Most planners are familiar with the 4% safe withdrawal rate research, first established by Bill Bengen in 1994 and based upon a 30-year time horizon. However, a common criticism of the research is that many clients don't necessarily have a 30-year time horizon - it may be longer or shorter, depending on the client's individual planning needs and circumstances. Yet in reality, there is nothing about safe withdrawal rates that must apply only to a 30-year time horizon. In fact, research exists to demonstrate the safe withdrawal rate over a range of time horizons as short as 20 years (where the safe withdrawal rate rises as high as 5% - 5.5%) or even less, to as long as 40 years (where the safe withdrawal rate falls to 3.5%). And in turn, changing the time horizon and the withdrawal rate also affects the optimal asset allocation, making it slightly more equity-centric for longer time horizons, and far less equity-centric for shorter time horizons. In the end, this means that there is no one safe withdrawal rate; instead, there is a safe withdrawal rate matched to the time horizon of the client, whatever that may be! Read More...
Financial planning can often involve some pretty long meetings, simply given the complexity of both the lives of our clients, and the solutions from which they must choose. Unfortunately, though, recent research shows that when we have to stay mentally focused for an extended period of time, it can actually lead directly to less effective decision making. Consequently, asking clients to make important decisions at the end of a long financial planning meeting - even one filled with great information and education - may actually be the worst way to lead the client to a well-thought-out decision, due to mental fatigue! Fortunately, though, there are solutions. Some planners may choose to adjust how meetings are structured, making the meetings shorter and/or presenting decision-making opportunities to clients earlier (before they are so mentally fatigued). Alternatively, it turns out that a remarkably effective solution is to actually refuel the brain, with some carbohydrates/sugars that bring the brain the glucose it needs to refresh itself. But in the end - whether it's a shorter meeting, a cookie, or some fruit juice - it's probably time for planners to pay more attention to the client's state of mind before moving to the decision-making phase of a financial planning meeting!
Enjoy the current installment of "weekend reading for financial planners" - this week's edition highlights the big industry news: legislation proposing that all investment advisors be regulated by an SRO, with an implication the SRO would be FINRA, although another new SRO (perhaps SROIIA?) could fill the void instead. Continuing the theme, we also look at an article by Don Trone exploring how we might measure just how much of a fiduciary an advisor really is. From there, we have a brief look at the other 'big' news this week - the release of Google Drive - and why advisors should steer clear, at least with their client and business files, along with a review of the last article from this month's Journal of Financial Planning, building on the idea that the best withdrawal strategies should not just defer pre-tax accounts as long as possible but instead should whittle them down bit by bit over time. Next, we look at three practice management articles: one about how firms are increasingly developing talent in-house because the young advisor shortage is putting upward wage pressure on hiring from the outside; how it's crucial to have compensation conversations upfront to avoid resentment and problems later; and how hiring friends and encourage friendships in the workplace can actually be a good thing, despite the common taboo. We wrap up with three interesting investment articles: the first from Morningstar Advisor about why absolute return funds are failing to deliver; the second about how to change the Sharpe ratio to better account for real world market risk and volatility; and the third by Jeremy Grantham of GMO, highlighting that as money managers try to manage their career risk and avoid getting fired, they create some incredible market volatility and inefficiencies along the way. Enjoy the reading!
The latest release of the 2012 Social Security Trustees Report shows once again that the Social Security trust fund is not only heading for insolvency, but doing so at an increasingly rapid rate, with current projections showing total depletion by 2033. Yet the reality is that the Social Security trust fund is only used to pay Social Security benefits that can't be funded from Social Security taxes alone - which even by 2033 are projected to cover 75% of payments due! Consequently, for most financial planning clients, who may only rely on Social Security retirement benefits for 25%-50% of total retirement income (or even less in some cases), the impact may not really be very severe at all; a 25% reduction in Social Security payments that are only 25% of retirement income constitutes a 6.25% pay cut, that doesn't even occur for over 20 years! Are we overstating the impact of Social Security's fiscal woes for the average financial planning client? Read More...
As the financial planning world continues its journey into the digital age, marketing and growing a financial planning practice faces new challenges. Some firms suffer as methods no longer work the way they once did, while others struggle to implement new strategies like blogging and social media without any clear strategy or understanding of how to do it successfully. Yet through it all, recent marketing research on advisory firms has shown a new category of marketing that has quietly emerged as the marketing method with the greatest growth on an absolute and relative basis: online search, where the firm attracts clients through Google, Bing, other search engines, and social media sharing. While the rise of online search is still in a nascent phase, its prospects are bright as the world goes digital. Accordingly, the best firms are beginning to take the key actions now that will be necessary for success, from better defining target clientele, to creating relevant content and distributing it, to beefing up the raw aesthetic quality of their websites so they leave a good impression - so that in the future, they won't have to find new clients, because the new clients will find them!Read More...
Despite a growing body of research suggesting that most retirees would benefit by delaying the onset of Social Security payments, the majority who are eligible still elect to begin receiving them as early as possible. In no small part, this appears to be attributable to a "take the money and run" mentality from retirees, who simply don't see the value of delaying as being worth the risk of foregoing benefits. And without a doubt, there is a material risk that the retiree will not live to the so-called "breakeven point" where the delay in benefits is worthwhile.
However, what most retirees fail to recognize is that while there is a risk to delaying benefits and never fully recovering them, the upside for living past the breakeven point isn't just that the money is made back; it's that the retiree can make exponentially more. And in fact, these asymmetric results - where the retiree only risks a little by delaying, but stands to gain far more in the long run - are further magnified in situations where the client lives dramatically past life expectancy, experiences high inflation, and/or gets unfavorable portfolio returns - which are, in fact, three of the greatest risks to almost every retiree.
As a result, the reality is that delaying Social Security benefits may actually be one of the best triple-hedges available to any retiree - simultaneously protecting against poor returns, high inflation, and longevity!
