Displaying items by tag: financial advisors

(Washington)

Well the midterms are finally here. However, one thing has become apparent—how these elections will affect financial advisors has not been discussed nearly enough. One of the big concerns advisors should have is about what happens if the Democrats take the House. In this scenario, it seems likely regulation would grow much toughed as fire & brimstone-like Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) would taken the helm of the House Financial Services Committee. Additionally, Republican-led deregulatory measures could be scuttled. One area of possible positivity could be on new legislation for retirees, including new measures to encourage people to save for retirement.

FINSUM: Perhaps the biggest worry regards some sort of defeat of the new SEC rule with renewed support for the DOL rule 2.0. The Democrats fiercely advocate for a comprehensive fiduciary standard, so their ascendance in the House could lead to that becoming a reality.

(New York)

Think about the financial advisor as you conceive it: an entrepreneurial professional driven by an eat-what-you-kill paradigm. For decades that has been the model, but it appears to be changing quickly. In what Barron’s calls the rise of the “advisor zombie”, many advisors are being moved to basic salary and bonus models. Since firms are exiting the broker protocol, it is becoming easier for them to lock advisors in place, and thus constrain their pay, leaving more margin for firms. The model attempts to make clients loyal to firms rather than advisors, much like a branch banker.

FINSUM: This is certainly a dystopian viewpoint, but if you take a look at changes going on in the industry, it looks like a pretty reasonable view.

(New York)

A lot of advisors have been under pressure to cut their fees. Pressure from competition, both digital and human, has reportedly put downward pressure on the fees advisors feel they can charge. However, Barron’s has put out a piece arguing that advisors should not cut their fees. The reason why stems from the results of a survey which found that advisors who lowered their fees actually brought in less assets and experienced less revenue growth than when they left fees higher. An industry commentator summarized the situation this way, saying “That supports something we’ve seen, frankly, for 15 years, which is, clients don’t leave because of price; they leave because of service issues”.

FINSUM: We think this is a bit of a misleading survey, at least if you buy the “services issues” theory. The reason why is that it is only advisors who have service issues that are cutting fees, which means the lower asset growth does not really have to do with fees, it has to do with a problem with the advisor.

(Washington)

On Wall Street has run what we consider to be a very bad article, but we thought our readers might enjoy, or cringe, in hearing about. In an article entitled “Why Financial Planners Should Support a Strong Fiduciary Rule”, the director of consumer protection for the Consumer Federation of America manages to make almost no discernible argument. Attacking those who oppose the fiduciary rule, the article fails to make any salient points in support of the current DOL version of the rule. In fact, the most interesting part of the article is actually an inadvertent support of those who oppose the DOL rule. The author acknowledges that commissions-based payments are no more inherently conflicted than fee-based accounts.

FINSUM: This article was incredibly mind-numbing. While we have been in consistent opposition to the DOL rule, we are not against fiduciary duty in principal, and have been trying to find arguments in its favor. In this piece we kept reading and reading waiting for a good point to be made, but it never arrived.