As social media continues to rise in the digital age, financial planners are increasingly getting involved on platforms like Facebook and Twitter. However, fears and misconceptions about social media - along with a general uncertainty about exactly what the point is and why planners should get involved - have dramatically slowed advisor adoption. Yet the reality is that there are several simple and clear ways that platforms like Twitter can be used to create value for financial planners - including some easy ways, like helping the news find you and social listening, that pose no compliance hassles or risks, either! Keep reading for some tips about how to get started, what programs to use, and how to get start getting value from Twitter!
Enjoy the current installment of "weekend reading for financial planners" - this week's edition starts off with a quick recap of who said what at this week's Financial Services Committee hearing on the Bachus SRO legislation. From there, we take a deep dive into a long series of articles looking at how financial planning is changing. An interview with Rick Kahler explores how financial therapy is being integrated into his practice, and a Morningstar Advisor article looks at how personality types can help predict which kinds of behavioral biases your clients might exhibit. An article by Paula Hogan in the Journal of Financial Planning examines how to integrate financial planning from the economists' perspective - the so-called Life Cycle finance model - with the current world of financial and life planning, with a rising focus on planning for human capital... followed by another article looking at how several planners are being to incorporate human capital planning in their practices. Bob Veres looks at what we can do to ensure that planners really stay focused on planning, and don't allow themselves to be lured by "easier" business models. A panel discussion in Financial Advisor magazine explores how some executives at companies that serve and support advisors see the trends playing out. At the same time, a recent article on The Economist questions whether clients might sometimes seek advice more than they should, and how much advice we seek is really for practical reasons as opposed to psychological ones. And Dick Wagner raises the question of whether it's finally time to push the profession to financial planning 3.0. On a final note, we include a transcript of a recent speech given last weekend by financier investor George Soros in Italy; although a bit of a non-sequitur from the weekend reading theme of changes in the planning profession, the article provides such an amazing look at what's going on in Europe, that it just had to be included. Enjoy the reading!
When considering a purchase, we all evaluate the value that we will receive relative to the cost of the transaction. Yet research shows that some methods of payment make us more sensitive to the cost than others - which in turn can distort the cost-benefit analysis and change the decision, but also impacts the ability for sellers to raise prices without changing the buyer's willingness to pay.
For instance, research on toll roads shows that consumers are less sensitive to toll increases when they pay electronically than in cash; similarly, we are more willing to spend money when we pay by credit card than when the cost it made salient by paying in cash. The upshot of highly salient pricing is that it helps to ensure businesses don't raise prices unfairly and abuse their customers; the downside, however, is that it can make it more difficult for honest, fairly priced businesses to attract new clients and grow their revenues due to price sensitivity.
In the financial planning world, this helps to explain the popularity of both commission and AUM models, and the relative difficulties of hourly and retainer fee models - it's not just about how much the firm charges, but also about how the firm charges!Read More...
Cash reserve strategies that hold aside several years of spending to avoid liquidations during bear markets are a popular way to manage withdrawals for retirees. In theory, the strategy is presumed to enhance risk-adjusted returns by allowing retirees to spend down their cash during market declines and then replenish it after the recovery. Yet recent research in the Journal of Financial Planning reveals that the strategy actually results in more harm than good; while in some scenarios the cash reserves effectively allow the retiree to "time" the market by avoiding an untimely liquidation, more often the retiree simply ends out with less money due to the ongoing return drag of a significant portfolio position in cash. As a result, the superior strategy for those who want to alter their asset allocation through market volatility (the effective result of spending down cash in declines and replenishing it later) appears to be simply tactically altering asset allocation directly, without the adverse impact of a cash return drag. Nonetheless, this still fails to account for the psychological benefits the client enjoys by having a clearly identifiable cash reserve to manage spending through volatility - even though the reality is that it results in less retirement income, not more. Does that mean cash reserve strategies are still superior for their psychological benefits alone, even if they're not an effective way to time the market? Or do total return strategies simply need to find a better way to communicate their benefits and value?
Benchmarking is a standard tool for investors and investment professionals to evaluate the results of an investment manager. In a world of investing within asset classes and style boxes, the benchmarking process is relatively straightforward – any particular investment offering can be easily matched to an appropriate benchmark. In a world of unconstrained, “go-anywhere” style managers, though, the benchmarking process is less certain. Common methods to determine an appropriate benchmark – such as an ex-post regression of what the fund was invested in – can obscure the actions of the manager, for better or for worse. Is the only solution to simply select an arbitrary benchmark and proceed accordingly? Can we eschew a benchmark altogether?
The principles of drip marketing are not new; the concept of marketing by sending a series of messages to prospects over time to build familiarity and remain top-of-mind so that you're likely to be contacted when a need arises has existed for decades. In fact, drip marketing has only gained in popularity as the costs of distribution have declined - from the increasing efficiency of printing postcards, catalogues, and newsletters, to the almost negligible cost of sending messages via email (sometimes taken to its abusive extreme, "spam email"). Unfortunately, though, the challenge of most drip marketing is that it's still very impersonal, and it can often be a challenge to even identify a list of people to whom the messages should be communicated in the first place. Yet the growing world of social media creates the potential to take "drip marketing" to a whole new level, because it is more social - making it more personal and more engaging, with sharing tools to help the people who receive your content to refer you to their friends and family, and for those you want to reach find you!
