Enjoy the current installment of "weekend reading for financial planners" - this week's edition highlights an interesting discussion by Morningstar about the challenges of evaluating tactical investment managers, an article by Bob Veres with tips on resources when starting a practice and outsourcing solutions, and an article by Joel Bruckenstein about a new integrated cloud solution for advisory firms. We also highlight some compliance-related articles for RIAs tying to the slew of new rules and regulations impacting investment advisors this year thanks to Dodd-Frank, a summary of the Rydex|SGI AdvisorBenchmarking study, and some tips to deal with the tax treatment of client investments in gold. We wrap up with Mauldin's weekly investment article - this week continuing his discussion of the decisions facing the US and how much impact the president and elections do or don't have on the outcome, an intriguing look from Oaktree Capital chairman Howard Marks at the challenging realities of assessing performance records, and a piece by Moshe Milevsky about "Gompertz' Law" and the mathematics of mortality assumptions. Enjoy the reading!
Last month witnessed the national conference for the Personal Financial Planning section of the AICPA – a world of CPA financial planners that have lived a relatively separate existence from “the rest” of the financial planning world. They have their own membership association (the Personal Financial Planning {PFP} section of the AICPA) with its own member benefits, their own professional designation (the Personal Financial Specialist {PFS}), and as just noted, their own national financial planning conference.
Yet CPA financial planners are a rising force in financial planning… and at some point in the next few years, will have to make a decision about whether or how they will engage with “the rest” of the financial planning world.
What one skill (above all others), if you developed and did it in an excellent fashion, would have the biggest impact on you as a financial planner?
This is the question that was posed to the leaders in the financial planning profession. Initially, the plan was to elicit feedback as to where to focus energy in the new year to become a better advisor, but after receiving so many excellent responses I wanted to share the common themes. What is the most important skill? There is always a big focus on the technical side of planning (which is obviously very important), but is it that the most important? Or is it empathy, communication, or relationship building?
The answers varied by the leaders that responded, but the common theme was clearly that in the end, the interpersonal trumps the technical.Read More...
Enjoy the current installment of "weekend reading for financial planners" - this week's edition highlights a nice technology article for the new year, a great summary of recent retirement research, two notable regulatory actions this week, and some interesting investment and economic discussions for the coming year. We finish with a striking blog post that puts a good perspective on what the Occupy Wall Street movement is about - not resenting the wealthy and successful, but "just" those who profit at the expense of others. Enjoy the reading!Read More...
Enjoy the current installment of "weekend reading for financial planners" - highlights this week include two recent pieces about the FPA (one positive and one negative), some articles about how behavioral finance is starting to change how we look at various financial and economics problems, a few technical articles on health care and non-spouse beneficiaries of inherited IRAs, and another great piece from John Hussman about the current economic environment. We also look at two pieces highlighting new ways to look at the value and power of blogging and starting a Twitter account. Enjoy the reading!Read More...
The membership of the Financial Planning Association has been declining for several years. After a peak of over 28,400 members in late 2002, the organization was largely flat for many years, still hailing at 27,805 members by the end of 2007. But the membership tumbled almost 15% from the end of 2007 through the end of 2009, and it is been largely flat at a base of approximately 23,600 members since then.
The FPA has suggested that its declining membership count is a result of its strong and passionate advocacy positions - in particular, its high Standard of Care and its positions on fiduciary financial planning - which have perhaps alienated some current/former/prospective members, but defends its positions (and their membership-limiting consequences) as being a necessary result of its mission to advance the financial planning profession.
Yet the question arises - if high standards of care and fiduciary financial planning are really at the heart of FPA's membership problem, then why is FPA membership declining even while the number of CFP certificants who are already committed to a comparable standard of care and fiduciary duty continues to rise!?Read More...
Enjoy the current installment of "weekend reading for financial planners" - highlights this week include a few blockbuster articles, from a new call to the profession to adopt a more scientific and evidence-based approach to advancing financial planning, to an incredible new research report on how to develop staff and grow a firm, to a scary warning about the current regulatory winds buffeting financial advisors. We wrap up with three striking-but-bearish articles on the mortgage markets, the stock markets, and the economic situation in Europe and here in the US. Enjoy the reading!Read More...
Every financial planner delivering advice to clients must, at some point, help the client interact with and implement advice with a financial service or product provider at some point. Depending on the planner's business model, the implementation of the advice may or may not directly command a commission, but even a fee-only planner ultimately recommends financial products and services. After all, you can't investment in an IRA without an IRA custodian, you can't buy mutual funds or ETFs inside the account without interacting with mutual fund and ETF product providers, and you can't buy insurance without an insurance company as part of the transaction. In fact, implementation of the advice IS the 5th step of the financial planning process. Which raises the question: given the reliance of financial planning on implementation using financial services and products, why do so many financial planners try so hard to avoid the conference exhibit hall? Are we shirking our professional due diligence obligations, or is there another issue at hand?
NAPFA has long been at the front vanguard of the profession, carving a path to advance financial planning forward. And for the most part, it has been incredibly successful. It put fiduciary in the center of the debate, and organizations from the CFP Board to the FPA have adopted fiduciary into their own Codes of Ethics and Practice Standards. It put comprehensive in the center of the debate, and now the CFP Board’s public awareness campaign is anchored around the comprehensive nature of financial planning to pull together all of life’s intricacies. It put fee-only at the center of the debate, and now methods of compensation, conflicts of advice, and objectivity of advice are being evaluated by Congress and government agencies to determine future regulation of the profession. It put the importance of competence at the center of the debate, and now the public media openly acknowledges the value of having the CFP certification as a cornerstone of financial planning knowledge. With so many victories in its core missions, NAPFA had to some extent begun to render itself less relevant, as its successes brought all parts of financial planning closer to its own ideals and diminished its own differentiation. And so at NAPFA National 2011, the organization announced a new branding effort and vision for 2020 – once again, throwing down the gauntlet for leadership of the profession.
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?