Kitces.com - Advancing Knowledge in Financial Planning

Weekend Reading for Financial Planners (Oct 26-27)

October 25, 2019 03:35 pm 0 Comments CATEGORY: Weekend Reading

Enjoy the current installment of "weekend reading for financial planners" – this week's edition kicks off with the announcement that Charles Schwab will allow (free) fractional share trading on their platform, which not only fires a shot back at upstart stock trading platforms like Robinhood that also allow fractional shares, but raises the question of whether Schwab is positioning itself to compete against mutual funds (and ETFs) more directly by facilitating Indexing 2.0 solutions that allow investors to buy the stocks underlying an index fund directly in the exact (fractional) amounts and avoid the cost of the mutual fund or ETF wrapper altogether.

From there, we have several articles on spending advice for clients, from tips on how to help clients who are spending "like mad", a study finding that it may be easier to help clients actually change their savings behavior by engaging their emotionality rather than just trying to make them behave more rationally, understanding the limits of trying to be ever more frugal (or balancing out financial frugality with time frugality), and whether and to what extent advisors have a "moral obligation" to help clients that are on an unsustainable spending path towards portfolio depletion.

We also have a few articles on the trends of advisory firm mergers and acquisitions, including a look at whether the typical deals for RIAs are getting bigger or smaller (hint: it's both bigger over $5B, and smaller under $500M, that is seeing an uptick in deal activity), what to consider when trying to value your own advisory firm, whether advisory firms should be concerned that publicly traded RIA consolidators like FOCS and AMG are lagging the general stock market, and what prospective sellers should be thinking about if they're considering whether to sell their firms (and don't want to botch the deal in the process).

We wrap up with three interesting articles, all around the theme of how shifting generational preferences and experiences are changing consumer behavior: the first looks at the rise of 'group trips', which are going from large guided tour groups (that leave group members unduly beholden to one another) into premium small-group experiences that have become particularly popular with affluent individuals in their 50s and 60s; the second looks at overall Consumer Expenditure Survey data on how Millennial spending compares with Baby Boomers (and Gen X) in their mid-20s to mid-30s, finding that, overall, Millennials earn more and actually don't have to spend as much on 'luxuries' in clothing and entertainment... or can't afford to, because of their substantially higher student loan debt overhang that averages nearly 10X (even after adjusting for inflation) that of the Boomer generation; and the last looks at how Millennials and the subsequent Gen Z now entering the marketplace, are beginning to disrupt the nature of what it means to work in an office, as work changes from a 'place' you go, to a 'thing' you do (from wherever it happens to be convenient to do that work, which may or may not include a lot of physical office time).

Enjoy the 'light' reading!

Kitces & Carl Ep 19: Is Any Financial Advisor Business Model Truly Conflict Free?

October 24, 2019 07:35 am 15 Comments CATEGORY: Kitces & Carl Podcast

In any business relationship, there is a desire of the seller to convince the buyer to purchase their product or service, which presents a fundamental conflict of interest for the seller’s objectivity about whether his/her products or services are really in the buyer’s best interest. But beyond the inevitability of some conflict of interest simply by virtue of the seller/buyer relationship itself (which can never be fully eliminated), there lies a wide spectrum of how manageable (or unmanageable) additional conflicts of interest may be, which is influenced not only by the actual product or service being offered, and how it is compensated, but also by the stories that are told to justify the value of what is being offered.

In our 19th episode of Kitces & Carl, Michael Kitces and financial advisor communication expert Carl Richards talk about these conflicts of interest, and the dilemma that financial advisors face when determining where to draw the line between a ‘manageable’ conflict of interest and one that is ‘unmanageable.’

Advisors whose livelihoods are based on the commissions they generate by selling financial products are often held up as a case-in-point example for such ‘unmanageable’ conflicts of interest. For instance, it may be difficult for an advisor to avoid recommending an annuity with a higher commission payout rate, or the company product that counts towards a year-end bonus. This is not to say there is anything wrong with salespeople, as they do play an important role in facilitating the purchase of products for those who want to purchase one; however, consumers themselves can help manage this conflict with a clear understanding of the customer-salesperson relationship in the first place. It is clearly recognized from the start that the salesperson has very little, if any, stake in the customer’s best interest, and is simply trying to make a sale, and the prospective customer can judge accordingly.

Yet the reality is that sales-based compensation isn’t the only fee structure where conflicts of interest exist. For example, an RIA and its advisor’s compensation is typically based on the amount of assets they have under management, which can present a significant conflict of interest when advising a client to use some of their assets to pay down their debt (or not). Perhaps such conflicts are more manageable for an advisor who “simply” manages investments (since the relationship is generally clear – the asset manager’s objective is clearly to manage the client’s money, and earn the fees being charged accordingly). However, for the financial advisor who offers “comprehensive” financial planning services, the nature of the conflict of interest becomes more problematic. Because now, along with the advice that’s being provided comes the implied understanding that such advice will be in the client’s best interest (by definition of being ‘advice’). Which in turn can complicate the story advisors need to be able to tell their clients, because the asset management fees earned may not seem to reconcile with the financial planning advice they’re being asked to provide. Yet fiduciary advisors need to be comfortable with explaining that apparent gap, in the interest of honest, full disclosure.

Ultimately, the key point is that conflicts of interest will exist regardless of the models or methods financial advisors decide to use. But not all conflicts of interest represent the same depth of conflict, with some more easily managed than others. Which means it’s most important to determine whether the conflict of interest is manageable and still reasonably aligned with the fiduciary responsibility of the advisor, or not. Particularly as both practice models and fiduciary standards evolve, the discussion of what it means to do the right thing as a fiduciary is an important conversation for the financial services industry as a whole to have.

The ‘Behaviorally-Enlightened’ Fiduciary’s Dilemma In Serving Clients Best

October 23, 2019 07:04 am 1 Comment CATEGORY: Client Trust & Communication

While there has been ongoing discussion at both the Federal and state levels of how a fiduciary standard should be defined from a legal perspective, and to whom those standards should apply, there has not been much discussion on what it means to be a fiduciary from a moral perspective. Furthermore, this discussion has not addressed the ways in which acknowledging behavioral insights has complicated determining how a fiduciary ought to act, because, it’s actually simpler to determine the ‘best’ advice for a professional to give a client when the only considerations are financial in nature. If financial advisors, as fiduciaries, wish to incorporate behavioral considerations into how they advise clients, determining which course of action to suggest as ‘best’ becomes more complicated.

In this post, Derek Tharp – lead researcher at Kitces.com, and an assistant professor of finance at the University of Southern Maine – discusses his January 2018 Journal of Personal Finance research paper, “The Behaviorally-Enlightened Fiduciary: Addressing Moral Dilemmas Through a Decision-Theoretic Model of Moral Value Judgment”, where he examines whether a fiduciary has a duty to advise clients from a “behaviorally-enlightened” perspective (reaching a conclusion of ‘yes’), and explores some of the underappreciated moral dilemmas that result from advising clients from a behaviorally-informed perspective.

Why would a behaviorally-informed approach lead to an increase in moral dilemmas? Most importantly, advising clients based on something other than objective financial facts necessarily opens the door to acting paternalistically. Should a financial advisor tell a client about an ‘optimal’ solution if they think the mere process of doing so might lead to a worse outcome than just presenting a ‘realistic’ solution? What if they are just trying to nudge clients in the right direction? Where do advisors draw the line, or should they even be worrying about this in the first place?

Nevertheless, there are some circumstances where advisors are perhaps justified in acting paternalistically, but those circumstances are probably fairly rare and advisors should take seriously their duty of disclosure to clients. Specifically, if the potential upside of a non-disclosed strategy to a client is small, the potential down-side to a non-disclosed strategy to a client is large, and a fiduciary is reasonably justified in their beliefs regarding potential outcomes, then a fiduciary may be more likely to be justified in advising a client from a “behaviorally-enlightened” perspective.

Ultimately, the key point is that financial advisors, as fiduciaries, are faced with new moral dilemmas that arise from attempting to incorporate behavioral insights into how they advise clients. While much of the prior focus has been on the legal responsibilities that fiduciaries have to serve their clients, we need to spend time wrestling with moral considerations as well!

#FASuccess Ep 147: Developing Next-Generation Advisor Talent With An Internal 2-Year Mentoring Program, with Jeff Dobyns

October 22, 2019 07:09 am 1 Comment CATEGORY: Financial Advisor Success Podcast

Welcome back to the 147th episode of Financial Advisor Success Podcast!

My guest on today's podcast is Jeff Dobyns. Jeff is the founder of Southwestern Investment Group, a hybrid advisory firm based in the Nashville area that oversees nearly $3.5 billion of assets under management.

What's unique about Jeff, though, is the way he's been able to develop next-generation talent in his firm, with a deliberate focus on not hiring experienced career changers or advisors with an existing book of business, but instead bringing in new advisors in their 20s and giving them the opportunity to learn alongside experienced advisors from day one in a 2-year mentoring program.

In this episode, we talk in depth about the two-year mentoring program that Jeff's firm has built. Why Jeff views it as so critical for new advisors to spend the bulk of their time sitting alongside a senior advisor in every client meeting. How they compensate their new advisors while they're effectively being paid to learn, how they split the cost of talent between the firm itself and the senior advisor who's being supported, and the tasks that they ultimately hand off to the new advisor to create value for the firm while the learning process is still ongoing.

We also talk about the marketing approach that Southwestern Investment Group has used to grow to nearly $3.5 billion of assets under management over the past 17 years. The way the firm got so deeply involved in Dave Ramsey's Endorsed Local Provider, ELP program, the effective return on investment that Jeff's firm has gotten by proactively spending money to get leads, and how Jeff handles the concern that Dave Ramsey is viewed as somewhat controversial by some within the advisor community itself.

And be certain to listen to the end, where Jeff talks about the way he structured leadership within the firm to handle the load of managing more than 100 employees, the way he involves senior advisors of the firm in leadership decisions by creating a Leadership Board, and why he continues to be so focused on attracting and retaining even more next-generation talent into the firm.

Scaling The Efficiency Of Comprehensive Financial Planning By Creating Repeatable Expertise

October 21, 2019 07:48 am 3 Comments CATEGORY: Practice Management

Social Image Scaling The Efficiency Of Comprehensive Financial Planning

In the early days of being a “financial advisor” at a broker-dealer or insurance company, having ’expertise’ meant being well-trained on the company’s products and their features and benefits. ‘Training’ at large financial services firms was primarily focused on product training (and perhaps training in how to sell those products), with the benefit that when the scope of required knowledge is fairly understood – just the features of a handful of the company’s most popular best-selling products – it takes relatively little time to train in the first place. In other words, training up an advisor’s expertise was rather simple and speedy, because the advisor just had to master the inner workings of a few select products.

In the modern era, though, as financial advice is increasingly comprehensive and holistic, the breadth of what it takes to have ‘expertise’ goes far beyond what was required in the product-centric world of 20 years ago. Yet unfortunately, the reality is that the minimum bar to become a “financial advisor” – generally, a Series 6 and 63, 7 and 66, or a Series 65 exam – is largely unchanged through this shift, built around 3 hours of regulatory exams that most can study for and pass in just a few weeks. The end result is that ‘advisors’ are licensed to provide comprehensive financial advice, with no actual requirement to have any training, education, or experience, in personal finance or advice itself.

On the one hand, a voluntary desire to improve financial planning expertise has led to rapid growth of CFP certification in recent years, with more than 5,000 CFP candidates completing the exam process in 2018, up from approximately 3,000 in 2013. Still, though, the total penetration of CFP certification is still less than 86,000 out of approximately 311,000 financial advisors (or barely more than 25%). Which makes it incredibly difficult to deliver financial planning advice efficiently… when the advisor has to research any and every question the client asks, because they lack the depth of expertise to actually know those answers offhand in the first place.

In fact, recent Kitces research on “How Financial Advisors Actually Do Financial Planning” finds an emerging “Experience-Expertise” gap, where having CFP certification reduces the time it takes to complete the first-year financial planning process by 22%, and that amongst the most experienced advisors, having CFP certification reduces the time of the financial planning process by a whopping 44%. As the more experienced the financial advisor, the more confident they tend to be, and the more affluent and complex clientele they tend to attract… which means advisors with more experience actually end out spending even more time to get through the financial planning process (despite the availability of technology, and their years or decades of experience doing it!).

Similarly, more experienced financial advisors also tend to increasingly struggle with the time efficiency of financial planning, because an increasingly complex range of clientele means an ever-widening range of complex situations that the advisor must provide advice on. Notably, though, the real challenge isn’t that more experienced advisors tend to have more sophisticated clientele with more complex needs, but that their needs are differently complex. Which means formulating a niche or more specialized expertise for a particular target clientele can not only be effective for marketing purposes, but also becomes a substantial efficiency improvement, as once the advisor researches and ’learns’ how to handle a particular complex situation, it becomes repeatable expertise for the future as well.

In addition, crafting a more repeatable financial planning process also makes it possible to improve the efficiency of financial planning by leveraging paraplanners who can do not only a portion of the back-office work in financial planning preparation, but even limited-scope portions of the financial planning meeting process as well. Such that, in practice, solo advisors who leverage a paraplanner are able to service an average of 64% more clients and generate 80% more take-home pay by better aligning the tasks being done to the skill and experience (and compensation) level of the team member.

The bottom line, though, is simply to recognize that the majority of the time spent in the financial planning process isn’t actually in the phases of Analyzing and Developing the financial planning recommendations themselves, but also in Establishing the relationship, Gathering data, Presenting the plan, Implementing it, and the ongoing Monitoring process (and the never-ending stream of financial planning questions that crop up from clients along the way). Most of which are human-to-human interactions and communication (either in-person, by video, or via email)… which means the key to improving their efficiency is not necessarily investing in the technology to better automate those processes, but instead investing into the human capital of advisors themselves with deeper and more focused expertise, and a wider range of skill levels to which various financial planning tasks throughout the process can be appropriately (and cost-effectively) matched.

Weekend Reading for Financial Planners (Oct 19-20)

October 18, 2019 04:02 pm 1 Comment CATEGORY: Weekend Reading

Enjoy the current installment of "weekend reading for financial planners" – this week's edition kicks off by diving into the big industry buzz of the past two weeks, where Ken Fisher, multi-billionaire owner of his eponymous $110B+ RIA, made sexually inappropriate comments at the recent Tiburon CEO Summit, spawning the financial advisory industry's version of a #MeToo moment that has led to not only Fisher being banned from several conferences (and the withdrawal of more than $1B of his institutional investors), but a rising focus on sexual harassment policies at conferences and the stories of women across the industry sharing their own experiences of sexual harassment, sexual assault, or outright rape at industry conferences.

From there, we have several more articles on industry news this week, including the FPA's decision to break with precedent and select its first non-CFP vendor representative as the next President-Elect for its National Board (from a company that also happens to be the FPA's largest corporate sponsor, and that directly opposes FPA's fiduciary advocacy lobbying efforts!), the CFP Board's announcement that it is gearing up a new Enforcement Plan for the coming year with its new Standards set to take effect (and in response to the recent WSJ article questioning its current enforcement standards).

There are also a few regulatory articles, from a new PIABA study finding that expungement requests for brokers with problematic disciplinary records has skyrocketed as creative lawyers appear to have figured out how to game the system, a critique from the Inspector General that the SEC is failing in its enforcement efforts (with an average of more than 2 years from when the SEC begins an investigation until it actually issues an enforcement action against a problematic RIA), and an alert from FINRA that it may soon crack down on broker-dealers' lax oversight of their brokers using text messages and social media messaging apps (without properly archiving and overseeing the communications, or failing to monitor their brokers from not using those channels if the broker-dealer states they're not permitted).

We also have a few investment-related articles, including a look at why the SEC's recent ETF rule will likely mean the death of the iNAV for ETFs (and why it may not necessarily be much of a loss in practice), how the industry has focused on declining ETF expense ratios but the average expense ratio that investors pay for mutual funds is also crashing (if only because investors have now put nearly 5X the dollars more into no-load mutual funds than loaded mutual funds as the industry increasingly shifts towards fee-based accounts), and how even as expenses on ETFs continue to lower there may be a floor appearing as recent ETFs that have launched with zero or even "negative" expense ratios are actually not attracting significant new dollars from investors.

We wrap up with three interesting articles, all around the theme of the challenges of burnout: the first explores the concept of "boreout", where an employee isn't necessarily burned out from too much work, but "bored out" from having too little work to do, to the point that it can actually result in deleterious health effects; the second examines the drivers of work motivation, and how compensation only carries someone 'so far' before other more intrinsic motivators become the primary drivers; and the last looks at a recent industry study finding that financial advisors themselves are experiencing far higher stress levels than the average person, for which the solution isn't necessarily about 'work-life balance' and spending more time with family, but being more proactive in taking control of the advisor's time and scheduling to have a more productive work day in the first place.

Enjoy the 'light' reading!