Showing posts with label Legislation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Legislation. Show all posts

Financial Advice - Why Not Put Your Clients' Interests First?



Yesterday a reader sent a copy of the most recent NAIFA newsletter to me pointing out that the last page proudly proclaims that they helped defeat a fiduciary standard in the recently passed financial reform legislation. I've ranted against NAIFA once before and don't intend on attacking that organization again today. But this newsletter did reignite my "clients' interests first" wick!

My position is that anyone offering financial advice (or implying they offer financial advice) should be willing and wanting to put their clients' interests first. An advice-based business where an individual entrusts a professional with skills and training the individual lacks to help them and the professional willingly accepts that trust automatically creates a fiduciary relationship. That is basically the definition of a fiduciary relationship. So, I want to ask the following question and genuinely hope to hear feedback opposing my position.

Can anybody articulate an argument against people offering financial advice putting their clients' interests first?

I have heard the arguments made to date and, in my not so humble opinion, they carry no weight. The primary argument made is that a fiduciary standard will make advice too expensive for most people. That argument is garbage, for a number of reasons. Most important among those reasons is that bad advice, whether affordable or not, is worse than no advice.  And that more "affordable" advice is not  generally more affordable...it's simply more difficult to understand what one is actually paying.

So, let me hear it.  Why should financial advisors not have to uphold a fiduciary duty? I just don't understand how individuals continue to argue against putting clients' interests first. I want to understand and see the other side. All  I see is companies and organizations using the guise of wanting to help and being trustworthy and forthright while fighting against having to do what's right for you in the name of profits.

A Political Lesson Finances Can Teach Us



I believe there is one very important lesson that can be taken from what finances have taught many of us and be extended in the political world. That lesson is that we are no better at predicting the outcome of political and legislative action than we are of predicting the direction of the stock market.

I have only been involved and aware of the political discourse in our country for the past decade and a half, but I am blown away by the hyper-political atmosphere of the United States of America. Has it always been this way? Have we all been political prognosticators and zealots about our positions forever? Why do we think we have the ability to predict the future in politics when we recognize we cannot predict it anywhere else?

I realize I am treading on dangerous ground with this discussion. I tend to stay away from political discussions and work very hard to be politically agnostic, but thought this a worthwhile discussion. I was raised in a very liberal household and find myself agreeing with liberal ideals and rhetoric. However, upon reflection this attachment to liberalism has little to do with knowledge that these policies will work out better, but more with a deep faith akin to religious faith. Without proof or factual basis, I am generally sure liberal policies plot the correct course and are the most likely to benefit citizens the greatest. I predict the future about these positions based on emotion and a limited belief-set. I am likely often incorrect and believe this to be true of many others, as well.


Many people I like and respect and believe to be very intelligent act in similar manners. They realize they are unable to predict the future of the stock market or anything else, but lose this knowledge when it comes to politics and legislation. They are certain of their political position and seem to know the result simply by the position it takes. When they make their arguments for a position, they cite history and statistics and analyses which can provide insight to an issue, but really offer no long-term predictive value. I contend that they are no better about telling the future of legislation than they are about anything else.


Why are we so certain about ourselves in this arena? I think we need to extend the lesson finances have taught us and recognize that we really have no idea how legislation will turn out. We cannot predict the future. We don't know which politicians will act in our interest most. 


I'd love to hear your reaction and feedback in the comments. Am I way off base...do I need to hold a position? Are we more politically vocal than in the past? Are we more partisan? Is political agnosticism taking a position?


Forget the Fiduciary Fight


It appears the U.S. Congress is set to fail the American public and allow major financial services companies to continue to provide the public bad financial advice. The Senate continues to fight against a fiduciary standard apparently unwilling to make difficult political decisions which could cost them major campaign contributions.

But why are those of us who would consider ourselves financial planners fighting to have other professionals act as fiduciaries? Why are we lumping ourselves together with the entire financial services industry when we should be working to separate ourselves? I say, let them have their conflicts of interest and their lack of focus on clients and their confusion. Let's take this opportunity to create true separation from the product distribution industry. 

People are desperate for good, honest financial advice. Let's grab the mantel as financial planners. Let's band together and work with one another to create a profession dedicated to serving people. Let's move to a different sandbox and leave the financial services people alone.

Let's find a place where we can sit around a table and decide what financial planning is and what it means to be a financial planner. We can welcome everyone who wants to put their clients interest first as the base qualification for admittance, then begin hashing out a definition. We can invite the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc., the Financial Planning Association, and the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors to join and be integral to this movement. Let's finally make this break and plant our flagpole. Let's lay claim to being the true profession to help people with their financial well-being. If you don't like what we decide, you will certainly have every right to leave and return to the financial services industry. 

I like to occasionally ask myself my assumptions might be wrong. I asked myself this question about the fiduciary issue, and came to the conclusion I have outlined above. Now I ask you to take a moment and consider whether your assumptions might be wrong also. 


Fire Your Financial Advisor!


I'm serious...go do it right now! Fire your financial advisor! You should expect more and better than what the financial advisory industry is offering you right now. You are paying too much and having too little delivered. Your financial well-being is being hurt as often as it is being improved.

The financial advisory world is so fundamentally flawed, so deeply entrenched in the money-making business that on the aggregate we are not bringing you a service worth paying for. This needs to change and quickly. There is one way to make that happen...stop giving us your money for too little service. Force us to change and to develop a better service for you. Don't pay us until we offer you more value for your money.

I may upset some of my colleagues by writing this because they believe they are doing things better. Frankly, I know there are some financial advisors who do a tremendous job and who do bring real value to client's lives. They are tremendously intelligent individuals who recognize that there needs to be significant and radical change to financial advice and financial planning. Unfortunately, they are in a drastically small minority dwarfed by the large money-making organization who work for their shareholders and do not care about their clients (or customers, as they consider you.) 

So stop paying us for promises to make you rich overnight. Stop paying us for investment management that has a high likelihood of doing worse than what you could get almost for free. Stop accepting financial planning that is designed to reach someone else's goals and expectations. Stop giving people money for doing these things. As long as you continue to pay, people will continue to offer these low value services.

It's time for the financial advisory industry and profession to evolve. It seems clear government will not be helping with this, so it is time you vote with your pocketbook. Effect change and demand more. Fire your financial advisor!

By the way, if you have a better solution in mind, please post it in the comments. I would rather see a solution which does not hurt the good people in the profession and I want to start a practice in this profession myself. However, I do not see any other way to get the industry to evolve into something of true value until you stop giving us money to do less.


I Don't Know What Financial Planning Means


Ask a financial advisor to define financial planning and they will give you an answer. Unfortunately, you could ask five different advisors and receive five different answers. The financial advice industry does not have a common lexicon to describe what it is we do nor to describe financial theories and concepts. In speaking with other advisors, I have often recognized that we were using similar words, but not discussing the same thing. This is a major problem both for the industry and profession, and for clients. How are you, as a client, supposed to understand what is being discussed if the industry cannot even agree on definitions.

In a previous post, I discussed the lack of clarity in titles used by financial professional. None of these titles are terms of art, although I hope that in the future we will see that some become so. This is one glaring example of the lack of shared vocabulary in the industry. 

Another example can be found when discussing investment advice. Professionals who believe in active investment management often use the phrase "buy-and-hold" to characterize passive investment management. A professional who believes in passive management is unlikely to believe in the concept of "buy-and-hold" recognizing that passive investment management does not mean doing nothing. Passive and active managers do not agree on the definitions of their investment styles, despite being similarly trained.

A third example, and of particular interest to me, is the definition of financial planning. I have a definition of financial planning, one which I know is not shared by many other professionals. I have met financial professionals who believe financial planning to be nothing more than investment management; and others who believe investment management could be excluded entirely from the definition of financial planning. 

The most disturbing part of all of this is that there is no dialog in the industry to try to arrive at common definitions. We recognize that there are differences, but continue speaking with one another even while we understand that we are not speaking the same language.

Clients and potential clients are hurt by this. You cannot know with any confidence what a financial professional is intending to explain when the definition can vary so significantly from one professional to another. The industry must begin to correct this if we truly hope to work for our clients. We must have a forum where open discussion can occur to create a common language. We must agree on the definition of financial jargon.


Financial Reform Debate Continues Today & A Financial Awareness Thought


U.S. Senators will be returning to the Senate floor today to continue debate on financial reform legislation. There is not much new to report since last Friday. However, there have now been a couple Senators who have discussed bringing amendments to the floor which would require a fiduciary standard of all individuals giving financial advice. I have not yet seen record of these amendments submitted, but this news is encouraging. I will continue to monitor the proceedings and report on relevant legislation.

A Brief Return to Financial Awareness

I spent the following weekend providing financial counseling services to members of our armed forces returning from warzones abroad. During this weekend, I had the opportunity to truly reflect on the work I have done with individuals in the past, my educational experiences and what I have realized personally in terms of financial awareness. I have become increasingly convinced that being aware of one’s spending and budgeting habits is the single most powerful financial tool to becoming more financially aware and toward reaching one’s goals.

The impact of investment returns, tax management and income potential together do not equal the power of a well-considered spending plan. I have worked with clients who made a great deal of money yet never moved toward achieving their goals because they spent money frivolously and without a significant amount of awareness about their actions. Conversely, I have seen individuals who never earned a large income yet, because of very deliberate spending habits, were able to amass a large amount of financial wealth and live a comfortable retirement in a manner they hoped to. The difference in reaching goals in these cases was not income nor investment return nor any other factor other than spending habits.  No other single factor in a person’s financial live dictates the likelihood of being financially comfortable and financially aware.

As my conviction has increased, I have also begun to believe that any financial planner or financial advisor providing comprehensive planning services but not spending a great deal of time with clients tracking expenses and creating a budget is failing those same clients in a powerful way. And, in my opinion, providing this service requires more than a simple preparation by the planner of a cash flow statement based on guesstimate numbers given by the client. It requires a tracking and review of expenses over a couple months by the client and planner together. The budget created is not what creates the financial awareness around spending. It is the actual process of reviewing expenses and adding up the total amounts spent in various categories that can show the surprises to clients and help facilitate financial change, if necessary.

The goal of a deep review of spending and creating a spending plan is not to limit the spending of an individual. The process of creating a spending plan is to help this person become more aware of his or her spending habits, help them recognize areas where they are spending more than they believed, and recognize areas which they value highly were they may be able to spend more of their resources. The goal is to help people make well-informed spending decisions by providing the awareness and freedom to spend on items of greatest value and reduce unconscious spending on items not so highly valued.

If your financial planner or advisor is not doing this type of work with you, ask them why. It is truly important and can have dramatic impact on your financial well-being. Remember, a spending plan or budget is not intended to make you cheap, but to help you use your money in ways you value most. That process will likely help you save more, feel better about your finances and more quickly reach your goals.

If you are a financial planner or advisor reading these and not providing this service, please consider doing so. It is simple work and requires virtually no additional training or tools on your part. There is a time commitment involved, but the time spent is well worth the impact this will have on your clients’ lives.


Financial Reform Amendments Begin to Fly


Caveat Emptor

Let The Buyer Beware. This motto is prevalent in many corners of the financial services industry as it is in many other sales professions. It basically indicates that the sale of a product is a zero sum game. Either the salesperson "wins" if you purchase something (quality and need be damned) or the potential customer wins by not purchase. Caveat Emptor has no place in a trust based profession. A profession that has the ability to truly help people create better lives is not a zero sum game. Financial planners and advisors should sit on the same side of the table as clients. These professionals should be the individuals who help clients in the "buyer beware" trap. I am not certain that a financial planner or advisor who is also the primary product salesperson can appropriately take on this role. Is it possible to be truly objective about the review of financial products when one's livelihood is impacted by the sale of those same financial products? If two mutual funds are nearly identical but one does not pay a commission while the other does, can a financial advisor receiving the commission fairly compare the slight differences to determine which product will be in a client's best interest? I am not a strict believer in the fee-only compensation model and am far more concerned with the service being delivered by a financial advisor and where that advisor's commitments lie, but I do wonder if an individual receiving any form of commission can truly overcome virtually irreconcilable conflicts.

Amendments to the financial reform bill begin to fly

The first amendments to Senate financial reform bill have been submitted for consideration to the Senate. Many more are sure to arrive today and early next week. The first amendment brought to the Senate floor dealt with an outright ban of taxpayer funded bailouts of financial institutions. There is wide, bipartisan support to include language banning bailouts. Bloomberg provides a good analysis of this here. There are a couple other amendments worth bringing to your attention that could impact the financial advice you can hope to receive in the future.


Uniform Fiduciary duty – Senator Robert Menendez may submit an amendment designed to require all individuals providing investment advice to act in the best interest of their clients. This amendment would effectively remove the "suitability standard" used by many brokers who are not subject to a fiduciary standard. The suitability standard is a much lower bar and does not mean an individual is making a recommendation in your best interest. More details on this amendment can be found here.

Reintroduction of Glass-Steagall – Some commentary has pointed to the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act as the beginning of the most recent financial crisis. This act had prohibited bank holding companies from owning other financial institutions. Commercial banks were basically barred from being involved in investment activities beyond their core banking activities as savings and lending institutions. This Act was repealed in 1999, which some have pointed to as having allowed the creation of "too big to fail" institutions. Senators Maria Cantwell and John McCain plan to push for reintroduction of Glass-Steagall provisions.

The best coverage of potential amendments I have found can be found in today's Washington Post here. More details will be available when the Congressional Report for yesterday's session is released later this morning. I will update this post to include a link to that document once available. (Link to report here.)

As always, if you feel so compelled please contact your Senators to urge them to require financial planners and advisors to work in your best interest and reduce the Caveat Emptor mentality. This is our chance to make a difference and to help you receive access to good, objective financial advice. To find contact information for your Senators, visit www.senate.gov and select your state from the drop-down menu in the top right corner of the screen.

And enjoy your weekend! Spring is here...and summer is approaching!




 

Financial Reform Debate to Begin Today





Late yesterday afternoon, the Senate decided to  bring to the floor for consideration the financial regulatory overhaul bill beginning at 12:15PM EST today. We may see a flurry of amendments during this debate process on a variety of subjects pertaining to the financial services industry. I hope that some bold Senator will take the initiative to present an amendment which will move forward the need for those providing financial advice to be held to a fiduciary duty, to require them to provide advice which places their clients' best interest first. If a Senator makes this move, they will likely be attacked by powerful forces in the insurance and investment banking industries. This Senator will require the support of constituents to have any chance of moving an amendment forward. Other Senators will need to hear from their constituents on the importance of such legislation. Please contact your Senators and let them know where you stand. Let them know if you would like to see all professionals providing financial advice to be required to uphold a fiduciary duty. Let them know if you would like to understand who you can trust to provide advice in your best interest.

I thought instead of a long, rambling, ranting post, I would instead provide a series of links discussing the bill before the Senate that I found particularly compelling. I will save the rant for tomorrow following opening debate on the Senate floor. I will also be watching to see if an amendment comes to the floor addressing clients' best interests.

One last request. If you do decide to call your Senator's office, please treat the person answering the telephone respectfully and like a fellow human being. As I sat in the waiting room of a Senator's office last week, I watched two young interns answering telephone calls and being verbally attacked nearly every time they picked the receiver up. These young men showed incredible patience and resolve dealing with these attacks, never becoming flustered and answering questions to their best ability. They deserve to be treated with respect regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the Senator's positions. 

On to the links:


A summary of the bill:
http://bit.ly/cqdTHa


From the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/28/AR2010042803224.html?hpid=topnews


An international perspective from the Financial Times:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1b5bfa24-5327-11df-813e-00144feab49a.html


From the Associated Press:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g7ffRdswXTlfgaQS0FCOZmrvbwcAD9FCIUP80


This an interesting piece on the failed cloture votes in Newsweek:

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/04/28/financial-reform-cloture-votes-when-losing-is-good-politics.aspx



Let’s Have a Bit of Clarity



The Simple Solution to the Advice Problem


When I began my career in the financial services industry, I spent a few months with a large insurance company. I was quickly indoctrinated with the internal sales culture, while trying to maintain a perception of being a trusted advisor to clients. Many of us called ourselves Financial Advisors even though we had scant training to give any advice beyond basic investment or insurance advice. We had met regulatory requirements, but these were found severely wanting. The only accurate title for me would have been "insurance agent" or "financial product broker." I had been trained to sell insurance products and mutual funds, and use a financial plan to make the argument for a need for the products I was selling. Most individuals in this office used similarly inaccurate titles. There was an "old-school" insurance agent who did not play this game, however. He used the title "insurance agent" and did not pretend to do anything but sell life insurance. He did not cloak his intentions with financial plans. If you met with him as a potential client, you knew he was selling life insurance and would be paid by selling a policy to you. He was also very successful and remarked often on how unnecessary the "Financial Advisor" title game was to success.


I have ranted over the past several posts (here and here and here) about the confusion many financial service companies intentionally create to make it difficult to discern the salespeople from the advisors working in a client's best interest. We were taught the art of this confusion very early at the insurance firm where I worked. Reflecting back on that time, simply eliminating this game from the financial services industry would go very far toward curing many of the ills that have been beset on consumers by the industry. Using titles which reflected a professional's job duties would create clarity and help clients recognize whom they are working with. People providing financial planning services putting the client's best interest first would call themselves Financial Planners. People who offered investment advice putting the client's best interest first would call themselves Investment Advisors. People selling insurance products and working under a suitability (not a client's best interest) requirement would call themselves Insurance Agents. People selling mutual funds and stocks and working under a suitability requirement would call themselves Stock Brokers. Simple, effective and clear. Consumers would no longer be confused about whom to see for what purpose.

I do not see this transformation happening without legislation to force the issue. There is profit to be had in the confusion game. Large financial services companies are able to steer clients away from fiduciary financial planners by claiming to do the same work. It also seems that there is a certain shame to being labeled a salesperson among many people in the financial services industry. I am certain there is no shame in holding this role. Salespeople hold a vital position in the distribution system of any product or service. Drug representatives are important to make doctors familiar with new and better medical treatments. Educational tool salespeople are necessary to bring innovative teaching methods to our schools. These salespeople play a vital role in their industries, but neither would ever think to begin treating patients nor teaching students without first attaining appropriate training and making a career change. The financial services industry would be well served to adhere to this type of clarity. Separating the advice service professionals from the distribution professionals would benefit you, the consumer, dramatically.

If you agree, I ask you to contact your Senators and urge them to consider pushing for legislation which splits up the advice channel from the distribution channel. Ask them to support legislation which requires that professionals dispensing financial advice and financial planning services be held to a fiduciary standard. Ask them to support legislation which creates a distinct financial planning profession.

Financial Reform Update

Yesterday afternoon, the Senate again took up the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010 and again voted against beginning debate on the bill. A third vote to gain cloture is scheduled for today. There remains a high degree of certainty that a financial reform package will move forward. All indications are that both parties recognize the importance of reform and the American people's desire for such legislation. What we are watching is the political dance on a difficult issue. Striking a balance between strong regulation which protects the American people while not harming the potential positive effect the financial industry can have on our economy is no easy task. We shall see what today's vote brings.



Is your Financial Advisor a NAIFA Member?


NAIFA On Putting Your Interests First

"NAIFA is lobbying against bringing insurance agents, securities-licensed professionals, and retirement plan services providers under a new layer of regulation that would be imposed by a proposed Consumer Financial Protection Agency. NAIFA also continues to play a leading role fighting proposals to impose an impractical fiduciary standard of care on registered representatives who offer securities products through their broker-dealer."


This quote comes from NAIFA's (National Association of Insurance and Financial Advisors) "Advocacy Brief 2010" flyer. NAIFA is a large trade organization made up largely of insurance agents. This organization is lobbying against a fiduciary standard with the arguments that it is "impractical" and that requiring a fiduciary standard will make financial services unavailable to many people. These are two of the hollow arguments that have been used to confuse the issue many times. In my opinion, financial advice that is not in your best interest is advice that is better made unavailable. Are you looking for advice that benefits an insurance company first, but at least it's affordable? This is not advice, it's a sales pitch. Let's allow this advice to disappear. The argument that not putting your interest first is for your own benefit is bunk. This organization has proved to not be on the side of the consumer. Do not believe opposition to a fiduciary standard to be any different.

Generally when a fiduciary standard is called impractical, it is meant that putting your interest as a client first is difficult to execute both for an advisor and from a regulator standpoint. It is correct that often it is difficult to determine what is in a client's best interest, and that at times advice does not work out as expected. And it is true that regulating a fiduciary standard does not mean that there will be no instances of fraud and abuse of clients. There will always be crooks in ANY profession. Nevertheless, a financial advisor who claims to hold a relationship of trust with clients should be required to do what's in that client's best interest. Another financial advisor may disagree with the advice delivered, but if the advice is based on well-thought out rationale, the advice can remain valid as in the client's best interest. It is no different than two doctors recommending a different course of action for the same illness. Arguing that a fiduciary standard (putting your interest before the company's) is impractical is a nonsense argument.

If your financial advisor is a member of NAIFA, ask them where they stand on putting your interest ahead of their own and their company's interests. Do they work for you? NAIFA is anti-consumer; they fight to keep from being required to do what's in your best interest. Take your advisor to task if they support NAIFA. It may turn out they do not agree with this position and are a member for other benefits. I think you have a right as a client to know where they stand.


Frighteningly, the 
"Advocacy Brief 2010" flyer also discusses NAIFA's efforts to fight a New York state regulation that would require insurance agents to clearly disclose all forms of commissions and compensation received by an insurance agent before and during the sales process to a potential client. This disclosure would require a client be given information about the nature, amount and source of compensation an agent would receive by the purchase of a product. Instead NAIFA would rather a generic compensation disclosure be required without clear details. Without clear disclosure, it makes it very difficult for you to judge whether advice is given based on your interests or based on a large commission check. General disclosure statements can prove extremely difficult to interpret and do not provide you the information you need to make an informed decision.


Senate Votes on Financial Reform

Yesterday the Senate held a cloture vote to begin debate on the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010. As expected, the issue failed and voting largely followed along party lines. Interestingly, one Democratic broke ranks and voted against the measure. Even more interestingly, both Democrats and Republicans seem to be satisfied with the vote. Democrats see the vote as ammunition that Republicans stand with Wall Street instead of American families. Republicans are satisfied to have closed ranks and to force further negotiation and possibly some Democratic concessions despite their vote representing some political risk. This issue is long from dead. Both parties agree action is required, but the substance of the legislation has not been agreed upon by a wide margin. The Financial Times offers a very good analysis of the vote and issues here.


 
top
Real Time Web Analytics