Kitces.com - Advancing Knowledge in Financial Planning

Converting Ensemble Partner Compensation From Revenue-Based To Advisor Salary

August 30, 2018 12:35 pm 1 Comment CATEGORY: Practice Management

An individual financial advisor can only ever work with so many clients before running out of any time and capacity to serve more. As a result, all advisory firms eventually hit a capacity wall, where they must either decide to stop growing or hire or partner with more advisors to increase capacity. When several advisors come together to create and build on such capacity, an “ensemble firm” emerges, where it’s no longer about growing any individual advisor’s practice, and instead is about growing “the firm” and clients of the firm (and hiring employee advisors as necessary to service those clients). The caveat, however, is that most advisors who come together to create such an ensemble firm are transitioning from existing individual practices, with separate expenses, separate revenue, and separate income. Which can make it especially hard to figure out how to actually transition advisor compensation from separate silos to a shared enterprise where all advisors are treated consistently… especially if there’s a large discrepancy in the revenues that each advisor brings to the table.

In this week’s #OfficeHours with @MichaelKitces, my Tuesday 1 PM EST broadcast via Periscope, we discuss the mindset shift that must occur to successfully grow an ensemble firm with shared clients, how partners in an emerging ensemble advisory firm can equalize compensation levels and get to work growing their business, and when advisors are best able to make the shift from revenue-based compensation to ensemble salaries and bonuses instead.

One of the first challenges that advisors face when transitioning into an ensemble practice is changing their mindset from being an individual advisor with his/her own clients, to being an advisor in a larger firm that is responsible for servicing the firm’s clients. Because ultimately, if the ensemble business is truly going to grow and scale to 10X its size or more… the firm will eventually be so large that it’s no longer about the clients and revenue of any founder/partner/owner, but the collective value of the firm’s clients. After all, the whole point of building an ensemble practice in the first place is to create value from a business that’s larger than and goes beyond what either partner could have built with their own individual client base.

Still, different advisors come to the table with different existing client bases and revenue, which can make it challenging to equalize (or at least standardize) compensation levels, especially if one partner is responsible for generating substantially more revenue than the other.

One way to approach the issue is simply to go ahead and equalize ownership and compensation and get on with the work of building the business, because if the goal really is to create a sizable advisory business in the long run, then the personal wealth that’s created from the long-term value of the firm will dwarf the small differences in compensation in the initial stages anyway.

The second approach that can work – especially if there’s a large discrepancy in revenue-generation – is to have the lower-revenue partner buy a percentage of the business from the larger-revenue partner. Doing so makes it easier to even out both partners’ compensation structures, with the check the lower-revenue partner writes mitigating the step-down in pay taken by the larger-revenue partner.

The third approach is to blend advisor compensation, with a salary base for the “executive” functions of being an owner of the firm, and a partial revenue-based compensation for the job of servicing the founder/advisor’s existing clients. With the caveat that, as compensation for servicing clients in the business, advisor partners need to be cognizant that whatever they pay themselves should be the same compensation structure they would offer to other employee advisors in the business as well (as the additional upside for the partner should come from equity profits, not compensation for the job of being a “partner” in addition to an advisor).

Regardless of which approach is chosen to make the transition, the question also remains: “When is it best to make the switch from revenue-based silos to ensemble salary compensation?” While there’s no hard and fast rule, the shift typically takes place somewhere between the $500,000 and $1,000,000 in firm revenues, because at that level, there’s enough to not only pay the partners an appropriate salary for their work in the business but to have enough left over at the bottom line so that the partners can begin split the income generated from the business itself.

The bottom line, though, is simply that building a multi-advisor ensemble business is all about separating out the value being created by the business itself – for which owners generate profits – from the work of servicing clients that’s being done in the business, for which compensation should reflect what the job itself is actually worth (i.e., what would be paid to any employee in that role, partner or otherwise). And by making the compensation transition, ensemble firm owners truly create the most effective incentive for themselves to focus not on their own clients and revenue but building the shared enterprise value of the business itself.

How To Give Better Financial Advice That (Actually) Sticks

August 29, 2018 07:03 am 0 Comments CATEGORY: Client Trust & Communication

Featured_10 Reasons Someone Seeks Out Financial Advice

For an advice-giver, the “ideal” client is one who presents a clear fact pattern to analyze, for which there is a single straightforward recommendation to implement, that the client immediately takes up and follows through on. In the real world, most clients are more complex, and entail a long series of recommendations to implement over time… which means, at best, even the most diligent clients won’t necessarily follow through on everything right away. And for many, over time, it can become even harder to finish all the implementation steps, as other demands and distractions of life sap the client’s focus and motivation.

Yet the growing base of research on “non-compliance” (or at least, “non-adherence”) to advice-givers in the medical world (i.e., patients who don’t follow their doctor’s advice and prescriptions) reveals that the burden for following through on implementation should not rest solely with the patient or client receiving the advice. Instead, the reality is that the advice-giver also has a role to play, and a shared responsibility to ensure that the advice they give actually “sticks.”

And in her recent book of that name – “Advice That Sticks” – neuropsychologist Dr. Moira Somers explores how the adherence research on advice can be applied to the world of financial advisors to actually increase the likelihood that clients really do follow through on all of their recommendations.

The first key insight of the research is that clients hire financial advisors for a wide range of reasons – far beyond “just” seeking out answers to their financial questions. In fact, given the ever-growing depth and reach of the internet, clients are arguably less and less likely to be seeking answers and expertise alone. Instead, they may be seeking someone to help them make sense of all the information, to reduce complexity or help them evaluate trade-offs, or increase their confidence about their own decisions. In other cases, the client may actually be hoping to delegate something – not just the responsibility for managing their assets, but the “unpleasantness” of spending time in an area they don’t relish, to have someone (else) to blame if things go wrong, or simply to free up their own time for other endeavors.

And in addition to the fact that clients come to advisors for more than “just” advice alone, Somers highlights the wide range of additional influences that can impact the client’s receptivity to advice, from their own personal financial history and circumstances (and the “money scripts” they’ve learned from prior experiences), to their social and environment factors (where they may not be prepared to face the family consequences of a financial decision), to the nature of the advice itself (long-term preventative advice is the hardest to implement in the first place), and how the advisor’s own advice-delivery process can impact the outcomes.

Ultimately, though, the key point is simply to understand that clients who don’t implement the advice they’re given aren’t necessarily “bad clients” for failing to do so. Instead, the advice-giver themselves has a proactive role to play in aiding clients to follow-through and implement, and in reality the client who faithfully and fully implements all their advice the first time and never needs help on follow-through again is not the paragon of being a good client but more the exception to the rule for how most people actually struggle to implement even good advice. On the plus side, though, that means there is tremendous additional value to be created for clients by not just giving the most accurate good advice, but actually being the best at giving advice that sticks, too.

#FASuccess Ep 087: Going Independent To Run Your Advisory Firm With The Systems And Clients You Want with René Nourse

August 28, 2018 07:07 am 0 Comments CATEGORY: Financial Advisor Success Podcast

Welcome back to the 87th episode of the Financial Advisor Success podcast!

This week's guest is René Nourse. René is the founder of Urban Wealth Management, an independent RIA in the Los Angeles area that manages nearly $120 million of assets under management for more than 200 clients, with a team of 6.

What's unique about René, though, is how she built a successful practice at a wirehouse for the first 20 years of her career as an advisor and only went independent later in her career so that she could use the system she wanted to use to build with the type of clientele she wanted to serve.

In this episode, we talk in depth about the systems that René uses to run her business. The unique way that she structured her "contact us" page to better engage prospects, the material she sends every prospect before the first complimentary consultation meeting, how she determines which prospect meeting she takes versus the ones that she hands off to other advisors in the firm, and the proposal tool she sends every prospect who's interested in engaging her services.

We also talk about the process that René went through to break away from the wirehouse and form her own independent RIA. How she retained the trust of her clients even without the big-name wirehouse firm at the top of her business card anymore by focusing on the safety and security of the RIA custodian she was going to use instead, and the new social media and webinar-based marketing initiative she's created called Smart Women ~ Savvy Money, to grow the firm with the female professional she most enjoys working with.

And be certain to listen to the end, where René shares what it was like building her advisory practice at a wirehouse environment as both a woman and a minority, why she sees mentors as crucial to supporting better diversity in the industry, and how there's increasingly a business case and not just a moral imperative to give better opportunities to both women and racial and ethnic minorities in financial services.

So whether you are interested in learning about the many challenges René overcame as a woman of color in the financial advice industry, how she's structured her marketing funnel to attract new clients, or about the technology stack she used to keep her practice running smoothly, then I hope you enjoy this episode of the Financial Advisor Success Podcast!

The Long Tail, The Big Head, and the Dangerous Middle Of Financial Advisory Firms

August 27, 2018 07:03 am 1 Comment CATEGORY: Practice Management

Featured The Emerging ‘Dangerous Middle’ As Technology Grows Head And Tail Opportunities

One of the most popular debates in the advisory industry today is whether small advisory firms of the future will be able to compete against the ongoing growth of today’s mega-advisory firms, from the small subset of the largest independent RIAs that control the marketplace (with more than 60% of client AUM held by fewer than 4% of firms), to the national brands like Vanguard and Schwab that are increasingly competing with independent advisory firms directly. Yet despite the negative forecasts, industry benchmarking studies continue to show record profits for the most successful solo advisory firms, generating as much income as the per-partner take-home pay of billion-dollar firms!

The ongoing success of the small firm shouldn’t be such a surprise, though, given the “long tail” phenomenon that is increasingly being observed in many industries – where niche providers can survive and thrive as technology makes it increasingly feasible for consumers to find their way to them, from niche books being found on Amazon, niche music being found via streaming music services, and niche financial advisors able to be found via a simple Google search.

The caveat, however, is that, as the biggest advisory firms scale their operations and marketing and establish recognized brands, while niche advisory firms thrive in the online marketplace of the internet, “something” has to give. But the "something" appears not to be large firms dominating small ones, or small firms picking off the clients of large ones… but instead, both applying substantial business pressure to the dangerous middle in between. Which today would encompass a wide range of advisory firms from $100M to more than $2B of assets under management.

Because unfortunately, it’s the firms in the dangerous middle that are both too small to be big (lacking the scalable marketing and established brands of regionally and nationally dominant firms), but are too big to be small (struggling to capitalize on a focused niche to differentiate). And instead have to grow through a series of challenging business hurdles, from a capacity wall of client service to a complexity wall of operational infrastructure and a growth wall of centralized, scalable marketing.

Fortunately, the good news is that some firms really do grow successfully through the dangerous middle, but the rising pace of advisory firm mergers and acquisitions – with an average deal size directly in the middle of the dangerous middle range – suggests that more and more firms are feeling the pressure to either get much bigger to get past the dangerous middle, or consider how to downsize and get smaller instead (either by outright downsizing the firm, or by tucking into a larger one to simplify the practice).

The bottom line, though, is just to understand that, as the long tail grows longer and the big head grows bigger, the future of financial planning isn’t about whether the “small” firms will win or the “big” firms will win. There is room for both to succeed, as the biggest advisory firms grow bigger with their size and scale and the smallest advisory firms grow more profitable. Just be wary about getting caught in the dangerous middle.

Weekend Reading for Financial Planners (August 25-26)

August 24, 2018 02:54 pm 0 Comments CATEGORY: Weekend Reading

Enjoy the current installment of "weekend reading for financial planners" – this week's edition kicks off with news about the latest IRS regulations that definitively close the door on the potential for individuals in high-tax-rate states to preserve their SALT deductions by converting them into charitable deductions to state-run charities instead, as the Service declares that donating to a state-run charity in exchange for a state tax credit amounts to a quid-pro-quo transaction that would reduce the deductible amount of the charitable contribution all the way to $0. Also in the news this week, though, was a look at what kinds of tax policy changes the Democrats might take up and propose in 2019, including repealing the SALT cap, if they are in fact able to retake control of Congress in the mid-term elections this fall.

Also in the news this week were a number of interesting articles about the economy and markets, including a major revision from the Bureau of Economic Analysis to the personal savings rate data that reveals the U.S. consumer is actually saving at a whopping 7.2% rate, which is well above 30-year averages (despite the fact that the so-called "wealth effect" normally decreases personal savings rates late in the economic growth cycle), the revelation that labor markets are becoming so tight that the mid-summer unemployment rate for 16-24-year-olds has dropped to a 52-year low, and a look at the recent buzz around President Trump's proposal for changing quarterly earnings reports and guidance to become semi-annual (twice-per-year) instead and why, if we really want to reduce the focus on earnings and market volatility, the key is not to report earnings less often to instead to make the guidance more often (e.g., monthly or even daily through technology) so no one data point is ever so impactful anymore.

We also have several behavioral finance articles this week, from a look at what to do when clients don't follow our advice (and why oftentimes clients aren't actually looking for advice from their financial advisor about a major decision anyway, and really just want support for the decision they already made instead), to the importance of culture in determining whether advice is appropriate (or even relevant) for a client, why trying to imagine yourself in someone else's shoes is actually a terrible way to understand their perspective (and how it's far more effective to just ask them to share their perspective), and how managing clients so they don't panic in a bear market isn't just about dialing down the volatility in their portfolios so it doesn't trigger any emotional fear in the first place, but also looking at how we as advisors can create 'circuit-breakers' that help to prevent a volatile market event from translating all the way into an actual hasty and ill-timed action.

We wrap up with three interesting articles, all around the theme of balancing financial wealth and time: the first looks at how one the greatest challenges in wealth accumulation is that we think of wealth in terms of the outwardly expensive things that people own (fancy homes, cars, and jewelry) when in reality it's the decision not to buy those things that are the greatest driver of wealth (which means wealth is best created by what we don't see, not by what we do see!); the second explores the trade-offs between time and money, and how sometimes the best advice we can give is not about how to prudently save money, but how to prudently spend money in order to save time instead; and the last explores the reasons why very affluent individuals sometimes choose to remain anonymous and unseen with their wealth, preferring instead to be rich but not famous (an important mindset for advisors to understand about their clients)!

Enjoy the "light" reading!

How The Dunning-Kruger Effect Holds Good Financial Advisors Back

August 23, 2018 01:39 pm 0 Comments CATEGORY: Personal/Career Development

The “Imposter Syndrome,” which affects professionals across industries and at every stage of their careers, is relatively common and refers to the tendency many have to doubt their own abilities and accomplishments, and results in the fear of being “found out” as a fraud (even if the reality is that they really are a bona fide expert!).

A lesser-known challenge that many professionals – particularly those in fields where their interactions with clients can result in life-altering consequences – run up against after they’ve got some education and experience under their belts is the realization that, despite what they’ve already learned, there’s an ocean of knowledge and expertise between where they are where they feel they need to be to best serve their clients. Which similarly can result in a decrease in confidence even as their actual skill to serve clients is objectively increasing.

In this week’s #OfficeHours with @MichaelKitces, my Tuesday 1 PM EST broadcast via Periscope, we discuss this phenomenon, called the Dunning-Kruger Effect, how it manifests itself (particularly for financial advisors with a few years of experience as they earn their CFP certification), and specific steps advisors can take to ameliorate feelings of inadequacy and (re)gain the confidence needed to serve clients effectively.

The first, and probably most important, step in dealing with the Dunning-Kruger effect is to realize that, simply by gaining some financial planning knowledge – much less earning CFP certification – you really are already far ahead of the knowledge curve relative to virtually every client or prospect you’ll ever meet, with more than enough expertise to add real value to clients.

Second is understanding that there’s nothing wrong with double-checking your work anyway – just to be safe – or even asking for a second opinion from more experienced advisors. Similarly, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with telling a client that you need more time to research a complex topic before providing an answer, just to be certain you really have considered all the issues.

From there, the best way to overcome the Dunning-Kruger effect is simply furthering your education by obtaining additional certifications and become a truly confident expert, establish a niche or mini-specialization that makes it easier to achieve mastery by narrowing the required scope of expertise in the first place, and focus on succeeding with clients who have less-complex financial circumstances before moving up the proverbial food chain of more affluent clients. Of course, it’s also helpful to simply stay flexible with the advice you give to clients in the first place… managing expectations to make it clear that the future can and will change, and that decisions don’t need to be viewed as irrevocable in the first place (because most aren’t!).

The bottom line, though, is simply to understand that you aren’t as ignorant as you may feel with the realization that there is so much to learn and consider in giving advice to clients, and that by taking steps to further your skills and knowledge, you can actively deal with the Dunning-Kruger effect and be the confident professional your clients are looking for.