Kitces.com - Advancing Knowledge in Financial Planning

Why The Trusteed IRA May Be A Riskier Alternative To A Trust As IRA Beneficiary

August 9, 2017 07:01 am 10 Comments CATEGORY: Retirement Planning

Historically, most individual retirement accounts are structured as a “custodial” account, but the Internal Revenue Code permits IRAs to be structured as trust accounts as well.

The benefit of using a “trusteed IRA” is that the account is literally controlled by a trust document, which both ensures continuity in the form of a trustee that manages the account, and can restrict beneficiaries’ future access to the money after the original IRA owner dies (either to protect them from themselves, or to protect their IRA inheritance from potential creditors).

The caveat, however, is that a trusteed IRA really doesn’t provide any benefits that can’t already be accomplished with a (separate) trust as beneficiary. And in fact, having a standalone trust drafted to be the beneficiary of a retirement account can provide even more flexibility, or more robust spendthrift and asset protection for future beneficiaries.

Nonetheless, the ranks of trusteed IRA providers have been growing in recent years, in part because the trusteed IRA is highly appealing from the perspective of the IRA provider – because, as the trustee of the IRA itself, it’s very difficult for future beneficiaries to ever fire the trustee or transfer the account to another provider, allowing the trusteed IRA provider a greater likelihood of retaining the assets than a traditional custodial IRA provider. In addition, it’s notable that while drafting a separate trust as beneficiary of a retirement account has a non-trivial one-time upfront cost, it may still be less than paying ongoing fees for the trustee to manage and administer the trust for what could be decades into the future.

The trusteed IRA may still be appealing in situations where the IRA owner wants to outsource investment management for beneficiaries, is comfortable with the “risk” that beneficiaries may have trouble changing providers anyway, and simply cannot find a competent attorney who can draft a proper conduit or accumulation trust to serve as the IRA beneficiary instead. Yet ultimately, for those who do have access to competent legal counsel as part of the estate planning process, a well-drafted trust as IRA beneficiary can accomplish everything a trusteed IRA provides, and potentially more estate planning strategies as well!

#FASuccess Ep 032: Building A Personal Brand Advisory Business Of Financial Planning And Online Money Management Courses with Brittney Castro

August 8, 2017 07:01 am 7 Comments CATEGORY: Financial Advisor Success Podcast

Welcome back to the thirty-second episode of the Financial Advisor Success podcast!

My guest on today's podcast is Brittney Castro. Brittney is the founder of Financially Wise Women, an independent RIA in the Los Angeles area that specializes in providing fee-only financial planning for professional women in their 30s and 40s.

What's unique about Brittney's advisory business, though, is not just that she's generating more than $100,000 in standalone financial planning fees, but that by building an entire personal brand business around herself, she's been able to diversify her revenue streams as a financial advisor to include offering online courses, paid speaking, and even corporate partnerships where she is paid to be a brand ambassador for financial literacy!

In this episode, Brittney talks in depth about the digital marketing strategies she uses to attract young professional women who are ready and willing to pay her $2,500 to $5,500 financial planning fees, the 5-meeting process she uses over 6 months to deliver financial planning advice and earn her fees, how she structures her ongoing retainer fee for clients, and what she does for them on an ongoing basis (when there's no portfolio to manage). In addition, we also look at how Brittney built her highly scalable online Money Class course on personal finance, and how she's been able to generate nearly $100,000 of additional revenue over the past several years by selling her course for $497 per person... despite spending less than $10,000 and 40-50 hours of her time to make it... which means her investment into building that online course has generated about a whopping $2,000 an hour for her time!

We also talk about how Brittney gets paid for professional speaking, the world of "influencer marketing", and why a financial institution would pay her a substantial amount of money just to have Brittney - the financial advisor - be affiliated with their brand.

And be certain to listen to the end, when Brittney talks about how the key to her success is all about focusing on one area of her business at a time, working on improving it, and then moving on to the next area, while maintaining a large number of independent outsources who each help her in specialized aspects of her business.

And so whether you’ve been wondering how to position fee-for-service financial planning to younger clients who can pay planning fees but have no assets to manage, or want perspective on how a successful personal brand as a financial advisor can open up new business lines, or have simply been curious about what it takes to create an online course to reach new clients, I hope you enjoy this episode of the Financial Advisor success podcast!

The Latest In Financial Advisor #FinTech (August 2017)

August 7, 2017 07:01 am 1 Comment CATEGORY: Technology & Advisor FinTech

Welcome to the August issue of the Latest News in Financial Advisor #FinTech – where we look at the big news, announcements, and underlying trends and developments that are emerging in the world of technology solutions for financial advisors and wealth management!

This month's edition kicks off with a look at Morgan Stanley’s rapid pace of reinvention as a tech-savvy wirehouse since hiring away Schwab’s Naureen Hassan to become the firm’s Chief Digital Officer in early 2016. Since then, the company seems to be rapidly overcoming the traditional “Not Invented Here” mentality of wirehouses, forging partnerships with a number of outside providers, even as they build a fascinating vision of a robust tech-augmented human advisor platform, where the software continuously monitors and analyzes the situation for all clients and nudges the advisor with “Next Best Action” ideas that the advisor can take to the client (queued up with pre-written communication templates that the advisor can easily modify and adapt to individual client circumstances).

From there, the latest highlights also include a slew of companies announcing new “platform” initiatives, including:

FinFolio launches Wealthlab.io, a standalone REST API back-end platform for account openings, trading and rebalancing, and data feeds, that should provide an expedited foundation for new robo startups (or even large advisory firms that want their own custom-created wealth management solution).
FinMason launches a new FinTech accelerator program, allowing startups to build on their FinRiver data analytics to create and rapidly deploy solutions to advisors (or consumers).
Pershing continues to try to expand its open API platform to compete with TD Ameritrade’s VEO open architecture (and provide new advisor FinTech startups an alternative to building for “just” TD Ameritrade alone).
Apex Clearing strikes yet another deal with a “robo” middleware solution to help it gain distribution to the independent RIA marketplace and compete against the likes of Schwab, Fidelity, TD Ameritrade, and Pershing Advisor Solutions.

You can view analysis of these announcements and more trends in advisor technology in this month's column, including “robo”-401(k) provider Vestwell partnering with Fiserv, Advisor Software launching a new “Behavioral IQ” solution that aims to go beyond just risk tolerance and risk capacity, RobustWealth partners with Roofstock to allow advisors and their clients to invest directly into rental real estate and have the results aggregated with the rest of the portfolio, Morningstar acquiring a 40% stake in Sustainalytics as it doubles down on its commitment to its Morningstar Sustainability Globes, AdvisorHub launches a platform called “AssetLink” to re-define how advisors engage with wholesalers, and more!

I hope you're continuing to find this new column on financial advisor technology to be helpful! Please share your comments at the end and let me know what you think!

*And for #AdvisorTech companies who want to submit their tech announcements for consideration in future issues, please submit to [email protected]!

Weekend Reading for Financial Planners (Aug 5-6)

August 4, 2017 02:59 pm 2 Comments CATEGORY: Weekend Reading

Enjoy the current installment of "weekend reading for financial planners" – this week's edition kicks off with several recent industry tracking studies, including one showing that RIA assets continue to grow (but those serving individual investors continue to be dominated by a large volume of "small" advisory firms with less than $1B of AUM and fewer than 10 non-clerical employees), and another examining fund flows data and finding that advisors are not eschewing actively managed funds altogether, just high-cost funds - as both ETFs, and low-cost active funds (with expense ratios under 20bps) are experiencing positive inflows!

From there, we have a few technical articles, including: strategies to plan around the Medicare Part B and Part D surcharges for those with high income; how the growth rate of college tuition has actually been in steady decline for a decade (and last year was actually in-line with the general level of inflation); ways to use trusts to shelter (and tax-manage, and asset-protect) investment real estate; and a primer on how annuity mortality credits really work.

We also feature several practice management articles this week, from a look at how to develop the "other" career track in advisory firms (for administrative and operational employees), to why it's crucial to develop career tracks and provide promotions based on performance and skill attainment (and not just based on tenure), and why businesses (both advisory firms and in other industries) often start to "break" as they cross 25 employees, and have to adjust to the dynamics of being a larger business.

We wrap up with three interesting articles, all looking at mindset issues in what it takes to be financially successful: the first looks at a recent Journal of Financial Planning study, which finds that more affluent households tend to take more financial risks, but only because they also tend to better understand those risks (and take them prudently) in the first place; the second discusses some of the "habits" of the affluent that appear to bolster their wealth accumulation and financial success; and the last examines Warren Buffett's recent statement that his future successor must not only be smart, but have a "money mind", and explores what it really means to have a money mind.

Enjoy the "light" reading!

Finding Confidence To Differentiate On Advisor Value Instead Of Price

August 3, 2017 10:14 am 9 Comments CATEGORY: Practice Management

Periscope Office Hours Cover Image August 2 2017 Finding Confidence To Differentiate On Value Instead Of Price

Financial advisors charge a wide range of advisory fees, which can vary based on everything from the depth and breadth of the advisor's services, to his/her skills and expertise. Yet in recent years, there has been a growing level of criticism directed towards advisors who charge "above-average" fees, implying that doing so is a potential breach of their fiduciary duty to clients... with no regard to the fact that the advisor might simply have a more specialized level of expertise that merits those higher fees.

In fact, on a recent episode of the Financial Advisor Success podcast, we had Dana Anspach, who has a niche financial planning business with an incredibly well-defined process for serving retirees, that has grown from $30M to $130M of AUM in just the past 5 years. Yet rather than celebrating her success, many in the advisory community have taken to criticizing Anspach's fee structure of 1.25% AUM plus an upfront planning fee of $6,900, on the grounds that it is too high for a fiduciary to charge when 'everyone knows' the typical advisory fee is just 1%.

In this week’s #OfficeHours with @MichaelKitces, my Tuesday 1PM EST broadcast via Periscope, we discuss whether advisors who charge more than the average advisory fee should be criticized for not charging less, or admired for their ability to craft a clearly defined value proposition that is so compelling that clients are willing to pay those fees for the value they perceive!

First and foremost, though, it's crucial to point out that the fiduciary rule does not require an advisor to be the 'lowest cost" provider or charge no more than the average advisory fee in the first place. Instead, it simply requires financial advisors to charge fees commensurate with their services, that are "not excessive" relative to the going rate for similar services. Which means there's nothing wrong with charging an above-average fee to deliver an above-average solution, as Anspach's firm does with their unique, differentiated, specialized service for retirees.

In fact, the only ones who seem to be complaining about Anspach's fee structure are not her clients (who appear to be finding good value in what her firm provides), but other financial advisors – who imply, or in one case outright said to me, “Why would someone work with Dana at 1.25%, when I offer retirement planning to my clients and only charge a ‘more reasonable’ 1%?”

The irony of the advisor making this statement is striking, given that as advisors we routinely urge our clients not to just shop based on price alone. We tell them to shop based on value. Not just the cost, but what you get for the cost. But shopping based on value means that reasonable fees could go in either direction – with advisors charging less, or more, based on the value they provide. Not to mention that from an advisor's perspective, competing on price alone eventually becomes a serious problem for most advisory firms. In part, it is because competing on price alone attracts price sensitive fee-conscious clients, but the real problem is that when you compete just on price, you're not competing on actual value and there's always going to be someone who can figure out how to charge less than you.

Yet in recent years, more and more advisors are competing on price, either by focusing on how their fees are lower than the fees of other advisors, and/or trying to offer differ advisory fee models - for instance, annual retainers in lieu of AUM fees - as a means of differentiating based on price. Which suggests to me that the real problem is that advisors are continuing to struggle in figuring out how to effectively differentiate, and lack confidence in their own value proposition (and therefore feel compelling to compete by cheapening their pricing, instead).

And this is actually borne out in some of the recent research on how advisors set their fees, with Bob Veres' recent study finding more experienced advisors charge higher all-in costs than those in their first 1-5 years, and our first XY Planning Network benchmarking study which found that 100% of financial advisors surveyed were raising their fees after their first three years of business – suggesting that as advisors gain confidence in what they do, they actually tend to raise their fees, even as they move upmarket and work with larger clients.

Ultimately, though, the fundamental point here is that when I see a growing number of advisors who snipe at the fees of other advisors, what it suggests to me is that there are a lot of advisors who still aren't really confident in their own value. Instead of asking how they can focus, specialize, and build a niche that commands higher fees the way that firms like Anspach have been able to do, they ask why her clients wouldn't just work with them instead since their fees are lower. But that entirely misses the point. Dana's specialized niche adds more value to her target clientele, and can command a higher fee.

Which means in the end, if advisors want to bolster their pricing and value proposition to better attract new clients and grow their advisory businesses, they should be looking to emulate successful advisors, rather than criticizing their business success!

The Impact Of Early Retirement On Projected Social Security Benefits

August 2, 2017 07:01 am 28 Comments CATEGORY: Retirement Planning

Social Security operates as an income replacement formula, with higher benefits for those who work for more years. As a result, benefits are very limited for those who don’t work for very many years, and are much higher for those with a full working career.

To avoid confusing those who haven’t worked very many years yet – but plan to – the standard Social Security benefits statement projects out anticipated future Social Security benefits based on the assumption that the individual will continue working until retirement. Which allows the individual to understand what Social Security benefit they are “on track for” as they continue to work until full retirement age. Except, of course, that not everyone actually plans to work until full retirement age!

For those who intend to retire early, the end result is that the Social Security Administration’s projected benefits calculation may turn out to be substantially higher than what someone will actually receive if they retire early, and never actually work as many years as anticipated. The lower someone’s lifetime earnings overall, and the earlier he/she retires, the more dramatic the impact can be, commonly reducing benefits by 5% to 10% when retiring early, and potentially far more for “extreme” early retirement. Although the impact is also substantially affected by whether recent earnings were higher or lower than their long-term average… and whether they’ve already paid into the Social Security system for at least 35 working years (or not).

Ultimately, the reality is that Social Security benefits aren’t actually reduced for those who retire early – they simply stop accruing additional benefits when they stop working. But given that Social Security projects the assumption of work until full retirement age, it’s crucial to recognize that actual benefits may be lower for those who retire early – even if they wait until full retirement age to actually receive those benefits. In the end, that may not stop a prospective early retiree from making the decision to stop working – and notably, continuing to “work” even after retirement can continue to increase benefits as well – but at a minimum, it’s crucial to take a moment and look at the individual’s inflation-adjusted historical earnings, to understand whether or how much of an impact not working to full retirement age may actually have on projected benefits!