Nerd's Eye View blog

How To Evaluate The Pension Versus Lump Sum Decision, And Strategies For Maximization

July 22, 2015 07:01 am 51 Comments CATEGORY: Retirement Planning

While the use of pensions as an employee benefit is on the decline, many of today’s workers nearing retirement have participated in a pension plan for the past several decades, and have already accumulated a significant pension benefit. And as those individuals begin to retire, they are faced with the classic decision of whether to keep the lifetime pension payments, or choose a lump sum instead.

While there are several factors that go into the pension-vs-lump-sum decision, ultimately the trade-off can be boiled down to calculating the internal rate of return (IRR) of the promised pension cash flows, which reveals the “hurdle rate” of return that a lump sum portfolio would have to earn to generate to reproduce those same payments over the same time horizon. Of course, the longer the retiree is expected to live, the greater the number of anticipated pension payments, and the greater the portfolio hurdle rate will be.

Ultimately, though, because life expectancy will vary by the individual, and in practice the size of a lump sum relative to a pension payments will also vary from one plan to the next (and also over time, as the GATT rate used to discount the pension payments fluctuates from month to month and year to year), the decision of whether to keep a pension or convert it into a lump sum will vary from one person to the next. In some cases, choosing a lump sum will clearly be best (e.g., when life expectancy is short or the hurdle rate is especially low), while in others there will be no way for a portfolio to generate similar cash flows without a significant amount of risk – at least, as long as the pension plan itself remains secure and isn’t facing a potential default or being forced to rely on PBGC backing!

Consumers Now Prefer Their Financial Planner To Have CFP Certification Over A CPA License

July 20, 2015 07:01 am 24 Comments CATEGORY: Planning Profession

The CFP Board’s Public Awareness campaign has been underway for over 4 years now, investing a cumulative total of over $40M of “dues” from CFP certificants with an 80% increase in CFP registration fees that began in 2011, plus almost $10M of additional funds from the CFP Board’s own reserves. And after almost $50M, what does the CFP Board have to show for it?

As it turns out, a lot. The latest Ipsos brand tracking study for the CFP Board shows it is making very significant progress in building awareness with mass affluent investors who might seek out a financial advisor. In just four years, intent to seek out a CFP certificant is up from 30% to 52%, and overall trust in CFP certificants is up from 23% to 49%. Even more significant, top-of-mind awareness for CFP certification has leapt from 13% to 29%, passing the CPA license (only 12%), and dwarfing other designations like CFA, CLU, ChFC, and PFS (all scoring under 5%).

In fact, for the first time ever, the Ipsos study shows that consumers seeking financial advice are most likely to insist their financial planner have CFP certification, more than any other designation, certification, or license. The CFP marks even outrank the CPA license (as well as all other designations) when it comes to what a ‘professional financial planner’ is expected to hold.

These significant results mean the CFP Board remains committed to the public awareness campaign in the coming years – so CFP dues will not be going down anytime soon. But arguably, the real news is that the CFP Board’s efforts in public awareness are continuing to set the roots for financial planning to finally be recognized as a bona fide profession of its own, with the CFP marks at its core. Perhaps someday, the profession will eventually reach the point where consumers don’t even have to ask!

Weekend Reading for Financial Planners (July 18-19)

July 17, 2015 02:01 pm 19 Comments CATEGORY: Weekend Reading

Enjoy the current installment of "weekend reading for financial planners" - this week's edition kicks off with a discussion of the newly implemented reductions in the CFP Experience requirement, which quietly took effect earlier this month without any public comment period for CFP certificants, or public comments from FPA or NAPFA. Also in the news this week was the revelation that Vanguard's Personal Advisor Services platform added on another $4B of AUM in just the past quarter as its growth accelerates (potentially threatening both the robo-advisor platforms, and possibly even threatening established independent advisors in the coming years, too). There's also discussion of a new push from PIABA to get the SEC to create its own one-stop-shop database of public disclosure information about brokers and investment advisers for the public to access, as complaints continue that FINRA's BrokerCheck is not getting the job done.

From there, we have a few investment articles this week, including a discussion from Barron's about the challenges of navigating bond investing with the looming potential for rising interest rates, a discussion of ETF liquidity and whether advisors may be overestimating how liquid their ETF investments really are, and a discussion of the recent move by Dimensional Fund Advisors (DFA) to begin offering ETFs through John Hancock (but with fewer solutions and higher costs than its existing advisor-distributed mutual fund lineup).

There are also a couple of practice management articles, from a look at how 2015 is shaping up to be the "year of the mega-deal" for RIA mergers and acquisitions, to a broader look at how the RIA channel continues to be the only segment of the advisory industry that is growing as insurance, broker-dealer, and wirehouse channels all continue to lose market share, and the last is an interesting discussion of what it really means to be an "independent" advisor and whether many advisors may think they're more "independent" than they really are.

We wrap up with three interesting articles: the first is a look at a new book called "Endorphinomics" by advisory industry business consultant Steve Moeller, who looks at the surprisingly common phenomenon of advisors who are "successful yet miserable" in trying to find the right work/life balance with a thriving advisory firm; the second raises the question of when/whether financial planning will ever get a seat at the "big kids' table" in Washington DC and have a role in contributing the unique knowledge and experience of financial planning to public policy discussions; and the last is a look at how the rise of robo-advisors and a new slew of technology solutions have reignited the "fee vs commission" debates as fee-only technology-based platforms show that it really may be possible to serve the middle market without commissions after all.

Enjoy the reading!

How The 691(c) IRD Deduction Can Eliminate The Need For Deathbed Roth Conversions To Avoid (Federal) Estate Taxes

July 15, 2015 07:01 am 10 Comments CATEGORY: Estate Planning

For those in poor health who face potential estate taxes and have a large IRA, a popular tax strategy is the so-called “deathbed Roth conversion” where the IRA owner converts to a Roth before death as a means to pay the income taxes up front and reduce the size of his/her estate. For large estates (and large IRAs), the tax savings can be significant.

However, the caveat of the deathbed Roth conversion strategy is that in most cases it is unnecessary, thanks to the availability of the so-called “IRD” (Income in Respect of a Decedent) tax, which provides IRA beneficiaries an income tax deduction for any estate taxes paid by the original IRA owner. In fact, the whole purpose of the IRD deduction is to eliminate any need for deathbed conversions (or liquidations) of pre-tax assets, by aligning the tax deductions to ensure that the beneficiaries will be no worse off (nor any better).

On the other hand, it’s notable that while the IRD deduction does shelter against Federal estate taxes, deathbed Roth conversions can still be relevant to protect against state estate taxes. Though in either case, the greatest driver of the outcome is not actually the IRD deduction or minimizing state estate taxes at all, but trying to shift the timing of when the IRA is recognized for tax purposes, so that the income taxes are paid at whichever rate is lower – either the IRA owner now, or the rate the beneficiaries would pay by simply inheriting the pre-tax IRA and stretching it out in the future!

MailBag: Roth IRA Prohibited Transactions, And Adopting Social Media As An Advisor In A Broker-Dealer

July 14, 2015 07:01 am 7 Comments CATEGORY: MailBag

Many readers of this blog contact me directly with questions and comments. While often the responses are very specific to a particular circumstance, occasionally the subject matter is general enough that it might be of interest to others as well. Accordingly, I occasionally post a new "MailBag" article, presenting the question or comment (on a strictly anonymous basis, of course!) and my response, in the hopes that the discussion may be useful food for thought.

In this week's MailBag, we look at the problem with trying to swap a highly appreciating private company investment from your personal assets into your Roth IRA (and the "prohibited transaction" rules that prevent it), and also the challenges for advisors in a broker-dealer who are trying to get their compliance department to loosen the reins and allow them to adopt social media.

Typical Employee Benefits, Hiring Trends, And Average Advisor Compensation According To The Latest FPA Benchmarking Study

July 13, 2015 07:01 am 7 Comments CATEGORY: Practice Management

When it comes to industry benchmarking studies, there are a number that look at compensation for advisors, typical spending for advisory firms in various categories, and trends in growth and hiring. However, the recent “2015 Trends in Adviser Compensation and Benefits” study, jointly produced by the Financial Planning Association’s “Research and Practice Institute” and the industry trade publication Financial Advisor IQ, takes a unique look at some of these categories, providing an especially in-depth look at typical employee benefits in an advisory firm and current trends in hiring (including what kinds of positions firms are hiring for).

For instance, the FPA’s research shows that almost 80% of firms that offer ‘basic’ employee benefits like health insurance, also offer reimbursement for licensing and exam fees and a budget for professional education and development. However, ‘lifestyle perks’ like paid parking, health club membership, and telecommuting are still relatively uncommon.

Also notable in the FPA’s research was the ongoing rise of financial planning itself, as advisory firms look to deepen their solutions to compete against the so-called “robo-advisors”. In fact, more than 50% of firms report interest in hiring financial planning staff, from senior advisors to associate planners and even paraplanners – a growth trend we’re seeing within New Planner Recruiting as well.

Unfortunately, though, when it comes to compensation trends, the FPA’s study had a limited sample size that may have been too small for very accurate data – further muddled by inconsistent categorization of jobs that make it hard to rely on the average incomes that were reported. Nonetheless, the FPA’s recent “compensation” study is worth a skim, if only for the non-compensation data it provides. And fortunately, at least this year it’s free to all.

Weekend Reading for Financial Planners (July 11-12)

July 10, 2015 02:52 pm 20 Comments CATEGORY: Weekend Reading

Enjoy the current installment of "weekend reading for financial planners" - this week's edition kicks off with the big news that the U.S. District Court has ruled in favor of the CFP Board in its case with the Camardas, without even needing to go to trial... though the details of the judge's opinion will remain sealed for two weeks (and possibly indefinitely), which makes it unclear on what grounds the CFP Board was victorious. Also in the news this week was the revelation that Focus Financial may be preparing for an IPO, which could kick off renewed interest in so-called "roll-up" RIA aggregators and additional mergers-and-acquisitions activity in the industry.

From there, we have several technical articles this week, from a look at how to evaluate the pros and cons of investment-based versus insurance-based retirement income strategies, to the idea that advisors need to look at both sequence-of-return and "sequence-of-consumption" risk in retirement, to the rising frequency of financial abuse of seniors (and the role that advisors can play to help prevent it), and an article looking at how the growth in indexing in recent years is also leading to a growth in the number of firms trying to front-run the periodic changes in the stocks that comprise popular indices which may be impairing index returns by as much as 0.2%/year.

We also have a few practice management articles, including: how to improve your advisory firm's capacity by more proactively engaging and investing in your staff; how advisory firm owners need to be more cognizant of building a strong foundation for their firm before trying to innovate (rather than coming up with innovative ideas first and struggling to implement them); and the last is a retrospective look at how RIAs have fared over the past 3 years since Dodd-Frank forced advisors with between $25M and $100M of AUM to shift from SEC to state registration (the short answer: fears were overblown, though there have definitely been some additional paperwork and compliance hassles).

We wrap up with three interesting articles: the first looks at the value of assembling a "personal board of advisors" that includes both traditional mentors, career guides, and others who can play a role in helping you advance your professional career; the second is a discussion of the rising star of Teresa Ghilarducci who controversially proposed a shift from 401(k) plans to a government-run private retirement accounts system that seems to be gaining renewed interest; and the last looks at whether employee financial advisors who are considering whether to go out on their own need to "redefine [the risks of] failure", as the reality is that today's shortage of advisor talent means that even those who go out on their own and don't succeed are virtually certain to still have plenty of jobs to fall back on if it doesn't work out (and may even be bought out for whatever clients they have by a larger firm in the area).

And be certain to check out Bill Winterberg's "Bits & Bytes" video on the latest in advisor tech news at the end, including a look at this blog's coverage of the emerging trend of virtual "location-independent" financial advisors, some new tech tools that advisors can use, and the upcoming #FPPadTechTour!

Enjoy the reading!

Judge Ends Camarda Case Against CFP Board – Time To Finally Fix The Fee-Only Compensation Definition?

July 8, 2015 07:40 pm 25 Comments CATEGORY: Industry News

This week, the controversial case between Jeff and Kim Camarda and the CFP Board came to a conclusion, with the judge granting the CFP Board’s motion for summary judgment to throw out the case altogether.

Yet within the CFP Board’s victory, numerous questions remain. The judge’s ruling itself has been sealed for 14 days, giving the CFP Board (and the Camardas) an opportunity to make the case for why it should remain private indefinitely… which means we may ultimately never know on what basis the CFP Board was declared victorious. Did the judge decide that the CFP Board really administered its disciplinary process appropriately, or ironically was the decision actually that the CFP Board isn’t accountable in a court of law at all… a win for the organization, but a frightening precedent for us as CFP certificants.

In any event, though, the conclusion to the lawsuit means that the CFP Board’s high-stakes gamble was avoided. And an end to the lawsuit – at least if it’s not appealed – finally gives the CFP Board an opportunity to update its still-problematic fee-only, commission-only, and overly expansive commission-and-fee compensation disclosure definitions… and hopefully in a manner that more constructively engages CFP stakeholders (unlike the CFP Board’s recent action to reduce the CFP experience requirement, which was implemented without any opportunity for public comment!).

CFP Board’s Reduced Experience Requirement Quietly Takes Effect With FPA And NAPFA Silence As Tacit Support?

July 7, 2015 07:01 am 20 Comments CATEGORY: Industry News

Last week, proposed changes to the Experience requirement for CFP certification quietly took effect, including both the elimination of the Capstone course requirement for CFP exam challengers, and more controversially a change to the definition of what constitutes “experience” for the 3-year requirement to include both direct and indirect support.

What’s significant about the new “indirect support” rule is that, by the CFP Board’s own statements, virtually any job in the entire financial services industry will now qualify as “financial planning experience”, including an employee benefits administrator, a compliance attorney, and even a journalist who simply writes about financial planning topics!

The change is even more significant given the CFP Board’s introduction of the 2-year “apprenticeship” option for the experience requirement in 2012… which means that over the past several years, the CFP experience requirement has slipped from “3 years of financial planning experience” to “2 years of financial planning experience, or 3 years of any job remotely related to the financial services industry”!

Sadly, while the CFP Board’s prior changes to the experience requirement in 2012 included a public comment period, this time the CFP Board acted unilaterally without stakeholder input, as it continues to push aggressively for growth in the number of CFP certificants. And notably, the FPA and NAPFA have remained remarkably silent about the change as well, suggesting the organizations either tacitly support cutting the experience requirement for CFP certificants, or that they have lost any ability as membership associations to hold the CFP Board accountable.

Ultimately, though, perhaps the most ironic aspect of the CFP Board’s change is the fact that it comes after 4+ years – and $40M+ in spending – on a public awareness campaign to communicate to the public that the CFP marks are the highest “gold standard” in financial planning… even as the CFP Board’s growth strategy makes it easier and easier to obtain that standard.