(New York)

The big question mark for advisors is whether they will need to keep cutting their fees in an effort to make themselves competitive with robo advisors. Bolstering additional services is another way to defend fees, but getting credit for these is difficult. Therefore, advisors might want to adopt an approach Ron Carson, from the Carson Group, uses. That method is to send clients not only an investment performance report, but also a “relationship timeline”, which shows all the services you have provided them, such “as the sale of a business or the analysis of expected Social Security benefits”, but could also including helping find mortgages, assisting with travel etc.

FINSUM: People are always very price-oriented and it becomes very easy for clients to forget just how much an advisor does. This seems like a good way to highlight it.

(Washington)

There is a currently a great deal of confusion surrounding the fiduciary rule, and understandably so. The rule is technically in force, but not fully, and there is even confusion over the interpretation of the rule and how it should be implied. With that in mind, lets clear up a few myths. The first and biggest myth is that the rule compels advisors to offer the lowest cost investment. It does not. It also does not mean advisors need to choose the “best” investment. While best interest is the rule, this does not mean advisors need to try to attain an impossible standard. Under the best interest contract, the three goals to meet under DOL rules are: “compensation paid to the broker-dealer and adviser is reasonable, recommendations must be in the best interest of the customer, and communications with the customer may not be misleading”. In terms of defining what “best interest” itself means, “’best interest’ requirement says that the recommendation must be prudent, take into account relevant information about the customer, and put the customer’s interests above those of the broker-dealer and the adviser”.

FINSUM: The confusion over the half-baked rule is very understandable, especially given the overall leadership vacuum surrounding its half-implementation.

(Washington)

A couple of weeks ago we ran a piece quoting the SEC saying that it was trying to get advisors who had violated client disclosure rules to come forward themselves. The promise was that if they voluntarily came forward they would be treated with a much lighter hand. Well, the SEC has showed the other side of that coin this week, saying “Those of you who counsel investment advisors, we hope you will counsel them to participate in the program … If not, we promise that if we find them later we will punish them more severely”.

FINSUM: The SEC is really going to throw its weight around on this issue and it seems like advisors who have broken the rules would be well advised to come forward.