As Congress and the White House continue to search for revenue to close the gap on the US fiscal deficit, numerous estate planning strategies - especially for high net worth clients - are coming under attack. Recent legislative or budget proposals have threatened the use of both Grantor Retained Annuity Trusts (GRATs) and Intentionally Defective Grantor Trusts (IDGTs), both popular strategies to "freeze" the value of hopefully-rapidly-appreciating assets for transfer to the next generation. In addition, the new rules on portability - currently temporary, but likely to become permanent at some point in the future - threaten the even more popular and common estate planning strategy, the bypass trust. While the exact timing for when these new rules become permanent law, the reality is that change appears to be coming. As a result, some clients may wish to accelerate the implementation of strategies before the laws change... while others may prefer a wait-and-see approach before deciding what estate planning strategies to implement at all!Read More...
As more and more baby boomers retire, an increasingly popular strategy is to split pre- and after-tax funds in a 401(k) at retirement, with the goal of rolling over the pre-tax funds into an IRA, and converting the after-tax funds into a Roth IRA, taking advantage of the non-taxable nature of the after-tax contributions.
Yet the effectiveness of the strategy is ambiguous at best; recent guidance from IRS Notice 2009-68 would suggest that the approach shouldn't be allowed at all, and although some esoteric and technical workarounds have been suggested, none have truly been tested or subjected to IRS scrutiny. As a result, while many 401(k) plans are willing to issue separate checks to accommodate those who wish to try the strategy, and the odds of getting caught are low, caution is still merited about whether the client will really end out with the desired tax treatment.Read More...
As the steady drumbeat continues to beat about the value of planners creating niche practices, most discussion of niches focuses on having a more clearly defined value proposition for clients and being able to make yourself more relevant for a target client market. Yet a recent article points out another important benefit that emerges when lots of planners all begin to establish niche practices - the opportunity for cross-referrals between planners with different, non-overlapping niches! In a world where most planners are generalists who all do everything for everyone, there is little need to ever cross-refer; but when most planners specialize in niches, cross-referrals can become increasingly common. And if planners will well-defined niches are more effective in converting prospects into clients, then the reality is that a collaborative group of niche planners may generate more clients in total than all of them could achieve by each acting as an individual generalist, as the whole really can act more effectively than the sum of its parts!Read More...
Enjoy the current installment of "weekend reading for financial planners" - this week's edition starts off with an article about the FPA, its declining membership, and prospective organizational changes as the CEO retires in 2014. From there, we look at a number of practice management articles, including an overview of the emerging niche of firms that provide quality lead generation for financial advisors, how to sustain a study group, the importance of e-delivery of documents not only for your firm but for your clients, a new software package to help with investment advisory fee billing, and two marketing articles - both emphasizing the value of being unique and different and having a niche to grow the business effectively. From there, we look at an interesting interview with Jeremy Grantham about investing opportunities, a striking article that suggests the giant pile of cash corporations are sitting on may be a bad sign and not a good sign, an article from the Journal of Financial Planning about a new way to manage tail risk for client portfolios, and coverage of an emerging new product called a "stand-alone living benefit" designed to provide all the lifetime income guarantees contained in today's variable annuities but wrapped around a client's own investment account instead. We wrap up with a slightly more light-hearted list of investing tips and maxims that would probably be a good reminder for almost any planner and his/her clients. Enjoy the reading!
In the ongoing effort to differentiate, many financial planners are engaging in a "race to the top" to assert themselves as delivering the best quality advice subject to the highest standards. At the same time, the financial planning membership organizations are similarly competing to attract more quality members by implying their existing members are of the highest quality due to the organization's high Standard of Care.
Yet the reality is that most of the major financial planning organizations now have an almost identical standard of care... and as a result, the real differentiation is not what the standard of care is, but whether the members really adhere to it, even though most associations have no feasible way to monitor the activity of their members. Which raises the question - what's the point of even claiming a standard of care as a differentiator, if the organizations can't enforce those standards to deliver on the promise anyway?Read More...
The variable annuity industry has a long history of criticism, generally stemming from the relatively high cost of their guarantees relative to less expensive investment alternatives. To burnish their value, in the past 15 years variable annuities have stepped up the guarantees that they provide, delivering a far wider range of income and death benefit features. However, in the face of wild market fluctuations – especially the 2008 financial crisis – many critics now also point out that the new guarantees of variable annuities pose new risks about whether the company will even be able to make good on its guarantees when the time comes. Yet the reality is that suggesting that variable annuities are risky and that the companies might not be able to pay on their guarantees would suggest that they’re not charging enough – implying that actually, variable annuities are too cheap, not too expensive! Alternatively, if the reality is that the current world of variable annuity guarantees really are too expensive, then there should be no risk at all, as the companies would have more than enough excess profits to handle the risks. So which is it at the end of the day? Are annuities really too expensive, or are they actually too cheap? Read More...
