Wealth Management
(New York)
If you are an RIA looking to sell your firm, the environment is looking stronger and stronger. Terms for deals have improved mightily. For instance, whereas terms from a few years ago were typically 30% paid up front with the rest paid over five years based on client retention, currently 60-80% is being paid up front with the remainder paid off over a year. According to Joe Duran of United Capital, “The market is frothy, and terms for sellers are getting better”.
FINSUM: The market is getting better because there are many more buyers than sellers, which is raising prices and pushing terms in favor of sellers.
(New York)
For the first time since WWII, Americans are retiring in worse financial condition than the generations that preceded them. Those aged 55 to 70 are preparing to retire with the biggest financial burdens and lowest benefits since Truman was in office. Many have high debt, including paying off children’s tuitions and for aging parents. Their 401(k)s are in poor shape, with a median income of just $8,000 per year for a household of two. According to the study, which was conducted by the Wall Street Journal, more than 40% of American households headed to retirement lack the resources to maintain their current lifestyles. That is about 15m households.
FINSUM: We are having a hard time reconciling this with all the reports of how wealthy the Baby Boomer generation is, yet this comes from quite a reputable source. It must ultimately come down to wealth inequality within that generation.
(Washington)
If there is a core element to the debate going on over the SEC rule, it is whether the rule actually does anything new. Some argue that the SEC’s best interest rule is just a rehashing of the well-established FINRA suitability standard. For instance, the CFP has commented that “Our concern is that as introduced, the rule proposal may offer the appearance but not necessarily the reality of increased investor protection”. There are two areas of consternation about the rule, at least as far as consumer groups are concerned—the lack of a definition of “best interest”, and how the rule has differing standards for brokers versus fiduciaries.
FINSUM: While it does seem unconventional, the SEC’s lack of a definition of “best interest” means it may ultimately be more broadly applicable than defining it, and thus creating loopholes.
More...
(Washington)
The SEC has been getting a grilling over its new best interest rule. The industry doesn’t like its proposed disclosure document (CSR) or its restriction on the use of titles, while consumer protection groups say the rule is not stringent enough. Yesterday, SEC chairman Clayton faced questions over the rule from the House Financial Services Committee. Answering questions on whether the rule went far enough and whether the rule should be harmonized between brokers and advisors, Clayton explained that brokers and fiduciaries have different relationships with clients and said “There is no conflict-free relationship … Disclosing [conflicts], mitigating them, making sure everybody understands what the motivations are ... that's what I want to do in this space”.
FINSUM: We think Clayton stood his ground quite well, and we particularly like that final quote, which was grounded in realism.
(Washington)
For an industry that was initially happy with the SEC best interest rule proposal, things have really gone south. On top of the battle over the use of the advisor/adviser title, industry critics are slamming the proposal for a new 4-page disclosure document called a “Customer Relationship Summary” which is supposed to “synopsize an advisor’s services, fiduciary status, fees and other information”. Many say the document is too long and arduous for advisors and will only confuse clients. Charles Schwab, for instance, says that the CSR “could saddle advisors with duplicative and unnecessary compliance challenges”. The firm wants a one-page version.
FINSUM: It is interesting to see that the more the industry has dug into the rule proposal, the more it dislikes it. We wonder how much the SEC will revise the rule following the end of the comment period.
(New York)
Every investor and advisor knows the mantra: past success does not predict future performance, or some iteration thereof. Countless market studies have proven the mantra. However, what about areas where the saying does not hold true? In private, non-liquid markets, studies actually show the opposite—that past performance actually does a good job predicting future success. For instance, in private equity and venture capital, funds with performance in the top and bottom quartile are very likely to continue in that quartile time and again.
FINSUM: So this is quite an interesting finding, but one with an equally curious subplot. It is not actually the funds that are predictive of the performance, instead it is the individual dealmakers in the funds, the study found. All these results make sense to us because VC and PE are not like large liquid markets, a lot of who gets access to the best deals depends on reputation, which allows winners to keep thriving.