Nerd's Eye View blog

Should Advisors Reduce Their Management Fees On Fixed Income Allocations?

July 7, 2016 08:46 am 11 Comments CATEGORY: Investments

The ongoing decline in interest rates since the financial crisis have been a boon for those looking to refinance a mortgage or businesses looking to borrow, but an immense challenge for investors that rely on fixed income returns, from insurance companies to individual accumulators and retirees. And as bond returns grind lower, it has brought a renewed focus on costs (that eat up an ever-larger percentage of a smaller return), including the question of whether financial advisors should charge less for managing a bond portfolio compared to a stock portfolio.

In this week’s #OfficeHours with @MichaelKitces, my Tuesday 1PM EST broadcast via Periscope, we look at the question of whether advisors really should be charging separate and different fees on the fixed income versus equity allocations in a portfolio, including and especially for those who also deliver extensive financial planning services as a part of their AUM fee as well.

Of course, given that the typical bond mutual fund is already less expensive than the average stock mutual fund, arguably the asset management industry has already spoken and suggested that the fees should not be the same. If only because today's low bond yields, plus the more limited volatility of bonds (at least compared to stocks), means there's just only so much opportunity to create active management value in bonds and outearn that fee in the first place.

On the other hand, the reality is that most advisors don't manage just all-bond or all-stock portfolios as a mutual fund does. Advisors typically manage blended portfolios of stocks and bonds, sometimes tactically managing amongst all those asset classes, and an increasingly large portion of the AUM fee is being allocated to financial planning services anyway... which are based on the amount of actual financial planning work to be done, and arguably remain the same regardless of how the portfolio happens to be invested.

And in fact, with the looming Department of Labor fiduciary rule taking effect in April of 2017, charging different fees for stock versus bond allocations may become a prohibited transaction anyway, at least in an IRA where the advisor has discretion over the portfolio's overall allocation in the first place. Which means that while advisors might charge less for conservative model portfolios compared to those that are more aggressive (and in theory have more active management opportunities), or begin to unbundle their planning and investment management fees altogether, but the question of whether to charge differently for bonds and stocks within the same portfolio may soon be a moot point anyway!

Why Most Retirees Will Never Draw Down Their Retirement Portfolio

July 6, 2016 07:01 am 81 Comments CATEGORY: Retirement Planning

In theory, the whole point of saving and investing for retirement is that upon reaching retirement, it’s time to spend down the money and enjoy it. In practice, a growing base of research finds that for most of their retirement, retirees are just continuing the growth of their pre-retirement portfolios, suggesting a “consumption gap” between what retirees could and should spend versus what they actually do.

However, the reality is that for a long-term retirement, where compounding inflation can double or even quadruple spending needs after 30 years, retirees actually should allow their portfolios to grow at least slightly for at least the first half of retirement. It’s a necessity just to cover later-years’ spending needs at their inflation-adjusted levels.

Furthermore, given uncertainty about the length of retirement, how high inflation will be, and whether portfolio returns will be favorable or not, often retirees spend even less in the early years just to defend against these risks – an approach now dubbed the “safe withdrawal rate”. Yet given that most of the time markets and inflation don’t actually spiral out of control, following a safe withdrawal rate approach just further increases the likelihood that retirement portfolios will continue to grow throughout retirement.

The end result is that while in theory a retirement portfolio is meant to be spent, in practice most retirees faced with an ever-open-ended potential of living many more years will feel compelled to keep extra assets available, just in case… and never actually reach the point of depleting the retirement portfolio at all! Which, notably, isn’t a sign of inefficient portfolio spending or a consumption gap, but merely the prudent reality of dealing with an uncertain future!

Proposed SEC Rule Would Make Business Continuity And Transition Plan A Fiduciary Obligation

July 4, 2016 07:01 am 3 Comments CATEGORY: Practice Management

While there are many risks to starting a business, one of the greatest is the potential for a low-probability but high-impact “business disruption”, from the unexpected death of a key employee, to a cyber-attack or a natural disaster like a hurricane.

Arguably, having a plan to contend with such business disruptions is simply good business, but the SEC has noted that, in the aftermath of events like Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, not all RIA firms appear to be sufficiently prepared to contend with a significant business disruption.

Accordingly, the SEC has proposed a new Rule 206(4)-4, which would make it unlawful to provide advisory services to clients unless the RIA has a business continuity and transition plan (that is reviewed at least annually). In fact, the SEC has stated that it views having a business continuity plan as essential for an advisor to fulfill their fiduciary duty; or viewed another way, the firm that isn’t prepared for a business disruption isn’t prepared to fulfill its fiduciary duty to clients.

While still only a proposed rule at this point, the SEC’s effort to require a business continuity plan comes on the heels of a similar Model Rule put forth by NASAA last year for state-registered investment advisers, and seems likely to pass in some form.

For many SEC-registered RIAs, the new rule will simply be a ‘healthy’ nudge to enact continuity plans that should be a matter of good business anyway. Though in some cases, the greatest challenge will not be figuring out business continuity in the event of a disaster, but a transition plan in the event that the advisory firm owner unexpectedly dies – a requirement that necessitates either the orderly wind-down of the business, or establishing a buy/sell agreement now to ensure that another firm can step in to act if necessary. Could such a requirement finally spur interest from more advisory firm sellers in what up until now has been a marketplace dominated by buyers?

Weekend Reading for Financial Planners (July 2-3)

July 1, 2016 02:44 pm 1 Comment CATEGORY: Weekend Reading

Enjoy the current installment of "weekend reading for financial planners" - this week's edition kicks off with the announcement that after 18 months of development, June finally saw the launch of four states' Section 529A "ABLE" accounts, the new tax-free accounts for disabled beneficiaries that are expected to become popular as a supplement to (or in some cases, a cheaper alternative to) special needs trusts.

From there, we have a few technical articles this week, from a look at how various types of retirement spenddown strategies may be impacted if market returns stay persistently low (hint: even flexible spending strategies may be at risk), to a discussion of the rules on Medicare enrollment and the (potentially adverse) consequences of delaying past age 65, and a look at how to coordinate the rules for contributing to and withdrawing from a Health Savings Account (HSA) after reaching age 65 and Medicare eligibility.

We also have several practice management articles, including: why it's crucial for wealth management firms to evaluate their advisors more broadly than just new client assets and business development; strategies to prevent burnout from your advisory firm staff; how the best path to client loyalty is not about avoiding all mistakes but having a process to promptly and effectively fix mistakes when they inevitably occur; what to be aware of when it comes to the new prohibited transaction rules for the Department of Labor's fiduciary rule; and why success for advisors is not just about doing "what you love" but finding the activities you enjoy doing, are good at, and the ones that actually help to move the business forward.

We wrap up with three interesting articles: the first is a look at Schwab's recent announcement to revive its consumer marketing campaign on behalf of RIAs that use the Schwab platform, and whether it's a real business development opportunity for Schwab-based advisors or just a way to appease those advisors even as the Schwab retail offering increasingly competes with them; the second is a look at how the advisory business is shifting from one where firms simply create something of value and offer it to clients, to instead a world where advisors and (prospective) clients actually 'co-create' the value that is meaningful and personalized for the client; and the last is a look at what advisors should be thinking about if they're considering a coach, and the kind of mindset that is necessary to really get the most value out of a coaching relationship.

Also, be certain to check out the video at the end, an excerpt from a two-part series for advisors from Carl Richards of the Behavior Gap called "Your Manual For Scary Markets" on how to talk clients through times of market volatility and be an effective buffer between them and the "scary markets" that can arise from time to time.

Enjoy the "light" reading!

Why I’m Not Optimistic About Actively Managed ETFs For Financial Advisors

June 30, 2016 02:23 pm 4 Comments CATEGORY: Investments

Over the past decade, the rise of ETFs and the decline of the (actively managed) mutual fund has quickly created giant ETF behemoths like iShares, Vanguard, and State Street, while putting immense pressure on (actively managed) mutual fund companies, with US equity mutual funds in the aggregate experiencing cumulative net outflows since 2008. In turn, this has led a wide range of asset managers to try to adopt their own ETFs, seeking out ways to bring their active management process to a form of actively managed ETF (in a structure that limits their risk of being front-run on large trades).

In this week’s #OfficeHours with @MichaelKitces, my Tuesday 1PM EST broadcast via Periscope, we look at this emerging trend of actively managed ETFs, and why I am very skeptical that active ETFs will ever gain much traction amongst financial advisors.

Ultimately, the key trend to recognize is that the shift of financial advisors from being commission-based to the AUM model over the past decade has shifted the entire financial advisor value proposition. The pressure is now on advisors themselves to show the value they're creating in the portfolio design and management process. Which means they can't just buy active mutual funds - or actively managed ETFs - that the client could have bought themselves in their own online brokerage account.

Instead, financial advisors have been adopting their own internal portfolio design and investment management processes, aided by the growth of the AUM model itself that allows independent advisory firms to be larger than ever before and more capable of having their own investment process. Yet given the limited size of even the largest advisory firms, it's still challenging for most advisors to manage individual stocks and bonds. ETFs became the perfect intermediate portfolio building block.

Which means in the end, the explosive growth of ETFs and their adoption by financial advisors over the past decade may be less about a shift from active to passive, and more about a form of disintermediation where financial advisors are eliminating third-party active managers and bringing the process in-house instead (or if they do outsource investment management, they go to a TAMP or SMA solution that is not available to consumers directly). Yet if this is the case - advisors are looking to bring active value that clients cannot access themselves - it suggests that the push of fund companies to offer actively managed ETFs in the hopes that they can share in the growth of the ETF marketplace may turn out to be nothing but a mirage.

Planning Opportunities For Non-Spouse Beneficiaries Of Inherited Retirement Accounts

June 29, 2016 07:01 am 28 Comments CATEGORY: Retirement Planning

To help mitigate the tax consequences of inheriting a potentially large pre-tax retirement account, the Internal Revenue Code permits spouses to roll an inherited retirement account over to his/her own IRA, and other “non-spouse” beneficiaries are permitted to at least “stretch” distributions out over their life expectancies as well.

However, the favorable rules for a so-called “stretch IRA” do not automatically apply to all inherited retirement accounts. In the case of an inherited employer retirement plan – such as an inherited 401(k) or inherited 403(b) account – the employer has the option to force non-spouse beneficiaries to use the far-less-favorable “5-year rule” instead, compelling the entire account to be liquidated by the end of the 5^th year after death.

Fortunately, though, since 2010 employer retirement plans are required to at least permit a non-spouse designated beneficiary to complete a trustee-to-trustee transfer to an inherited IRA, preserving the ability to complete a stretch. On the other hand, the transfer provisions are only available to the original beneficiary of the inherited employer retirement plan, and not any successor beneficiaries (who can continue the stretch if available, but only from the original account).

On the plus side, though, the rules permitting a transfer from an inherited employer retirement plan to an inherited IRA also allow the assets to be shifted to an inherited Roth IRA, effectively giving the beneficiary the option of doing a Roth conversion even after the death of the original account owner. This is a strategy uniquely available to beneficiaries of inherited employer retirement plans, as an inherited IRA may not be converted to a Roth. The caveat, however, is that just because it’s possible for a beneficiary to convert doesn’t mean it’s wise to do so; since an inherited Roth IRA (after conversion) still has required minimum distribution obligations, it will usually be preferable to convert any other type of pre-tax retirement account first!

The Coming #FinTech Divide Between Investment And Financial Planning Firms

June 27, 2016 07:01 am 8 Comments CATEGORY: Technology & Advisor FinTech

While there are an ever-growing number of advisory firms operating on the AUM model and offering “wealth management” services, there is still a significant gap between those that are ultimately still investment-centric, and the firms that are truly focused on financial planning first.

The significance of this difference in the culture of an advisory firm is that it impacts not only the depth of its investment vs financial planning services, but that it also shapes the technology decisions of the firm. Because the investment-centric firm is typically built around its portfolio accounting software as its core, while the financial-planning-centric firm uses its financial planning and CRM software as the hub of the business.

Yet despite the substantively different technology needs of the two firms, the overwhelming majority of advisor technology is still being developed for investment-centric firms, with at best only a token nod towards financial planning goals – even though, ironically, the financial-planning-centric software solutions often command a premium price in the marketplace!

Nonetheless, as the commoditization of investment management continues to drive more firms towards offering comprehensive financial planning services, the technology shift is beginning, from the rise of Turnkey Financial Planning Platform (TFPP) technology solutions, to the rising demand of planning-centric firms for a more financial-planning-centric client experience. Will advisor technology solutions step up to fill the void?

Weekend Reading for Financial Planners (Jun 25-26)

June 24, 2016 02:51 pm 4 Comments CATEGORY: Weekend Reading

Enjoy the current installment of "weekend reading for financial planners" - this week's edition kicks off with a few articles on today's big #Brexit news, including a look from the Economist at what the economic ramifications really are (and why the early market decline may be more of a response to the uncertainty caused by the "Leave" vote than the actual economic impact), and a discussion from Vox about how the establishment framed the Brexit Remain vote as being about the economy but the Leave decision appears to have been primarily about immigration - specifically, a backlash against the explosive rise of immigration into Britain over the past 20 years (and especially the past 10) in the European Union.

Also in the news this week was an eye-popping $415 million fine from the SEC against Merrill Lynch, which found that Merrill had used derivatives trades to mask what was actually using the cash in customer brokerage accounts for its own trading purposes... and although it doesn't appear any customers were actually harmed, they could have been severely impacted if Merrill Lynch had experienced financial distress, and the SEC indicated that this punishment against Merrill Lynch for violating the Customer Protection Rule may just be the start of a sweep to investigate if any other brokerage firms were doing the same thing (and the SEC has even offered "cooperation credit and favorable settlement terms" for firms that quickly turn themselves in).

From there, we have several notable news stories regarding the Department of Labor's fiduciary rule, as it's becoming increasingly clear how companies are positioning themselves for a new fiduciary world. It turns out that major wirehouses have so shifted in favor of fee-based accounts that many actually opposed the SIFMA and FSI lawsuit against the Department of Labor (with Wells Fargo at one point threatening to quit SIFMA altogether), indexed annuity providers have discovered they may need to create a broker-dealer to sign the Best Interests Contract when their annuity agents sell into IRAs (as annuity companies don't want to sign on for fiduciary liability for independent annuity agents they can't even oversee), and Jackson National (the country's largest annuity provider) announced it is creating its first low-cost fee-based variable annuity that will include a wide range of living and death benefit guarantees.

We also have a few practice management articles this week, including: how to evaluate whether your advisory firm is growing sustainably or may be understaffed (or overstaffed), a good reminder (especially for young advisors) about how weighty of a decision it really is to become an owner/partner of an advisory firm, and a good framework to think through how to explain your value proposition as an advisory firm and differentiate yourself.

We wrap up with three interesting articles: the first looks at how the rise of machine learning algorithms mean that in the future we may no longer "code" computers but instead just "train" them like animals (which makes the process more efficient than crafting complex code, but may make computer programs so complex that even as humans we can't figure out how they work anymore); the second is an interesting discussion of how clients having a "scarcity" vs "abundance" mindset can significant impact their financial behaviors; and the last is a fascinating look at how the focus of the "income inequality" discussion has centered on the top 1%, but it turns out the "upper middle class" (incomes of $100,000 to $350,000 in today's dollars) is actually the segment with the most explosive growth in the past 35 years (from 12% in 1979 to nearly 30% today), which both helps to explain why there's so much stress about income inequality in the middle class (which is splitting into a "lower" and "upper" middle class with increasingly unequal incomes), and perhaps the rise of financial planning itself (given that advisors today disproportionately serve that upper middle class segment).

And be certain to check out Bill Winterberg's "Bits & Bytes" video on the latest in advisor tech news at the end, which this week includes 3 days of video highlights from the recent 2016 Morningstar Investment Conference!

Enjoy the "light" reading!

Where Do You Find Financial Advisory Firms For Sale?

June 23, 2016 02:01 pm 14 Comments CATEGORY: Practice Management

Most advisors initially build their businesses organically, one prospective client at a time, through networking to establish personal relationships that lead to referrals (and then getting clients who can provide even more referrals). And as the number of clients grows, so too does the staffing of the firm to support and service them. Until eventually, the firm has enough infrastructure that it becomes appealing to not just get new clients one at a time, but to grow inorganically by acquiring an(other) advisor's entire client base.

Accordingly, in this week’s #OfficeHours with @MichaelKitces, my Tuesday 1PM EST broadcast via Periscope, we look at how advisors who want to buy can actually find an advisory firm available for sale. From the buyer's perspective, where do you go to find the sellers?

Unfortunately, the reality is that finding sellers is difficult, because there actually aren't very many. One advisor marketplace estimates there are as many as 50 buyers for every seller, as growing firms have grown a hunger to acquire far faster than the number of baby boomer advisors have decided they're ready to sell.

As a result, advisors looking to acquire can check out "marketplaces" like FP Transitions, RIA Match, and Succession Link, but must face a significant amount of competition from other buyers. For some, the more appealing alternative is to look for potential sellers amongst an existing group of colleagues, such as fellow advisors in your association membership group, broker-dealer, or custodian.

In fact, because an advisory firm acquisition won't go well (or won't happen at all) unless there is a good philosophical and cultural alignment between the buyer and seller - crucial to ensuring clients get the service they expect in order to retain - often the best place to look for potential acquisitions is amongst a group of existing colleagues, whether that's via a common broker-dealer, custodian, or association. On the other hand, for those looking to acquire locally, the best option is often just to do the leg work necessary to aggressively network locally, where there may be far less competition with other buyers!

Tax-Efficient Spending Strategies From Retirement Portfolios

June 22, 2016 07:01 am 55 Comments CATEGORY: Retirement Planning

For most retirees, the tax efficient liquidation of a retirement portfolio requires coordinating between both taxable brokerage accounts and pre-tax retirement accounts like an IRA or 401(k).

The conventional view is that taxable investment accounts should be liquidated first, while tax-deferred accounts are allowed to continue to compound. Except in practice, it’s possible to be “too good” at tax deferral, where the IRA grows so large that future withdrawals (or even just RMD obligations) actually drive the retiree into higher tax brackets!

As a result, a more tax-efficient liquidation strategy is to tap IRA accounts earlier rather than later. Not so much that the tax bracket is driven up now, but enough to reduce exposure to higher tax brackets in the future.

However, the optimal approach is actually to preserve the tax-preferenced value of retirement accounts and to fill the tax brackets early on, by funding retirement spending from taxable investment accounts but doing systematic partial Roth conversions of the pre-tax IRA to fill tax brackets in the early years.

The result is that the retiree will tap investment accounts for retirement cash flows in the early years, a combination of taxable IRA and tax-free Roth accounts in the later years, and in the process avoid ever being pushed into top tax brackets, now or in the future!