Kitces.com - Advancing Knowledge in Financial Planning

Why Social Media Is Not An Alternative To Networking And Referral Marketing

September 9, 2013 07:02 am 5 Comments CATEGORY: Marketing

As social media becomes increasingly popular, the financial planning world has struggled to figure out how social media marketing fits into the big picture. Where can an advisor find time to engage in social media amidst other efforts to network, develop business, and drive referrals? And of course, all of that marketing activity has to fit around the time to actually run a business and serve clients, too!

Yet from a best practices perspective, social media shouldn't be viewed as an alternative to networking and referral marketing. Instead, social media is simply another way to do networking and referral marketing in the first place! After all, social media success still ultimately relies upon making personal connections and building relationships to generate new business. Or viewed another way, relationship marketing is all about being social, and social media is just another medium for being social!

The caveat, however, is that while networking meetings and referral marketing are often a slow, one-client-and-center-of-influence-at-a-time effort, time invested in social media is able to be leveraged to reach dozens, hundreds, or even thousands of prospective clients at once. In other words, ultimately social media is not an alternative to networking and referral marketing, it's simply a more leveraged and scalable way to do it! Which also means if you're trying to figure out where to find the time to start getting engaged on social media, you might look to carve the time from some of your other, less efficient and effective marketing activities!

Weekend Reading for Financial Planners (Sep 7-8)

September 6, 2013 01:02 pm 0 Comments CATEGORY: Weekend Reading

Enjoy the current installment of "weekend reading for financial planners" - this week's reading kicks off with a discussion from Mark Hurley about whether it will soon become a lot more expensive for advisors to acquire clients, whether through popular custodian referral programs or other channels.

From there, we have several financial planning technical articles this week, including a look at whether the shortfalls in the Social Security disability fund may prompt Social Security reform sooner rather than later, whether income-oriented portfolios increase or reduce the safe withdrawal rate, another way to look at why it's beneficial to delay Social Security benefits, a discussion of "DING" and "NING" trusts used to avoid state income tax liabilities for clients in high-tax-rate states, a look at how the new cost basis reporting rules are shaking out after the first several years, and a roundtable discussion from the Journal of Financial Planning about the new health insurance exchanges and how they'll work.

We wrap up with three interesting final articles: the first is a blog from Angie Herbers about whether the tendency for advisors to form 3-person teams may be contributing to young employee turnover (as the saying goes, "three's a crowd" and it may apply in advisor firms, too!); the second suggests that the real problem for many overspending clients is that they're spending too much money having people do things for them; the third is an interesting interview with Vanguard founder Jack Bogle (who is as spirited as ever in criticizing the financial services industry and suggesting reforms); and the last is a good reminder that notwithstanding all the great advice planners give their clients, many could stand to take their own advice a little more often as well, or ever consider hiring their own planner to get a helpful nudge! Enjoy the reading!

MailBag: Introducing Financial Planning Services To Existing Brokerage Clients For The First Time

September 5, 2013 07:03 am 0 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 will occasionally post a new "MailBag" article, presenting the question or comment (on a strictly anonymous basis!) and my response, in the hopes that the discussion may be useful food for thought.

In this week's MailBag, we look at a question about what an investment management firm that has only provided investment management services in the past should do when they try to start offering financial planning and clients refuse to provide all of their personal financial information.

What Does It Really Mean To Be A Fee-Only Financial Planner?

September 4, 2013 07:09 am 8 Comments CATEGORY: Planning Profession

In recent months, the CFP Board has faced some high-profile cases that have tested its definitions of what it means to be a "fee only" advisor. First there was the incident with Alan Goldfarb, and more recently (though dating back to an earlier incident) a lawsuit filed by Jeffrey and Kimberly Camarda. In both cases, the incidents revolved around situations where advisors were providing services on a "fee-only" basis to clients, but also separately held a financial interest in a broker-dealer and/or an insurance agency that at least "could" potentially generate commissions. Although the CFP Board's current compensation disclosure requirements have actually been in effect since 2008, the cases have highlighted the complex realities of how many financial advisors structure their businesses, and tested where the line should be drawn regarding what does and does not constitute "fee only" compensation.

While it's hard to fault the essence of what the CFP Board is trying to accomplish with its definitions - that advisors should only describe themselves as "fee only" if they truly, solely receive compensation from fees - a broad interpretation that compensation includes not only what is received but what the advisor or a related party are "entitled to receive" has arguably narrowed the interpretation of "fee only" beyond the point it was ever intended. In fact, the CFP Board's current rules appear so tight that they may actually invalidate as much as 5% of NAPFA's own membership.

At the core of the issue is the CFP Board's viewpoint that "commission" compensation should include not only what a client does pay, but what a client could pay to the advisor or a related party. As a result, a wide range of advisors whose clients truly have only ever paid a fee to anyone must declare themselves to be "commission and fee" for the sole reason that someday, somehow, a client could pay a commission to the advisor or a related party (due to a license the advisor holds, or other advisors under the same employment agreement), even if no client ever has, or is even intended to - a standard that's virtually impossible for any but a small subset of independent privately-owned RIAs to meet.

Instead, perhaps it's time for a simpler, more straightforward definition of fee-only compensation - that "fee only" be based not on what a client could pay, but what the client actually does pay. If the client really does pay a commission to an advisor or a related party, then the advisor should be required to describe themselves as "commission and fee" accordingly. But if the client really, truly does only pay fees to the advisor and pays no commissions at all to the advisor or any related party, the advisor is permitted to call themselves "fee only" instead. Or viewed more simply - unlike the CFP Board's current rules, advisors should always be able to rely on the fact that no client has ever actually paid a commission to the advisor or any related party as a defense to calling themselves "fee only," if that is in fact the case.

19 Ways to Make Your Financial Advisor Website More Credible And Trustworthy

September 3, 2013 07:02 am 10 Comments CATEGORY: Marketing

Having a website as a financial advisor is increasingly shifting from a "nice to have" to a necessary minimum just to establish that the advisor is a legitimate professional in the first place. If your business cannot be found online, then it's almost as though the advisor doesn't exist. Yet at the same time, just having a website isn't enough; it has to convey credibility and trustworthiness to prospective clients to really be an effective marketing tool for the business.

In this guest post, business consultant Maria Marsala shares her checklist of 19 ways that financial advisor websites can be made more credible and trustworthy. From the importance of having your own domain name - for both your business and your email address - to eliminating annoying flash and pop-ups, to making sure that prospective clients can learn the information they need, Maria's list helps to ensure your website is up to speed in today's environment.

Whether you're looking at creating your first advisory firm website, upgrading and replacing it to something new, or simply looking for a checklist that you can use to review your own site and perhaps make a few tweaks, I hope you find today's guest post to be helpful!

IRS Grants Same-Sex Married Couples Marital Treatment Regardless Of Current State Of Residence

September 2, 2013 07:04 am 6 Comments CATEGORY: Taxes

When the Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act on June 26th in the case of United States v. Windsor, it forced the Federal government to recognize whether or not a couple was married based on the rules of the state. If the state declared that the marriage was valid, the Federal government had to honor it as well, though whether the the marriage would be recognized in the first place was still left up to the state.

While this was fairly straightforward to apply for many couples - if they got married in one of the 13 states (plus the District of Columbia) that allows for same-sex marriage they would be married for state and Federal purposes, and if they were in a state that didn't allow such marriages then being unable to get married at the state level would leave them unmarried at the Federal level, too. Yet unfortunately, this also introduced a significant complication in today's increasingly mobile world: if a couple got married in a state that allowed the marriage and then relocated to a state that didn't recognize the marriage, were the rules for marital status based on the state the couple currently resided in, or the state in which they celebrated their marriage in the first place?

Fortunately, an announcement last week by the U.S. Treasury, accompanied by Revenue Ruling 2013-17 from the IRS, declared that all legal same-sex marriages would be recognized for Federal tax purposes, regardless of what state the couple currently resides in. In other words, as long as the marriage was legal in the state in which the marriage itself occurred, the IRS will follow the laws of the "place of celebration" in determining legal marital status, for both income and estate tax purposes. As a result, planners need to review the current income and estate tax situation for such couples, from the potential for filing amended income, gift, and estate tax returns, to reviewing the treatment of employee benefits, to re-evaluating whether it's time to update estate planning documents and gifting strategies in light of the new availability of the marital deduction!