Clients who need to improve their prospects for retirement generally have three options: spend less, save more, or retire later. Technically, there is a 4th option - grow faster - but it is typically dismissed due to the risk involved in investing for a higher return. In practice, clients rarely seem to dial up the portfolio risk trying to bridge a financial shortfall in retirement, and taking out a margin loan just to leverage the portfolio to achieve retirement success would most assuredly be deemed imprudent and excessively risky. Yet at the same time, a common recommendation for accumulators trying to bridge the gap is to keep any existing mortgages in place as long as possible, directing available cash flow to the investment portfolio, and giving the client the opportunity to earn the "risk arbitrage" return between the growth on investments and the cost of mortgage interest. There's just one problem: from the perspective of the client's balance sheet, buying stocks on margin and buying stocks "on mortgage" represent the same risk and the same leverage, even though our advice differs. Are we giving advice that contradicts ourselves?
Enjoy the current installment of "weekend reading for financial planners" - highlights this week include two new articles on safe withdrawal rate research, an investment discussion about Europe from John Hussman, a few practice management articles about business development and cultivating relationships (or not!), a controversial piece that 401(k) plans should have no more than 10(!) investment offers, and more. Happy reading!
A common debate in the financial planning world is what we can do to make clients less focused on the short-term volatility of the markets. As the viewpoint goes, if we can help clients to pay less attention to the markets, they won't be so stressed in times of turmoil and will be less likely to make rash, impulsive decisions like bailing out in the midst of a downturn.
Accordingly, one common conclusion is that as planners, we should send statements to clients less often; after all, if we don't want clients to look at the markets so much, why do we keep sending them so many reports about what's going on in their portfolio?
Yet a recent new service for advisors, that in part provides even more regular reporting for clients, is discovering that the opposite may be true: that in fact, the best way to calm clients is not less reporting and information, it's more... as long as it's clear and relevant and puts the situation in context. Read More...
As planners continue to seek ways to make their businesses more stable, successful, and profitable, it has become increasingly popular lately to talk about including separate fees for financial planning services, often in the form of a retainer. As the general view goes, doing so allows you to stabilize your income with a steady retainer base, and simultaneously helps you to better reinforce the value of your financial planning by setting a clear price tag on it.
There's just one problem: When you look at business models outside of our industry, we see the reality is that setting a separate price tag on standalone services does NOT help consumers value and appreciate the service more. In fact, it helps them to minimize use of the service, and absorb the cost only reluctantly (and sometimes even resentfully) when absolutely necessary.
So does that mean by charging separately for financial planning, we're proactively DISCOURAGING clients from utilizing our financial planning services and encouraging them to think more investment-only!?Read More...
Enjoy the current installment of "weekend reading for financial planners" - highlights this week include a number of articles on new investment vehicles coming down the pike, some interesting investment discussions from two of my favorite investment writers, John Hussman and John Mauldin, an interesting article suggesting perhaps we need to give clients MORE performance reporting information instead of less, and a white paper on implementing internships. Happy reading!Read More...
The legacy that Steve Jobs left behind last week as he passed away has been truly astounding; an outpouring of emotion and tribute from the world that is rarely seen outside of the death of beloved religious or political figures, as so many were touched by the technology that he created. And at the same time, criticisms have emerged as well - painting Jobs as a relentless micromanager with an obsession for ensuring that everything was exactly as he envisioned it. Yet the outcome of his process seems clear - a melding of incredible vision, and the execution of that vision which created tools we didn't even know we wanted or needed and made them an irreplaceable part of our lives. Perhaps the most amazing part, though, was the sheer simplicity and intuitive nature of the technology; although the design of Apple devices pushed the limits of what we can build and create and were based on incredible complexity, the customer experience was unparalleled in its simplicity. Which leads me to wonder... what would financial planning look like if we were as obsessed about the client experience as Steve Jobs was?Read More...
