Enjoy the current installment of "weekend reading for financial planners" - highlights this week include an article on the new coming wave of active ETFs, a few practice management pieces, a striking article on insurance companies using social media information for claims and even underwriting, and one of the best pieces I've seen yet on what Occupy Wall Street is really all about. Happy reading!Read More...
Enjoy the current installment of "weekend reading for financial planners" - highlights this week include a number of practice management articles, some interesting investment discussions from PIMCO, and the latest Michael Lewis piece from Vanity Fair about the state of municipal finance. Happy reading!Read More...
In the ongoing search for more diversification - and especially, low correlations as a potential for stabilizing returns in a difficult stock environment - advisors have increasingly shifted in recent years towards "alternative" investments. From real estate and REITs to gold and other commodities to more, a recent FPA survey on Alternative Investments found that 91% of advisors are using some form of alternative investments. Sadly, though, the focus on finding investments that have a low correlation - according to FPA's survey, the number one criteria for choosing an alternative investment - has grown to such an obsession, that we're willing to name anything that has a low correlation as "a new asset class." But the reality is that while some alternatives really are investments that truly have their own investment characteristics unique from stocks and bonds as asset classes, others alternatives - like managed futures - simply represent an active manager buying and selling existing asset classes. Which means it's about time for us to start distinguishing between a real alternative asset classes (e.g., commodities or real estate), and the real value of managed futures.
With the never-ending onslaught of information in today's world, I am often asked what I am reading, as someone who consumes perhaps an abnormally large amount of financial planning content. Accordingly, I've decided to start a new column for this blog, called "Weekend Reading" - where I'll share a few of the more interesting articles I've read in the current week. The goal is to keep it to no more than an hour's worth of reading; something you can do in a single sitting when you're taking a rest over the weekend and trying to keep up with the financial planning world. Here I offer up the first week's articles. I hope you find it helpful! Read More...
Last month, the CFP Board released proposed changes to the CFP certification experience requirement in order to earn the CFP marks. This weekend the comment period closed; in this blog post, I share the feedback that I submitted. What do you think about the proposed changes?
One of the strategies that many financial planners use to differentiate themselves is to communicate that they are fiduciaries: legally bound to put their clients' interests before their own. In fact, as the debate about the fiduciary vs suitability standards has increased in recent years, more and more advisors who are subject to fiduciary regulation are promoting it as a differentiator in the marketplace. Yet in reality, most people generally assume that anyone they're doing business with will treat them fairly - at least until proven otherwise. Which means that claiming you're a fiduciary isn't necessarily a differentiator - unless you actually go so far as to bash your competition and accuse them, implicitly or explicitly, of being liars and cheaters. Could this be part of why the fiduciary message doesn't really connect in the marketplace? Because it's turning into a giant negative advertising campaign where you bash the competition instead focusing on the value you actually deliver?
There is a prevailing view in the independent financial planning community that when financial planning is ultimately recognized as a profession, and is regulated on the basis that advice must be delivered in a fiduciary context, that the independent planning community will take the center stage, as big brokerage firms will be afraid of the fiduciary liability.
But what happens if the opposite occurs - if a major firm steps forward to embrace fiduciary financial planning and seeks to pose a credible challenge to the independents? How might big brokerage firms transition in a fiduciary financial planning world, and can them stem - or reverse - the current rising tide of defections out of the brokerage world?Read More...
If you've been to any session delivered by a practice management consultant in the past several years, you've probably need that to grow your business further, you need to standardize and systematize. In other words, you can't do everything differently for every single client and expect to keep growing much, because at some point your practice is so complex delivering 100 different services to 100 different clients that you just can't absorb the 101st without having your head explode (or alternatively, you couldn't possibly find the time to meet with the 101st prospect to try to get him/her as a client anyway).
In response, planners tend to complain: "But financial planning must be tailored to each individual's situation; and since every client is a unique snowflake unlike any other, so too must their financial planning experience/products/deliverables each be individualized, unique, and customized one client at a time."
Are there still ways to run an efficient practice in a world like this?
Lifetime gifting is a widely accepted technique for managing potential exposure to future estate taxation. The purpose of the strategy is not just the obvious "if I give it away while I'm alive, I can't be taxed on it when I die" - due to the fact that both gifting and estate taxation share the same single lifetime exemption amount that is protected from taxation. Nonetheless, gifting can still be highly effective, because once the asset is transferred, all future appreciation is in the hands of the donee, and not the donor; as a result, the value of the asset is "frozen" at its value on the date of gift in terms of its cumulative gift and estate tax impact. And with the gift tax exemption recently increased to $5 million - and only until the end of 2012, after which it is scheduled to lapse back to $1 million - many estate planners are counseling clients to make some big gifts while they can. There's just one problem: it's not clear whether a future reduction in the gift and estate tax exemption could indirectly cause a so-called "recapture tax" on prior gifts.Read More...