If there’s one topic that is guaranteed to stir up passions in the financial planning/advisory profession it’s consolidation of associations and credentials. Consider some of the issues that are being debated today.
Last year, I made a number of bold predictions about how the advisory profession is evolving, and what firms are going to have to do to stay ahead of the curve. How have my predictions held up? Here are three transformations that will force every advisory firm to adapt.
The 2018 Software Survey, conducted by Advisor Perspectives, Joel Bruckenstein at T3, and my firm, Inside Information, offered by far the most comprehensive data on the advisor tech landscape ever collected. In all, we received 1,554 useable responses, representing firms very small to very large, across a broad spectrum of experience in the business.
According to Philip Palaveev, the most successful firms have the most talented and competent advisors and support staff. This doesn’t happen by accident. These firms are better at developing the skills of younger advisors and staff members. Here’s how they do that.
In case you missed it, on September 7, APViewpoint hosted one of the best debates ever regarding the fiduciary standard and the DOL rule. It was notable because unlike most of what you’ve been reading, it covered both sides of the topic, and the debaters forced each other to provide deeper rationales for their beliefs. Here are my key insights, particularly those that illustrate the thinking behind the anti-fiduciary mindset.
Shouldn’t clients be able to look on a financial planner’s website and see what services they can expect to receive for the fees they expect to pay? Shouldn’t the profession evolve a pricing model where people who do more for the client can charge more, and those who do less will charge less?
I asked the readers of my Inside Information service, members of the Advisor Perspectives community, and others, to tell me how they were charging their clients, and how much. The most interesting conclusions related to a key question that has arisen from the DOL Rule: what is a “reasonable” AUM fee to charge clients?
Today’s indexing mania is driving the marketing people at the best active fund complexes completely crazy, but the top portfolio managers – that is, the people who really, truly enjoy investing – are seeing a lot of new opportunities.
I have no problem whatsoever with the intent of the DOL fiduciary rule (may it rest in peace). But I was dismayed with the rule’s final form. In fact, I believe that the DOL’s voluminous tome can be distilled to a single sentence.
Are “robos” nothing more than the latest version of TAMPs – turn-key asset management platforms?