The prevailing wisdom in financial planning is that clients should stay the course... always. It's "never" appropriate for clients to get out of stocks (even a little bit), and the eternal chiding to any so-called market timer is that even if you can figure out when to get out, you'll never figure out when to get back in again, and you'll miss any rally that might follow a market decline. But does this miss the point? If you actually sell BEFORE a severe market decline (as opposed to after), you don't even NEED to get back in until the market recovers anyway!Read More...
The explosion of social media as a means of communication has been stunning. And while those in professional services are just trying to keep up with the change, today's younger generation (and frankly, more "older" people that you might suspect) has already fully embraced the change. What this means, though, is that social media is not just about some new way to do marketing and develop new clients. Instead, it means that financial services needs to figure out how to handle social media - and fast - to even remain relevant and appealing to the future generation of financial planners themselves!Read More...
Although the research on safe withdrawal rates has been replicated many times by various researchers to substantiate a safe, sustainable spending level that can withstand at least anything that history has thrown at a retiree, one significant challenge has always lingered: a safe withdrawal rate recommendation is only as good as the time horizon it's associated with. In other words, while the research may support a 4.5% safe withdrawal rate, it's predicated on a 30-year time horizon. If the client planned to retire over a 35- or 40-year time horizon, the safe withdrawal rate would be different. Unfortunately, though, the client may not know that a 35-year time horizon is needed until it's year 31 and there are still a few years left to go! So what's the outlook for a safe withdrawal rate approach if the client outlives the original time horizon?Read More...
The FPA Annual Convention every fall is arguably the biggest event in financial planning each year. Typically drawing upwards of 3,000 attendees, it is certainly by numbers one of the largest conferences by far; although some of the custodial conferences (e.g., Schwab Impact) are competitive, FPA's is focused more directly on financial planning. This year, though, the FPA has rebranded the conference as FPA Experience, and conference chair Evelyn Zohlen is trying to take the event to a whole new level, with a huge focus on building community, and an effort to make it "the most interesting conference in the world" starting with a phenomenal promotional video!
There is way too much dogma surrounding annuity commissions. The commission argument against annuities is most often posed by registered reps, or investment advisor reps who stand to gain by keeping money out of annuities. In the spirit of fairness, I compared the commissions for annuities in general against the fees that would be earned by an advisor charging an AUM fee and came to a simple conclusion: the "annuities are bad because they pay high commission" argument simply needs to be retired.
As is often said, "financial planning is a process, not an event" and therefore is predicated on an ongoing relationship between the planner and the client. Yet the in-depth nature of a financial planning relationship presents challenges as well; it takes more time, it costs more money, and it becomes less accessible to many who either can't afford or don't want such a 'deep' relationship. But does it have to be this way? Could financial planning still deliver value even if it's NOT an ongoing relationship with an individual financial planner?Read More...
