Kitces.com - Advancing Knowledge in Financial Planning

B/D Advisor Valuations To Compress As The Broker Protocol Unravels

November 2, 2017 11:10 am 10 Comments CATEGORY: Industry News

Since 2004, brokers moving from one wirehouse or broker-dealer to another, or breaking away entirely to the RIA channel, have relied on the Broker Protocol to set the rules for switching firms without fear of being sued. However, the big news this week is that Morgan Stanley – the largest wirehouse by advisor headcount – is leaving the Broker Protocol effective Friday November 3^rd, in what is likely the beginning of the end of the Broker Protocol, and a reversion back to the dark days of breakaway lawsuits.

In this week’s #OfficeHours with @MichaelKitces, my Tuesday 1PM EST broadcast via Periscope, we discuss why Morgan Stanley leaving the Broker Protocol is likely to result in the unraveling of the Broker Protocol, and the subsequent implications, including reduced payouts at wirehouses and a compression of advisory firm valuations for those at broker-dealers.

For those that are unaware, the Broker Protocol stipulates the specific five pieces of information (client names, addresses, phone numbers, email addresses, and account titles) that departing brokers can take with them without fear of being sued for violating the firm’s non-solicit agreements or any client privacy and confidentiality obligations under Reg S-P. Originally put in place by Merrill Lynch, UBS, and Smith Barney (now Morgan Stanley) in 2004, the Broker Protocol effectively served as a cease-fire of breakaway lawsuits between the major wirehouses, but in the decade since has grown to also include over 1,600 other firms (including independent broker-dealers and RIAs that hire brokers away from wirehouses).

The reason why it is such a big deal that Morgan Stanley is leaving the Broker Protocol isn’t just about what happens to brokers at Morgan Stanley who want to leave in the future, but because Morgan Stanley’s decision to leave the Broker Protocol will likely unravel the entire Broker Protocol in short order. Because as it stands now, if Morgan Stanley recruits a Merrill or UBS broker, the broker can leave under Broker Protocol. But if UBS or Merrill recruits a Morgan Stanley broker, then Morgan Stanley is reserving the right to sue the broker for leaving (and likely UBS or Merrill Lynch as the recruiting firm). So, from Merrill Lynch’s perspective (and UBS, and Wells Fargo), it’s not a good deal to stay in the Broker Protocol when Morgan Stanley isn't. As long as they were all in, they all shared the potential pain and the potential benefits together. But once Morgan Stanley leaves, there’s not much reason for the others to stay, either. And the more firms that leave, the less value there is for any to remain, including a number of independent broker-dealers that have been net losers of broker recruiting in recent years.

Which means we’ll be moving back to the dark days of breaking away from a broker-dealer in the early 2000s and the 1990s, where breakaway attempts were almost immediately followed by a cease-and-desist order, which might then be followed by a judge issuing a Temporary Restraining Order requiring that the broker stop contacting clients or risk going to jail for being in contempt of court. And then the breakaway lawsuit would come, alleging theft of trade secrets (for the former broker taking the broker-dealer's client list), breach of confidentiality and client privacy, and/or breach of non-solicit agreements. Of course, there were brokers who still made the breakaway transition, but it was far more risky and expensive, and broker-dealers were often eager to sue if they could, as even if they didn't prevail against a particular broker, the legal costs effectively raised the cost of breaking away in order to make it less appealing for any other broker to consider trying it as well.

Yet if the end of the Broker Protocol makes it difficult, more risky, and more expensive to try and leave a broker-dealer, that also means that broker-dealers will have more leverage to cut their payouts to advisors as well (what are you going to do, try to leave?). And when it is harder to leave and take clients, brokers will increasingly be compelled to sell to other brokers on the same platform... which means brokers can’t sell to the top buyer willing to pay the best price as they become more captive to only buyers at their current B/D. As a result, the valuation of advisory businesses under a broker-dealer will likely compress going forward, and sellers will have more difficulty negotiating favorable tax and payment terms from buyers.

Realistically, not all broker-dealers will leave the Broker Protocol, as those that have been successfully using it to hire away from their competitors (e.g., Raymond James, RBC, and Janney) will want it to stick around. But in a world where most broker-dealers have been net losers on recruiting, either to other larger broker-dealers, or to the RIA channel, most broker-dealers will not likely stay in the Broker Protocol - and especially not the firms that brokers would most likely want to leave! Which means brokers at other firms contemplating leaving - especially at the major wirehouses - may want to accelerate their plans… at least while they still can! Because, as Morgan Stanley has shown, a firm can depart the Broker Protocol very quickly once they make the decision to do so!

Does Failed Retirement Income Planning Really Result In Bankrupt Financial Ruin?

November 1, 2017 07:01 am 9 Comments CATEGORY: Retirement Planning

While it is a topic most retirees hope to avoid ever dealing with, the reality is that not all retirement income plans will be successful. Whether due to a retiree’s refusal to plan, reluctance to take the advice of a professional, or simply due to unfortunate circumstances which were outside of a retiree’s control – failures in funding retirement can and do occur. In fact, financial planners routinely do Monte Carlo projections for retirees to determine their prospective probability of failure, especially given growing awareness of sequence of return risk.

Yet given the reports of low levels of both objective measures of retirement preparedness (such as savings) and subjective measures of retirement preparedness (such as retirement confidence), many financial advisors may be surprised to learn that bankruptcy rates among those over age 65 appears to be less than 3 per 1,000, and actually declines among older retirees. So, what’s going on? If retirees are living longer than ever – which should be making retirement more difficult than ever to afford and sustain, especially given the long-term impact of sequence of return risk – then where are all of the bankrupt retirees?

In this guest post, Derek Tharp – our Research Associate at Kitces.com, and a Ph.D. candidate in the financial planning program at Kansas State University – examines bankruptcy among retirees, finding that the reality is that bankruptcy may not be a great indicator of retirement income planning failure. A retiree who blows through their nest egg doesn’t necessarily end up bankrupt, they simply need to adjust their spending downwards to their new reality. Social Security plus public assistance represent the true consumption “floor” for most. Further, bankruptcy may not even be a great indicator of actual financial strain, as given the rules surrounding bankruptcy, the ways that retirees deplete their retirement assets does not necessarily trigger an actual bankruptcy filing, especially in light of the ways in which bankruptcy laws favor those in retirement.

Nonetheless, the point remains: with longer life expectancies and struggles with retirement preparedness, especially combined with the difficult markets of the past 15 years, the retiree bankruptcy rate is shockingly low. Which suggests that the overwhelming majority of retirees facing retirement shortfalls really are able to downsize their lifestyle to avoid financial ruin when the time comes. Of course, few retirees want to risk even a major lifestyle setback in retirement if they can avoid it. Still, though, if most retirees really are capable of making spending adjustments when necessary… shouldn’t those potential adjustments be better reflected in financial plans in the first place?

#FASuccess Ep 044: Structuring A Successful Internal Succession Plan As A 25-Year-Old Buyer with Jake Kuebler

October 31, 2017 07:01 am 3 Comments CATEGORY: Financial Advisor Success Podcast

Welcome back to the forty-fourth episode of the Financial Advisor Success podcast!

My guest on today's podcast is Jake Kuebler. Jake is the President of Bluestem Financial Advisors, an independent RIA based in Champaign, Illinois, that provides a combination of financial planning, investment management, and tax preparation with 4 staff members for nearly 100 clients using a comprehensive annual retainer model.

What's really unique about Jake's business, though, is that he's actually the next generation successor owner of Bluestem, having spent the past 5 years buying out the founding owner, Karen Folk, while nearly doubling the size of the practice along the way. Oh, and he just turned 30. Which means he started this internal succession plan as a buyer when he was just 25.

In this episode, we talk in depth about how Bluestem built a niche focus on serving college professors and administrators (as they are based in the hometown of the main University of Illinois campus!), why they chose to include tax preparation as a part of their annual service offering, the structure of Bluestem's annual retainer fee model and how it changes from upfront to ongoing clients, how their retainer model structure is allowing them to grow the business serving a substantial segment of young professionals in the Champaign area in addition to retirees, and the business management spreadsheet that Jake uses to monitor and track the key metrics of his advisory firm along the way.

From there, we also talk about the details of the actual succession plan that Jake executed with the founder, how they eventually came to terms on setting a price for the internal succession plan of a hard-to-value solo advisory practice, the way the purchase was structured and funded, and how it was balanced to share the upside for both Jake as the buyer, and Karen as the seller, for any growth that happened after the terms of the deal were set.

And be certain to listen to the end, where Jake shares his own advice to other young advisors looking to buy into an advisory firm and be a succession plan, about how to push the conversation forward when the founder just doesn't seem to want to sell.... and how to know when it's time to cut bait and leave and find another opportunity instead.

So whether you’ve been curious to see an example of how an internal succession plan is structured, to hear the perspective of the buyer’s side of a succession plan, or just want a glimpse into the world of a successful retainer-based practice with a clear niche, I hope you enjoy this episode of the Financial Advisor Success podcast!

Becoming B Corp Certified As A Financial Advisory Firm

October 30, 2017 07:01 am 1 Comment CATEGORY: Practice Management

With the increasing interest and focus from consumers on sustainable and socially responsible investing, more and more financial advisors have started to offer SRI portfolios designed to more effectively align a client's investment dollars with their stated values. However, the next frontier in these values-based investment approaches is not merely to allocate client dollars to SRI portfolios, but to operate the financial advisory business itself in a manner that effectively considers its environmental, social, and community impacts.

In this guest post, Georgia Lee Hussey and Liliya Jones of Modernist Financial provide a guide to making values-based commitments as a financial advisory firm through becoming B Corp Certified. The B Corp certification is not an alternative to other corporate structures like an S or C corp, but a process that entails making a legal commitment (through the business' bylaws or operating agreement) that affirms the existing S or C corp (or partnership or LLC) business entity's commitment to consider its impact on all stakeholders (rather than just maximizing shareholder value). After recently going through the process of getting their RIA to become B Corp Certified themselves, Georgia and Liliya outline what a B Corp is, why financial advisors should consider getting their firms B Corp Certified, and how to go about the process.

When a financial advisory firm wishes to become B Corp Certified, the advisory firm owner must first take an assessment which evaluates their practices in the areas of governance, workers, community, environment, and customers. After completing this assessment, firms will be required to provide some documentation of select items, and possibly create a specific action plan for bringing their firm up to required standards. Once a firm meets the criteria required by B Labs - which grants the B Corp certification - they are then required to make the necessary changes to their corporate documents in order to make their commitment to ethical practices legally binding.

Financial advisors interested in earning B Corporation® certification have many ways to ensure they are considering all stakeholders in their decision making, from implementing ESG portfolios and promoting diversity and inclusion in the industry, to investing in their employees and considering the environmental impact of their firm. Ultimately, being a B Corporation® can be a way to truly apply a values-based perspective beyond the portfolio itself. Which can result in a new way to build trust with prospective clients - especially those who already have a strong values-focused oriented to where they invest and who they do business with - as well as connect with a broader community of like-minded socially-conscious entrepreneurs, and provide an environment that is more attractive to next generation advisors!

Weekend Reading for Financial Planners (October 28-29)

October 27, 2017 02:58 pm 4 Comments CATEGORY: Weekend Reading

Enjoy the current installment of "weekend reading for financial planners" – this week's edition kicks off with the big buzz in the advisory world this week... a major feature article in the Wall Street Journal dubbed "The Morningstar Mirage" that notes how Morningstar star ratings based on past performance are a huge driver of mutual fund asset flows but have at best only limited predictive value of future performance (though the Journal authors, as well as Morningstar in its response, both note that highly rated funds are still at least somewhat more likely to outperform than just picking mutual funds at random!).

Also in the news this week was a separate major announcement from Morningstar, that it's DoL fiduciary proposal tool, the "Best Interests Scorecard", is now available as an add-on to the Morningstar Advisor Workstation. And the Investment Management Consultants Association (IMCA) announced that it is rebranding to the Investments & Wealth Institute (IWI), and has acquired the Retirement Management Analyst (RMA) designation as part of its growing investments and wealth management focus.

From there, we have a number of marketing and business development articles this week, including: a review of what a "marketing funnel" really is, and how it's relevant for financial advisors; a discussion of how most advisor websites are built for the wrong purpose, aiming to educate about the advisor's firm or get a prospective client to call when really it should just focus on getting a prospect's email address instead; a fascinating research survey about where ultra-HNW investors go for their financial news that finds HNW investors tend to rely on both traditional media, social media, and an advisor's own communication (and that younger HNW clients are even more likely to rely on the advisor's communication!); how digital marketing lessons from Silicon Valley can be applied for financial advisors, particularly when it comes to "influencer marketing"; why your answer to the simple question "How's It Going?" can unwittingly deter clients from giving you referrals; and how the best way to build Center Of Influence (COI) referrals is not to just try to find "good" COIs, but instead to work more deeply with the COIs your clients already use, where you can turn deepening client engagement with a mutual client into COI referrals instead!

We wrap up with three interesting articles, all focused around the theme of taking a fresh look at popular themes: the first explores how advisors should beware about entirely rebranding themselves as behavioral coaches and accountability partners, because the truth is that most people don't actually want to always be held accountable for everything (and at best, advisors need to be more sensitive about how to frame accountability in a positive, future-focused manner); the second looks at the simple concept of financial milestones, and the kinds of common milestones that can (and should) be celebrated with clients; and the last looks at how the recent wave of natural disasters, from hurricanes to fires, have been causing people to question how much "stuff" they really need... and not just those who are impacted by the disaster, and may have lost everything and need to start over, but even those of us who only saw the events on the news, but still find ourselves questioning whether we have too much "stuff" and how we could better focus on the things that really matter.

Enjoy the "light" reading!

Why The New SIE Exam Is The Wrong Track To Become A Financial Advisor

October 26, 2017 11:33 am 11 Comments CATEGORY: Industry News

Many financial advisors getting started in their careers have historically faced the same conundrum: In order to get started with a broker-dealer, you needed to pass your Series 6 or Series 7 exam. However, you couldn’t actually start on your Series exam until you got hired by a broker-dealer, so they could sponsor you in the first place! Which created issues for both prospective financial advisors, and the broker-dealers hiring them. Acknowledging the problems this creates, earlier this year FINRA received approval from the SEC to begin offering the SIE (Securities Industry Essentials) exam starting next year, which will finally allow prospective financial advisors to get started on their Series exams without being sponsored!

In this week’s #OfficeHours with @MichaelKitces, my Tuesday 1PM EST broadcast via Periscope, we discuss the new SIE exam, including how it works, what it covers (and doesn't cover), and why it ultimately isn't actually a good path to becoming a financial advisor in the future.

Under FINRA Regulatory Notice 17-30, the SIE (Securities Industry Essentials) Exam will actually first become available next October of 2018, allowing prospective brokers to be able to sit for the SIE exam without first being sponsored by a broker-dealer. Instead, the individual will be able to register themselves directly with FINRA, and then register to take the SIE exam at a local testing center from organizations like Prometric and Pearson. The SIE exam will cover, as the “Securities Industry Essentials” name implies, the basics of the financial services industry, including knowledge of basic products, and the rules and regulatory structure of the financial services industry itself.

Notably, however, the SIE exam is not actually a replacement for the Series 6 or Series 7 exams. Those who have passed the SIE will still need to take abbreviated Series 6 and Series 7 exams, to "top off" the initial SIE exam, after getting hired by a broker-dealer and being sponsored for the final Series exam. But the SIE exam will provide the initial pathway to the Series 6 or Series 7 exams... allowing prospective brokers to get started without first getting sponsored. Additionally, though, the SIE exam doesn't actually prepare anyone to be/join a Registered Investment Adviser (RIA), because the SIE exam prepares for broker-dealer jobs, not for RIA jobs that require the Series 65 exam instead.

And that’s ultimately why I’m actually concerned about the introduction of the SIE exam. Particularly for college students and young entrants to the profession, given that college students studying financial planning are likely going to be pushed to take the SIE exam before they graduate to get started as a financial advisor. Only to discover once they search for financial planning jobs, that increasingly the jobs require them to have a Series 65 exam and work under an RIA or a hybrid RIA... which means their SIE exam will be useless!

The bottom line is to recognize that while the SIE exam may be a great expedited pathway to getting a job at a broker-dealer to sell financial services products, it’s still ultimately a path to getting a Series 6 or Series 7 or similar license, which are licenses for salespeople. The path to getting paid for financial advice, under the current regulatory environment, is all about passing the Series 65 and becoming or joining an RIA (or at least a hybrid RIA), which the SIE exam doesn’t cover at all!