In July 2021, Schwab released its latest RIA benchmark study, which, among a plethora of other things, asked advisory firms what their top strategic initiatives were. Unsurprisingly, the top result was to “acquire new clients through client referrals”, but coming in at second (and moving up from the fifth spot the previous year) was to “recruit staff”. Given the steady growth in the number of clients that advisory firms serve (regardless of firm size) over the past several years, it’s also not surprising that firms are focused on hiring additional staff to absorb the growth. But in an industry that, for much of its history, has seen a tremendous amount of turnover, many financial advisors are concerned that the advisors they hire may not stick around nearly as long as their clients, the vast majority of which stay with the firm they hire for life. Which raises the question: How can financial advisory firms structure their hiring practices to manage the risk of advisor turnover?

In our 68th episode of Kitces & Carl, Michael Kitces and client communication expert Carl Richards discuss two reasons why advisory firms may be wary of hiring additional advisors, how advisory firms can transfer the trust that’s been built over time with their clients to other advisors, and the key mindset shift that advisors should make when thinking about hiring advisors into their firm.

As a starting point, it’s important to recognize that advisors often tend to overemphasize the need to ensure that clients have a continuous relationship with just one advisor. The reality is that clients, more often than not, care more about whether they are getting the best advice and service they can get rather than who is giving it to them. Which is good news for advisory firms and is the reason that they can not only scale and grow, but can also get lofty valuation multiples. Because if the “who” part of the equation isn’t as important as most advisors make it out to be, then it means that the trust between advisors and their clients is transferable. The key, however, is communicating that transfer the right way. Advisors who cling to client relationships by saying that they’ll “be there for anything serious that comes up” end up undermining the new advisor. On the other hand, by building up the newly hired advisor and framing the move as increasing the level of service that the client will receive, the hiring advisor takes the trust they’ve built with the client and hands it to the new advisor.

With that knowledge, advisors can then address the underlying reasons why they may be reluctant to hire additional advisors. The first is the fear that, after transferring trust to a new advisor, that advisor still decides to move on. The good news, however, is that the trust that was transferred can be transferred again, which in turn speaks to the fact that clients are clients of the firm, and not any one particular advisor… just as long as the firm is ensuring that their clients are being served well.

The other fear that hiring advisors often have is that their new hires will do so well that they decide to leave… and take clients with them. While that’s always a possibility, advisory firms can mitigate that risk by using a team structure at their practice and ensuring that clients interact with other advisors and employees at the firm, because the more touchpoints a client has, the more likely they’ll stay with the firm even if one member of the team happens to leave.

Ultimately, the key point is that financial advisors who are considering hiring additional advisors to help scale their firm (but may be uncomfortable with the notion that the advisors they hire may not be employees for life) can shift their mindset to viewing clients not as clients of the advisor who services them, but rather as clients of the firm itself. And it’s the transferability of the trust that’s been built with clients over time that makes it possible for firms to grow, for employees to turn over, and for clients to stay with an advisory firm for life.

Read More...

Although there have been some incremental shifts in recent years, the financial advice industry has traditionally (and remains) geared towards attracting individuals who thrive in a career where their earnings have the potential to increase depending on how hard they work. Viewed through the Maximizer/Satisficer lens that Barry Schwartz introduced in his book, “The Paradox of Choice” (where Maximizers are those who continually strive for more, while Satisficers are those who are happy with having ‘just enough’), the advice industry is built to attract, reward, and celebrate those who tend to land on the Maximizer side of the equation. Yet, recent Kitces Research on advisor wellbeing indicates that, while an advisor’s self-perceived wellbeing steadily improves as their take-home pay increases (i.e. money really does buy happiness), the rising revenues only contribute to an advisor’s wellbeing up to a certain point (about $1.5m), and once firm revenue grows beyond that, there’s a direct inverse correlation between advisor wellbeing and revenue. And for financial advisors who want to avoid that sharp decline in wellbeing and have reached a point where their business is doing well enough that they don’t feel the need to press as hard to grow, the question arises, how can they shift their focus away from growth… and towards something else?

In our 67th episode of Kitces & Carl, Michael Kitces and client communication expert Carl Richards discuss how advisors can think about optimizing their own practices for something other than revenue, why figuring out how to manage towards something other than money may contribute even more to happiness, and what advisors can do after having gone through the optimization process.

As a starting point, the first shift that an advisor can make to move away from an aggressive growth mindset is to start thinking about ways to increase their take-home pay rather ‘just’ than their revenue. Some strategies include identifying the practice’s most profitable clients, ‘transitioning’ the other (less) profitable clients by referring them out to an advisor that can do a better job of serving them, and then trying to replicate those ideal clients. Meanwhile, advisors who are satisfied with their level of income and how their practice is set up can begin to optimize for whatever it is that aligns with their own interests and goals, such as, number of days off per year, hours spent with their kids, or number of tennis matches played, to name just a few!

From there, advisors can then turn their attention towards what to do once they’ve optimized for whatever (new non-revenue) metric they want to manage to. And it’s at that point that advisors often need the most help. Because, as is often the case with our own clients, few advisors have taken the time to really think about what we would ideally like our lives to look like, and as a result, could also benefit from going through their own life planning process, such as those offered by George Kinder or Money Quotient. For many advisors, setting audacious stretch personal goals for themselves can provide a path towards getting off the growth-for-growth’s-sake cycle and help them focus their incremental time and energy in a completely different (and more positive) direction.

Ultimately, the key point is that there are specific steps advisors can take to improve their own wellbeing once they get to a point where they don’t have to work as hard to grow their business and can start reaping some of the rewards for all the hard work they put in order to get to that place. And while not all advisors have reached that point (yet), the takeaway remains that simply going through the exercise of thinking about what their goals will be, once they’re making enough in their business that they don’t need to keep growing revenue just for growth’s sake, can help ensure that they are building their business with intent and are focusing on the long-term goals that really mean the most!

Read More...

Beyond offering technical expertise across the eight primary knowledge domains of financial planning, one of the most valuable services that financial advisors bring to the table is helping clients align how they use their resources with the things that are most important to them. Accordingly, advisors create an overlap between a client’s values and use of capital by helping clients identify, set, and achieve goals. Because, as the great American ‘philosopher’, Yogi Berra, once observed, “If you don’t know where you are going, you’ll end up someplace else.” However, for some, the practice of setting and achieving goals can easily become an end in and of itself, which makes it difficult for the client to get off the proverbial goal treadmill and focused on the things that they said were actually most important (i.e., what those goals were intended to achieve). Which raises the question: How can financial advisors help clients who are stuck in the cycle of setting and achieving goals channel their attention and energy towards the things they said were really most important to them?

In our 66th episode of Kitces & Carl, Michael Kitces and client communication expert Carl Richards discuss the various circumstances that might make it difficult for some clients to get off the goal treadmill, how advisors can help those clients who are perpetually unsatisfied and trying to reach towards the “next thing”, and how advisors can help clients who are nearing retirement find fulfillment outside of their career.

As a starting point, it’s important to acknowledge that sometimes it’s necessary to reevaluate and reset goals because clients may want something more or different than they thought they did at an earlier point or may achieve a goal and realize that wasn’t what they really wanted in the first place. But for clients who are stuck, the root cause of their issue may be that the goal they’ve been working towards all along may not have been the right goal in the first place (and as a result, no matter how hard they work, will never truly reach a point they’re comfortable with). Or, in other cases, it may be that the client has become addicted to the grind and can’t stop, which often turns out to be harmful to both the client and the people that matter most to them.

Such clients may benefit from (re)visiting a life-planning process (such as those offered by George Kinder or Money Quotient), or from an actual intervention, but for other clients, the problem may simply be that they do not know what to do with themselves once they’ve achieved their goals! Especially for those who are nearing (or at) retirement, and need to find satisfaction in something outside of a career that they might have spent the majority of their lives working in. For those clients, advisors can open the conversation by simply asking if they’ve given any consideration to how they’re going to focus their energy once they’ve reached financial independence, so that they’re retiring to something rather than away from something. From there, advisors can help clients brainstorm about the things that they might want to contribute to or do outside of work, and then task them to go try different things out and report back at their next meeting.

Ultimately, the key point is that there can be several reasons that people get stuck on the goal treadmill, and while perpetual improvement is an admirable endeavor, at some point, setting, achieving, and resetting goals may prove to be a blocking point that prevents a client from aligning the use of their capital with the things that are most important to them. And by identifying those root causes, advisors can help clients get unstuck and move back towards creating the sort of value overlap they were hired to create in the first place. Because, at the end of the day, the endgame isn’t about helping clients not have any more goals after getting to the point they initially wanted to arrive at… it’s helping them set new goals that keep them moving forward, in a way that’s truly most meaningful to them!
Read More...

If there is one constant in the world of investing and financial advice, it’s that there will always be a seemingly unending procession of “next great things”. Human progression being what it is, there have been some incredible opportunities for people to be rewarded for investing in innovation. However, for every “home run” like Amazon, Google, Microsoft, Ford, and McDonald's, there are just as many (or more) missteps, such as Enron, Long-Term Capital Management, Theranos, and Pets.com (to name just a few). The trick, of course, is knowing which is which, and (unfortunately) there’s just no real way to tell at the early stages. But that doesn’t stop the barrage of messaging that the public is exposed to across a plethora of media channels, telling them that they need to load up the proverbial boat in the next big game-changer and industry disruptor. And for financial advisors who (inevitably) start fielding client inquiries about such things, the question arises: what is the best way to respond when clients show interest in new (but still unproven) investment opportunities?

In our 65th episode of Kitces & Carl, Michael Kitces and client communication expert Carl Richards discuss the reasons advisors are so often skeptical of new investment opportunities, how they can communicate with clients as their views evolve, and how advisors who may have previously been too dismissive of a client’s interest in a new investment can rebuild any trust that may have been lost.

As a starting point, it’s important to acknowledge the fact that people of means are frequently targeted by less-than-forthcoming salespeople with investment opportunities and products that are often too good to be true. And in an effort to be expeditious with a client’s time, advisors frequently develop heuristics to quickly filter out investments that are too new, unproven, or just plain illegitimate. However, it’s also the case that some of those opportunities do turn out to be worthy of further investigation (as was the classic case with pioneering internet stocks in the ‘90s). Which means it’s not only challenging to screen out those too-early investments… but can also be a challenge to communicate to clients who expressed interest in a new investment that was too speculative or risky if/when things may have actually changed!

In such cases, it can be helpful to reiterate that part of an advisor’s job is to manage their investments according to their timeframes and risk tolerances and in a way that aligns with their long-term goals and core principles. From there, advisors can walk clients through the process of what it takes for something to be a qualified investment opportunity, and why the fundamental risk/reward calculus may have changed. And for advisors who feel they may have been too quickly (and emphatically) dismissive of an early stage opportunity, it’s important to apologize for being short and then follow up with an explanation of the firm’s criteria for investments, and why thoroughly researching every emerging opportunity that comes along is an inefficient (and expensive for the client!) use of time.

Ultimately, the key point is that there will always be a ceaseless parade of next great things, and regardless of whether or not they pan out, all new and innovative investment opportunities have some level of speculation and risk. And while there is a place for speculation and risk, it’s an advisor’s job to ensure that changes to a client’s investment portfolio align with their values and goals. Because, at the end of the day, clients who ask their advisors about a new opportunity are likely skeptical themselves, and are (deep down) looking to be either validated or cautioned. And when it comes to clients who lobby hard for every new thing that comes along, and push back on their advisors for taking a more measured approach… then the client may not end out being a good fit for the firm if always investing in the next new hot idea is really what they want?

Read More...

In the early days of the financial advice industry, an advisor’s most valuable service for clients was simply providing access to financial products (as stocks, bonds, insurance, etc. couldn’t be purchased directly by consumers). However, the advent of online brokerages not only drove down the cost to purchase investment products, but made investing (as the slogan went) “so easy, a baby could do it”. As a result, advisors turned their focus towards building customized portfolios for clients, and rather than earning commissions on the products they sold, began charging recurring fees for managing those portfolios on an ongoing basis.  

More recently, however, ongoing technological progress has automated portfolio management to the extent that it’s now “so easy, a robot can do it”, and once again, advisors have evolved to make their main value offering the advice that they provide across their clients’ entire financial lives. Yet, despite the introduction of alternative fee structures (including hourly and subscription models) based on the delivery of advice rather than management of assets (as well as the growing consumer demand for flat fees), growth of the AUM model remains robust. 

In our 64th episode of Kitces & Carl, Michael Kitces and client communication expert Carl Richards discuss how disconnects can sometimes arise between what potential clients may expect and how advisory businesses are structured to deliver advice, why the demand for quality advice continues to combat industry-wide fee compression, and why it’s been (up to this point, at least) such a struggle for alternative fee structures to gain better traction. 

Over the past several years, as more options for automated investment management have become available, consumers have increasingly sought out ‘compartmentalized’ planning engagements (i.e., advice on ‘just’ one or two, rather than on all seven, aspects of the planning process), but often run into difficulty when trying to find an advisor that has the capacity to accommodate their requests, particularly when it comes to higher-net worth clients. As while there are advisors who are able to accommodate limited planning engagements, their numbers are limited. Moreover, clients who are further along the complexity spectrum may expect the sort of service found at larger firms, which simply aren’t structured in such a way to provide compartmentalized service. 

Compounding the conundrum is the fact that it’s difficult for consumers to differentiate between advisors who actually offer advice and those who simply assume the title but may not be in the advice business. The supply of fiduciary advisors remains scarce, which (in turn) means that an advisor’s limited number of available spots can fill up quickly with clients who do want comprehensive planning (which is why so many of those advisors end out implementing wait lists). And with the high costs that advisors face to acquire clients in the first place, it just becomes impractical (at least at this point) to build a sustainable business that (primarily) serves clients on a limited basis. 

Ultimately, the key point is that, while fee structures and advisory models continue to evolve to provide better and more varied services to clients who may not want (or need) comprehensive planning, the fact remains that it’s expensive to not only acquire clients, but to service them as well. Which, at the end of the day, is why a fiduciary standard is so important for the industry, as it would drive down the cost of advice in the aggregate and would make it more practical to profitable and effectively serve clients who would benefit the most from flat-fee engagements.  

Read More...

Back in 2015, Carl Richards made a bit of a stir in the financial planning community when he published his book, “The One-Page Financial Plan”, which suggested that most important aspects of a full financial plan could (and should) be delivered to clients on a single page (effectively a form of executive summary). The appeal of this approach was offering a useful and easy-to-produce deliverable for clients (that could be updated on an ongoing basis to account for the fact that conditions and circumstances are in constant flux), and more generally was a way to reframe the concept of the ‘full’ financial plan by drilling down to just the most actionable points of advice (which is all the client really ‘needs’ to implement in the end anyway). Yet if advisors are really going to encapsulate their entire recommendations into a single-page financial plan, the question arises: can financial advisors really get away with eschewing a full financial plan, and if most clients never read the full plan after it’s presented anyway what is the real purpose of producing the financial plan in the first place?

In our 63rd episode of Kitces & Carl, Michael Kitces and client communication expert Carl Richards discuss the origin story of the one-page financial plan, the key elements of a good one-page financial plan, and why it’s not meant to be a replacement for a full financial plan (which then exists as a form of “technical appendix” to provide in-depth support to validate the one-page summary), but instead, act as an executive summary of the full plan as well a reference-point that advisors and clients can use when making decisions.

As a starting point, it’s important to understand that the full financial plan is incredibly important. The breadth and depth of the work that financial planners do cannot fit on one page. But it’s equally important to acknowledge that the full financial plan becomes ‘outdated’ the instant that a client walks out of the presentation meeting, and in the end, most clients simply can’t absorb the full extent of numbers and details that are encapsulated in a comprehensive financial plan (which really functions more as support calculations to ‘prove’ that the recommendation itself is technically accurate).

Accordingly, one approach to address the full financial plans that some financial planners have adopted is to also include an executive summary, or, one-page financial plan, that is meant to provide not only a quick reference that advisors and clients to use as a guidepost, but as a living document that is easily updated as life happens and things evolve. Beyond which the entire remainder of the financial plan serves as a “technical appendix” for that executive summary.

While various planners have adapted these one-page plans to fit their needs, items that are commonly found on such a document include: a Statement Of Financial Purpose, which acts as a sort of guiding star, or overarching “Why”; a list of goals, which can be listed in such a way that prioritizes those goals which carry the least desirable outcome if not achieved; and finally, a list of the things that need to happen over the next 90 days. Put another way, the one-page plan summarizes the Why, What, and How of the larger plan, and is a tangible deliverable that advisors and clients can use as a yardstick against which financial decisions can be measured and that can (and should) be regularly updated as action items are completed and goals are achieved (or get shifted).

Which, again, isn’t to say that the full plan doesn’t (or shouldn’t) have a place in the planning conversation. Rather, the action items on the one-page plan are necessarily the result of a rigorous analysis of the client’s situation to demonstrate that it is technically accurate. And while a relatively low percentage of clients have an interest in digging in to examine the nitty-gritty of how final recommendations are calculated, for newer advisors (in particular) who are still establishing their credibility, the full plan can act as an audit trail of sorts to not only show where “that number” came from, but as a tool to boost an advisor’s own confidence levels.

Ultimately, the key point is that one-page summaries of the most meaningful and actionable information in a financial plan (i.e., the Why, What, and How) can be a powerful tool that financial advisors can use both as a living document that can be regularly updated as “life happens” and as a filter through which advisors can help their clients navigate important financial decisions as they arise. Which, at the end of the day, acts as an executive summary of the valuable analysis in the full plan and as a way to keep advisors and clients focused on what matters most.
Read More...

Although “statements of purpose” have, in one form or another, been around for centuries, it wasn’t until the 1970s (and especially into the 1980s) that the corporate mission statement really began to gain traction as a tool for businesses to state publicly what they do and who they do it for. It wasn’t long after that mission (and vision) statements began to elicit eye rolls, particularly from those who were all too familiar with businesses that would go through the motions of writing up such a statement… and then completely ignore it in practice (as Enron infamously included “Integrity” as a core value… right up until it collapsed in an accounting scandal). Yet, the practice of creating mission statements has persisted. And for the plethora of financial advisors who are striking out to become first-time entrepreneurs and are facing a mountain of tasks that need completing and decisions that need to be made, the question arises: is it really worthwhile to take the time and effort to come up with a mission statement (when starting the firm, or later once it is more established?).

In our 62nd episode of Kitces & Carl, Michael Kitces and financial advisor communication expert Carl Richards discuss what it means for financial advisors to have a mission statement in the first place, some of the key benefits mission statements bring to the table, and some practical and actionable ways that financial advisors can uncover and codify their core principles and personal code, both as advisors and as business owners.

As a first step, it’s important to recognize that most financial advisors who started their own practices did so because they decided that the only way they could help the clients they wanted to help in the way they wanted to help them was by simply going out and doing it themselves. In other words, there’s some core reason that they get out of bed in the morning, and that, in effect, is the anchor for a mission statement that clearly defines what it is that the financial advisor can uniquely do that their clients can’t get anywhere else.

From a practical perspective, the biggest benefit that a mission statement brings to the table for financial advisors is that it makes subsequent business decision-making exponentially easier. Because in practice, a mission statement can serve as a filter through which advisors can be intentional with the choices they make as they build their practices. Without a clearly articulated vision, it’s hard to be consistent when making key business decisions… which can eventually result in the business losing traction.

When it’s time to actually codify a mission statement, advisors have a few options. A less formal approach could be a brainstorming session facilitated by a series of questions that starts with, “Why does this firm exist?” and then digging into that answer by asking, “Why is that?” and “Why is that…” and “Why is that!”, several times over to uncover the advisor’s (and firm’s) underlying Why. Advisors who prefer a more structured approach can look into the EOS framework, which relies heavily on establishing a foundation of purpose and value, from which literally everything else that the firm does is built.

Ultimately, the key point is that a financial advisor’s mission statement is something that is already in them and is being used to make business decisions, regardless of whether they are aware of it or not. But without being cognizant of what that mission is, it’s easy to unwittingly make business decisions that aren’t well aligned. Thus, by discovering and articulating what that mission is, the financial advisor can gain the clarity of purpose that makes all the subsequent decisions around owning and operating an advisory firm much easier. In turn, when the advisor starts to add team members, the mission statement becomes even more important, because once there are more team members than can be practically managed by the advisor/owner (which usually happens once the headcount reaches about five or six), then the mission statement becomes the reference point from which the rest of the team can base their decisions on as well. As in the end, when team members have the tools to make the same decisions as the advisor/owner would make, it gets much easier to take the practice to the next levels.

Read More...

Up until the last twenty years or so, it was relatively uncommon for financial advisors to strike out and launch their own practice without the support of a larger advisor platform (e.g., a broker-dealer or insurance company). However, technological advances, a shift towards holistic financial planning (versus the more traditional transactional model to which broker-dealers and insurance companies were historically attached), and evolving fee models, have come together to make it exponentially easier for advisors to become entrepreneurs (particularly under the independent RIA model). However, one thing that hasn’t changed is that, even for advisors who are starting from zero, there is still a need to be sufficiently capitalized, not only to actually open shop, but to survive the first few years with little-to-no income as the advisory business ramps up. Which means that insufficient starting capital remains a common blocking point for advisors who may otherwise be ready to launch their own practice.

In our 61st episode of Kitces & Carl, Michael Kitces and financial advisor communication expert Carl Richards discuss why a lack of capital may not always be the root cause for an advisor’s reluctance to start their own business, a key mindset shift advisors can make to get a little more comfortable with the risks associated with being an entrepreneur, and some practical tips for sourcing the necessary funds to launch.

As a first step, it’s important to consider that, for advisors who have never done it before, the thought of starting a business can be scary. As while a lack of capital may actually be a blocking point, sometimes the real reason advisors are reluctant to begin the process of starting their own practice is simply that they’re scared that they’ll fail. Which, of course, is perfectly normal. Being ultimately responsible for every aspect of running a business is daunting for many, and it’s important to understand that there’s more than one way to have a successful and fulfilling career as a financial advisor that doesn’t involve starting a business from scratch.

However, advisors who are ready to take the entrepreneurial fork in the road, but are still concerned about not succeeding, can always take a moment to consider what the worst-case scenario really would be. After all, advisors who are ready to “go solo” should already have the technical and interpersonal skills to both bring in new business and provide great service to clients. Which means that, at the very worst, if the business proves to be unsuccessful, then the next logical step is to simply go find a job as an experienced advisor at an established firm (for which there is only a growing demand for hiring and a shortage of talent to fill the roles), and earn a healthy salary to get back on financial track!

And when it’s time to solve the “not enough capital” puzzle, there are a few options. As a first step, advisors can leverage their skills (and natural proclivities) to plan for their goal of saving and/or raising the necessary capital. And if time is of the essence, then they can follow in the footsteps of other successful advisors who have either taken out a loan, found someone to partner with, or taken on equity partners.

Ultimately, the key point is that the reason that advisors hesitate when launching their own firm is often less about not having enough capital, and more about being worried about things not working out. But, by acknowledging that it’s perfectly normal to be anxious about starting a business, and considering the worst-case scenario (and how there’s often still a very strong fallback choice!), advisors can make a more informed decision about whether or not they truly want to hang their own shingle. And if they do, there are several ways to source the necessary capital for those who conclude that they really do want to scratch that entrepreneurial itch.

Read More...

For most of the financial advice industry’s history, financial advisors’ success first hinged on survival… which meant getting enough clients to generate enough revenue to survive. Which meant those who survived typically had exceptional “people skills”, which gave them a leg up when convincing people to purchase whatever financial products their companies sold (even with limited industry experience). However, as the industry has become less about financial products sales transactions and more about ongoing advice relationships, financial advisory firms have increasingly needed to hire “support” advisors whose job isn’t to bring in new business, but rather to service (and be awesome for) existing clients. The good news is that these pathways have led to wider opportunities for people to enter the profession (even and especially if they aren’t necessarily business-development oriented). But because bringing in new clients is harder than keeping existing ones, those who do the former inevitably earn more than the latter. Which means that support advisors who decide that they want to level up their careers often have to learn the interpersonal skills necessary to develop (and lead) client relationships.

In our 60th episode of Kitces & Carl, Michael Kitces and financial advisor communication expert Carl Richards discuss some steps that support advisors with limited client experience can take to learn how to communicate effectively, habits they can adopt to develop their own approach when taking point on client relationships, and ways they can position themselves within their firm to get the opportunity to expand their role.

As a starting point, it’s important to recognize the amount of progress that the industry has made in prioritizing ongoing relationships with clients and that there's no longer just one pathway into financial planning as a career. And it’s equally important to acknowledge the fact that advisors can craft a very rewarding career as a support advisor without worrying about bringing in new business. However, for those support advisors who do want to move into a lead role, developing solid communication skills is key. And while not everyone is born with the proverbial gift of gab, the good news is that striking up a conversation, listening actively, asking good questions, and building rapport are all skills that can be learned.

Accordingly, initial steps that advisors can take include joining groups and taking courses designed specifically to help get people comfortable speaking with (and in front of) strangers, communicating effectively in professional settings, and thinking quickly to respond in real-time to the unexpected (or incongruous). Some examples include Toastmasters and Dale Carnegie (for public speaking and professional training, respectively), as well as improv classes, where advisors can practice responding genuinely to what’s happening “in the moment”.

Other proactive measures service advisors can take to learn how to lead client relationships is to seek out opportunities to sit in on meetings with lead advisors (especially discovery meetings where the client/advisor relationship is just taking shape), not necessarily with an eye towards participating in the meeting, but rather simply as a silent observer to listen and absorb as much as possible. From there, advisors can look for opportunities to develop a ‘mini-specialization’ proficiency in a particular planning topic (think ESG investing, equity compensation planning, or student loan planning) and become their firm’s internal expert for a subject that’s impactful for their clients (which can help get them invited into more client meetings!).

Ultimately, the key point is that there are specific actions that support advisors can take to give themselves the tools they need (beyond “just” solid technical chops) to move into a lead advisor role. Becoming a good communicator is an essential first step, and lead advisors within the firm can be great resources to learn from as well—but developing unique expertise and bringing additional value to clients can really give those looking to advance their careers a big leg up!

Read More...

Over the past several years, the ever-expanding technological landscape has given financial advisors a plethora of tools that they can use to expand their reach, market their services, communicate with and serve their clients, and manage and grow their businesses. Yet, those same technological tools that have been so useful for advisors (i.e., email, social media, team communication platforms, CRMs, etc.) can also serve as irresistible distractions that can fill an advisors’ days with low-impact tasks as they react to an endless stream of notifications and, in the process, end out sacrificing their ability to do the things that can move their practices forward and allow them to do their best work for their clients. Which raises the question: how can financial advisors create the space in their schedules for high-impact work and actually leverage technology to do so (instead of sacrificing real productivity for ‘unnecessary’ responsiveness)?

In our 59th episode of Kitces & Carl, Michael Kitces and financial advisor communication expert Carl Richards discuss a key framework that advisors can use to prioritize their tasks, actionable strategies to create an environment that’s conducive to spending sufficient time on those things that are the most important, and how to manage their own natural tendencies to get distracted by life’s constant stream of interruptions.

The best place to start is by using the task prioritization framework introduced by Steven Covey over 30 years ago, which uses a container to represent the unalterable amount of time that we all have in any given day or week. The container, as the analogy goes, can be filled with rocks (the big, important stuff that moves us forward), pebbles (which are the things that have to get done but don’t necessarily move the proverbial needle), and sand (which is just the constant stream of communication and distraction). And the challenge that every advisor faces is that, if they don’t actually prioritize their rocks, then the sand and pebbles will naturally fill up all the available space in their container (which is why it’s easy to feel as if there’s never enough time to tackle the big rocks).

From there, the best way for advisors to make time for their rocks is to put it on their calendar… not mentally earmark a slot at some point during the week to get around to the rock, but literally book the time on the calendar, just like it was a meeting with a big client that can’t get moved or interrupted. Because when something inevitably comes up, advisors can (without missing a beat) respond that the time slot is already booked on their calendar. And, in order to create an environment conducive to the sort of deep concentration that working on rocks requires, advisors can turn off all incoming email and text notifications and set messaging apps on Do Not Disturb.

After making rocks a priority and eliminating distractions comes the hardest part, which is maintaining focus to actually do the work (and avoid the temptation of taking a quick look for any messages that may have come in). Maintaining focus, just like any other worthwhile endeavor, requires practice, but one effective strategy to get started is by setting milestones, and when a milestone is reached, the advisor can take a break and do something pleasurable (like going for a walk or getting an afternoon coffee).

Ultimately, the key point is that advisors who want more time to tackle the important things that will push themselves, their clients, and their businesses forward can start by actually booking time on their calendar to force time to be made. And if that causes issues because other urgent tasks aren’t happening, then the next logical step is to find someone to help handle them. Because, at the end of the day, there will always be more things to do than anyone has time for, and advisors who don’t actively take control of their calendar will always find themselves reacting to the sand and never have enough room for rocks. Or, put another way, no one has a magic machine that allows them to do more than anyone else. Rather, the real secret of time management isn’t about being more efficient; it’s about making the things that matter most (but aren’t necessarily the most urgent) the real priority.

Read More...