It has been popular in recent years to bash volatility, and standard deviation as its most common way of being quantified, as a terrible measure of risk. Not just because of the criticisms associated with standard deviation itself and whether market returns are normally distributed, but at a more basic level: is the up-and-down volatility of an investment what a client really cares about? Shouldn't risk be more focused on loss, the impact of losses on goals, and the probability of achieving goals, than just the raw choppy volatility itself? Yes, perhaps, but on the other hand maybe we don't give volatility itself enough credit for the risk that it does create: volatility in investment returns leads to volatility and uncertainty about the timing of retirement and other goals and the risk that they cannot be achieved in the time anticipated.
Read More...
How Do You Deal With Irrational Financial Behavior?
Although so many financial and economic models take as a fundamental assumption the idea that we are all rational human beings, the emerging research from the field of behavioral finance clearly illustrates this is a false assumption. In reality, we have some pretty strange financial behaviors, that do not appear to be at all consistent with a purely rational decision-making process. Fortunately, the world of behavioral finance is showing us that at least some of our irrational behavior occurs in a consistent manner that we can predict, so while our actions may not be rational at least they can be anticipated. But that in turn begs a fundamental question: when faced with a client making an irrational financial decision, is the rational (for the planner) solution to try to change the client to be more rational as well, or to change the recommendation to fit the client's irrational behavior? Read More...
If Planning Is Comprehensive, Why Do We Only Look At One Pie?
Almost by definition for many, the essence of financial planning is that it's comprehensive. Financial planners don't just look at a particular problem or product; they account for everything holistically to arrive at a recommendation and solution that fits in with the big picture. In other words, they don't just plan for a slice of the pie; they plan for the whole pie. Yet it seems that for many planners, the "whole pie" is the client's balance sheet; we plan for all the different assets (and liabilities?) that the client has, not just a particular account. What about the OTHER pie, though? Not the asset one; the INCOME pie.Read More...
GAO Study On Financial Planning Regulation Paints a Clear Picture of Problems and Recommends… More Studies
Yesterday the US Government Accountability Office (GAO) released the results of its study on the regulation of financial planning, as mandated by the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform legislation. Seen by many as a potentially significant step in the recognition of financial planning as a profession, the study came far short of recommending standalone regulation for financial planners, instead finding that the regulatory structure for planners is already "generally comprehensive" and delivering as its primary recommendations... more studies. Nonetheless, the GAO report represents the clearest picture yet of the financial planning landscape, with acknowledgement of the problems entailed in varying standards of care for different financial services channels, and consumer confusion over the myriad of titles and designations that financial planners use.
How Do YOU Develop Rational Financial Planning Recommendations In A World Where People Aren’t Rational!?
As financial planners, we have a responsibility to give people the best advice to guide them towards achieving their goals. In most cases, it's very straightforward to develop these recommendations, by applying the technical rules and looking at "the numbers" to calculate what path/route/option is best. Yet ultimately, the solutions don't count unless they're implemented correctly, and if you want to take that next step, you have to deal with real world behaviors. Which leads to a fundamental problem: what happens if the "best" solution is one that's not conducive to human behavior? How do you navigate the intersection between behavior and the numbers? How do you develop rational financial planning recommendations in a world where people don't always behave rationally?Read More...
Is The Passive Vs Active Debate Different Than Strategic Vs Tactical?
The debate about which is better - passive versus active investing - has been around for a long time. But in a world of pooled investment vehicles, especially with such a breadth of mutual funds and exchange-traded funds (ETFs), there are technically two levels on which decisions must be made: within the funds, and amongst the funds. Consequently, to describe the approach of an investment advisor, we should ultimately describe the process at both levels, to make clearer distinctions. For instance, are you strategically passive, or would strategically active be a better description. Wait, strategically active? What does THAT mean!?
Do You Show Human Capital On the Balance Sheet?
Planners are accustomed to dealing with most types of capital that clients may have, whether it is stocks, bonds, real estate, cash, bank accounts, or other investments. Yet the reality is that for many clients, the biggest piece of capital on their balance sheet is not the stuff that they own; it's themselves, and their ability to earn income in the future. However, as planners we rarely track and account for a client's human capital; and as a result, we may overlook the financial advice that can truly have the greatest long-term impact for a client's success.
Read More...
Is There Any Value In Investing In Gold?
If there’s one new asset class that seems to have truly caught the imagination of clients, it’s gold. Technology, real estate, and emerging markets have all caught fire for some period of time in recent years, but gold still seems to stir something emotional in us, above and beyond just the pangs of greed that have characterized the other hot investments of the decade. Perhaps it’s the fact that gold is something that theoretically performs well in times of distress; it can serve as a hedge in times of inflation, help protect against the declining value of our currency, and be a safe harbor when everything else is in trouble. Given so much client anxiety about today’s economic environment, it’s not difficult to understand the appeal. In the end, there is perhaps only one significant problem: gold doesn’t actually have any value; it can only accomplish these financial feats of strength because we believe that it can.
Are You Giving Clients What They Want? Or Just What You Think They Want?
The growth of the financial planning profession over the past 40 years is a testament to the fundamental need that it serves; if financial planners weren’t delivering value, firms wouldn’t be growing the way that they are.
Yet for so many planning firms, there is no process to really evaluate what it is that clients want, and whether they’re receiving it. Instead, we craft an offering that we think clients will like, and then try to convince them to hire us to receive it.
But is that really the best way to build a business’ service offering?
Must Tactical Asset Allocation Lead to Inefficient "Risky" Portfolios? Not According to Markowitz!
Under classic Modern Portfolio Theory, there is a single portfolio that is considered to have the most efficient risk/return balance for a given target return or target risk level; any portfolio which deviates from the "optimal" allocation must, by definition, either offer lower returns for a comparable level of risk, or result in higher risk for the same level of return. Accordingly, as the theory is extended, advisors should avoid making portfolio shifts that constitute tactical "bets" in particular stocks, sectors, asset classes, etc., as it must by definition result in a portfolio that is not on the efficient frontier; one that will be accepting a lower return for a given level of risk, or higher risk for a comparable return. Unfortunately, though, this perspective on MPT with respect to making tactical portfolio shifts is not accurate, for one simple reason: it is based on an invalid assumption that there is a single answer for the "right" return, volatility, and correlation assumptions that will never change over time, even though Markowitz himself didn't think that was a good way to apply his theory!
