Last month, I asked readers of Advisor Perspectives to help me think through some complicated issues regarding the future of the profession. Should the professional associations (like the FPA and NAPFA) consolidate in order to create more scale and unity, or should we maintain a healthy competition between them? Today we look at the responses I received.
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?
The 2017 Software Survey, co-sponsored by Advisor Perspectives, Inside Information and the T3 conference, is available. On behalf of the sponsors, I want to thank the 1,064 professionals who participated. What did we learn?
Let’s look at a couple of new tools that give you an integrated solution to DOL fiduciary compliance. Are you recommending a superior asset allocation? Are you recommending better investments in the IRA than the client previously owned? Is the IRA’s all-in cost lower than the plan sponsor’s offering, and if not, are you offering more services than the plan sponsor was offering?
This article, the first of two parts, is a review of some of the more prominent new tools that advisors can lean on as they prepare for the full DOL rule implementation on April 10. Each of them addresses a different aspect of the rule, and they all approach it from different angles.
After multiple debates with my Inside Information audience, I’m picking up surprising opinions about the DOL fiduciary rule and its imminent demise.
Wouldn’t it be nice if you could take a prospective client’s asset allocation and calculate the percent of time periods since 1926 that it would have survived a 30-year retirement?
Bob Veres recently summarized how he views his role as a journalist for financial advisors. We thought we would share it with you, because it also encapsulates our approach to advancing the advisory profession.
Advisory firms face a daunting challenge as they prepare themselves for the latest version of the future. They will have to retool their service offering for a new generation of clients (aka Millennials), who have very different preferences, different advice needs and far more digital sophistication than your Baby Boomer clients ever had.