It's a familiar scenario for some: you've worked for the company for years, and feel your contributions are under-appreciated, and that it's time to look for new opportunities. You begin the job search process, and find a new employer who is excited to have you come on board, providing a nice increase in your compensation as a part of the package. Deciding to take the new offer, you go back to your original employer to break the news... only to discover that, when faced with your anticipated departure, the attitude has changed. Suddenly, your existing employer offers you higher compensation; perhaps a promotion and new title; maybe even some equity in the company. So what do you do? Are you appreciative your employer finally recognizes your value? Or insulted that it took your imminent departure to raise the issue? If you're the employer, did you just come up with a way to retain your employee, or hasten his/her departure?Read More...
It has long been a criticism of financial planning that it is focused to far up the wealth scale. Financial planning firms at best only start serving the "mass affluent" (typically defined as $100,000 to $1 million in investment assets), and the elite independent firms often have minimums of one or several million dollars. The only exception is typically the younger high income earner, who may not have sufficient assets yet, but earns a few hundred thousand dollars a year, is accumulating assets quickly, and may need significant income tax planning support in the meantime. Yet the statistics show that the average American doesn't even have $100,000 in investment assets, and nearly half of Americans don't pay income taxes at all.
The response from planners is that it's just too difficult to serve clients at those lower wealth and income levels; the business model "doesn't work" and isn't viable/profitable. Yet perhaps the real reason is not that the business model is impossible to design, but simply because it's so hard to get a sufficient volume of clients, due to the sad reality that the value of financial planning hasn't been clearly defined to the public at large, and as a result it's very expensive to "sell" clients on financial planning when there's no real demand from them to "buy" it in the first place.Read More...
In our intra-industry debates about compensation models, there is an emerging view that one of the challenges of charging for assets under management (AUM) is that by charging based on investments, your clients will become investment-centric. The prescribed cure to this is to use another compensation model, such as charging a flat retainer fee, or an hourly fee. That way, clients will not always have their attention drawn to the portfolio that derives their fee, and the planner can help to focus them on other aspects of planning. Yet this raises a fundamental question: does charging AUM fees cause clients to be investment-centric, or are clients investment-centric and therefore preferring AUM fees?
Home ownership has long been viewed as a foundation of building wealth. For many Americans, the equity in their home is the single greatest asset on their balance sheet, often dwarfing the amount of investment assets they hold in savings and retirement accounts. But does that really mean that home ownership is the best long-term investment around, and a step that everyone should take if they wish to build financial success in the future? Not necessarily. Because in reality, the real reason home ownership is the average American's greatest asset is not because of appreciation in the value of housing; it's simply because of leverage. Read More...
Unfortunately, there is no shortage of bad continuing education instructors. Whether it's a boring delivery, explanations that are either too simple or too complex, content that is never made to feel practical and useful, or something else, almost any CFP practitioner has probably gone through the experience recently.
And the challenge is perhaps especially acute in regards to Ethics CE, where many presentations are either dealing with very abstract ethics concepts or very narrow case situations that may not feel relevant, and the number of instructors is already very limited.
In response, the CFP Board has changed the requirements to be an eligible CFP Ethics CE instructor in the future, requiring all such instructors to have held the CFP certification for at least 5 years to be eligible, to ensure that the instructor has the experience to make Ethics CE relevant. The problem? This requirement still does nothing to ensure that the instructor is a good teacher who knows how to make the content relevant for an audience! Read More...
The concept of safe withdrawal rates has been around for almost 20 years now, since it was first kicked off in the Journal of Financial Planning by Bill Bengen in 1994. Over the years, a number of developments have come along that has further elaborated upon and enhanced the body of research above and beyond its original roots. Nonetheless, despite significant advances in the theory and methodologies used to apply safe withdrawal rates in practice, one significant misconception remains, for some inexplicable reason: the idea that safe withdrawal rates are a pure auto-pilot program forcing clients to spend little from their portfolios, even in bull markets, such that the client is expected in any reasonable market environment to pass away leaving an enormous inheritance after a life of 'excessive' frugality. This misconception needs to end; it's not what the financial planning process is about, it's not what the research says, and it's not what is done in practice anyway!Read More...
