you'll simply know not to ever have the referral conversation with anymore.

We also talk about the fundamental dynamic of client referrals themselves. Why the "I get paid in two ways" or "the greatest compliment you can give me is a referral" and similar approaches that try to guilt clients into feeling like they should be obligated to give their financial advisor referrals is mostly doomed to fail, the difference between transactional referrals versus relationship referrals and how the very nature of client referrals has changed as the financial advisor business model has changed, but why even in a relationship model, it's not enough to simply serve your clients well and wait, hope and pray that they'll start sending you referrals, because, as most advisors know, that often doesn't really happen in reality.

And be certain to listen to the end, where Dan shares some of his own journey as someone who built and sold an incredibly successful business while still in his 20s, the somewhat random way that he landed in the financial services industry, with a background in psychology and mental health, but how in the end, the career of being a successful financial advisor is all about that mental game of preparing yourself, not for the sprint of launching your firm but for the marathon of building a successful practice over the years and decades to come.

The Latest In Financial Advisor #FinTech (December 2019)

December 2, 2019 07:09 am 0 Comments CATEGORY: Technology & Advisor FinTech

Welcome to the December 2019 issue of the Latest News in Financial Advisor #FinTech – where we look at the big news, announcements, and underlying trends and developments that are emerging in the world of technology solutions for financial advisors and wealth management!

This month's edition kicks off with the blockbuster news that Charles Schwab will be acquiring TD Ameritrade in 2020, which sets off not only a seismic shift in the competitive landscape for retail brokerage and RIA custodial platforms but also raises substantial questions about the future of advisor FinTech innovation in a world where the majority of such startups in recent years have built first to TDA’s VEO platform as an initial go-to-market strategy… which may or may not remain viable if Schwab folds VEO into its own (much-harder-to-get-onto-the-integration-roadmap) OpenView Gateway platform.

From there, the latest highlights also include a number of other interesting advisor technology announcements, including:

Newly Proposed Regulations to update SEC advertising rules and permit advisors to steer clients towards third-party review sites could spawn a slew of new Advisor Ratings platforms
Envestnet’s Tamarac integrates with FIX Flyer as more and more large RIAs look for trading efficiencies in a multi-custodial world
MaxMyInterest launches a 1.00% APY high-yield checking account (to couple with their even-higher-yielding savings account) for advisory firms to offer their clients
Goldman announces that it is gearing up a new pricing strategy for United Capital’s FinLife CX technology to support the distribution of Goldman proprietary solutions

Read the analysis about these announcements in this month's column and a discussion of more trends in advisor technology, including the launch of BidMoni’s FiduciaryShield platform to help advisors support (and prospect for) 401(k) plans, LoanBuddy's launch of a new advisor dashboard and enterprise pricing as student loan planning as demand begins to rise for student loan planning tools, the launch of a new “AdvisorEpisodes” platform by three former Riskalyzers to provide advisory firms ready-made short videos to share on their social media channels, and JourneyGuide's launch of a new retirement planning software platform with the novel approach of illustrating, in the planning software itself, whether a particular annuity product actually improves the client’s long-term financial plan (or not)!

And be certain to read to the end, where we have provided an update to our popular new “Financial Advisor FinTech Solutions Map” as well.

I hope you're continuing to find this column on financial advisor technology to be helpful. Please share your comments at the end and let me know what you think!

*And for #AdvisorTech companies who want to submit their tech announcements for consideration in future issues, please submit to [email protected]!

Weekend Reading for Financial Planners (Nov 30 – Dec 1)

November 29, 2019 02:01 pm 0 Comments CATEGORY: Weekend Reading

Enjoy the current installment of "weekend reading for financial planners" – this week's edition kicks off with the ongoing chatter about the fallout of the announced Schwab acquisition of TD Ameritrade, from Schwab relocating its headquarters to Dallas, the uncertain fate of TDA's VEO, how Schwab will handle smaller RIAs that, in the past, may have joined TDA specifically because they didn't meet Schwab minimums, and whether it will be necessary to repaper accounts as a part of the merger (which could put all the RIAs on TDA's platform 'in play' for competing custodians).

Also in the news this week is a newly proposed rule from the SEC that would potentially limit the use of leveraged and inverse exchange-traded products as regulators grow increasingly concerned about inappropriate uses of such vehicles and whether investors (whether clients of a broker-dealer or an RIA) truly understand the risks involved.

From there, we have several tax planning articles, including new Final Regulations from the Treasury clarifying that there will not be a 'clawback' of gift and estate taxes even if the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lapses in 2025 and the current $11.4M estate tax exemption falls back to lower levels, a look at how states are becoming increasingly aggressive on "residency audits" to determine whether those claiming to have relocated (to avoid the state's high income tax rates) really changed their state of residence or not, and a reminder from IRA guru Ed Slott that with the beginning of a new year fast approaching the once-per-year 60-day rollover rule for IRAs does not reset and is still based on a rolling-365-day blackout period (but trustee-to-trustee transfers remain safe either way!).

We also have a few articles on advisory firm mergers and acquisitions, including a reminder of the key levers that drive the valuation of an advisory firm beyond just its revenue (as two firms with the same revenue may still have a drastically different valuation based on the stability and profitability of that revenue), the rise of bank funding options for RIAs that want to sell internally but not seller-finance the transaction, tips from successful acquirers of what it takes to close on a transaction (and get the seller to pick your firm as the chosen buyer), and some interesting research on the realities of today's M&A market for advisory firms that is increasingly driven by large firms that are paying ever-higher levels of upfront cash or in-kind stock exchanges as a part of the transaction.

We wrap up with three interesting articles, all around the theme of customer/client service and interacting with clients: the first explores the concept of "aesthetic intelligence", and that how an advisory firm and its services are aesthetically staged can have a significant impact on the client experience; the second explores how, amongst the affluent, human contact that eschews screens and computers is becoming a form of 'luxury good'; and the last is a powerful reminder that at some point spending money as a business on good customer service isn't just an overhead expense but a 'marketing' expense that drives word of mouth (and that it's important to be strategic in how you allocate resources to client service recognizing its potential marketing impact).

Enjoy the 'light' reading!

Why It’s Best To Measure Risk Tolerance With #FinTech Questionnaires Instead Of (Just) Risk Conversations

November 27, 2019 07:08 am 5 Comments CATEGORY: General Planning

There are numerous factors that every advisor must consider when objectively assessing a client’s risk tolerance. And if the concept of risk wasn’t already complex enough (as it considers a multitude of facets, including tolerance, capacity, composure, perception, and literacy), the variety of available tools to measure risk tolerance – from written questionnaires to various FinTech software tools and simply having the advisor-client “risk conversation” – often results in inconsistent (or even contradictory) results (especially given that clients vary in their own risk literacy to navigate such assessments in the first place).

In addition, recent research reveals that the modality of the risk tolerance assessment process can itself influence the results. For instance, one study found that when advisors verbally discuss risk tolerance with clients of the opposite sex, the client’s self-reported risk tolerance tends to be higher than if the client would have responded to an advisor of the same sex. This implicit gender-bias behavior is thought to be driven by subconscious psychobiological tendencies of the client, possibly influenced by a desire to appeal to a person of the opposite sex (even if not otherwise attracted to or interested in them).

In turn, alternatives to the conversational approach to risk tolerance – such as using pen-and-paper written questionnaires, or FinTech-based software tools for assessment – also appear to have an influence on the results. For instance, while scores for men and women were equal in a pen-and-paper assessment, men scored significantly higher than women in a technology-based video assessment that included the exact same questionnaire as the pen-and-paper test. And although it might be tempting to conclude that the pen-and-paper assessment is better for eliminating the gender gap between men and women, studies have shown that an inherent difference in risk does indeed exist between the sexes, where men generally report higher risk scores than do women. Given that this gender difference was preserved in the technology-based assessment suggests that perhaps gender-neutral technology-based assessments may have the edge over pen-and-paper assessments in most accurately assessing clients’ risk tolerance levels.

On the other hand, it’s also important to recognize that not all technology tools are similar for assessing risk tolerance. In practice, risk tolerance software can be best leveraged by understanding the methods used to measure risk tolerance and also by knowing how risk literate clients are, as certain assessment modalities may resonate more for clients depending on their risk literacy levels. For instance, clients who are highly risk-literate may relate better to econometric measuring technology, such as the software platform provided by Riskalyze. Other less risk-literate clients may relate better to FinaMetrica, another software platform that relies more on psychometric criteria than economically complex quantitative risk trade-offs.

Despite the advisor gender bias observed in risk tolerance studies between men and women and the appeal of gender-neutral technology risk measurement tools that are readily available, conversations with clients should not be eschewed altogether. Instead, they may be effectively used after a (software-based) risk tolerance assessment has been administered, and perhaps by a team of male and female advisors, not only to review the assessment with the client and help them understand the results, but also to supplement the process with a human element involved in helping clients improve their overall risk literacy. Because technology tools are still no match for a person-to-person connection for an advisor to gather the subtle nuances about their clients that software programs are simply unable to detect.

Ultimately, the key point is that there are many factors affecting how clients perceive their relationship with risk, and at least some of these are subconscious influences on human behavior. And as technology-based assessment tools may minimize a client’s bias that can arise in response to their advisor’s gender (while leaving the inherent gender gap that exists between men and women intact), connecting through conversations in person (after the technology-based assessment is administered!) is still the best way to grow relationships and develop trust with clients.