Paying Hidden Costs Because your Broker’s not a Fiduciary?

Investors often choose big banks and investment firms over smaller financial advisors because they think the brand name and size makes the service and product offerings better. In actuality, it’s often the reverse.

Unless your firm is a Fiduciary, chances are there are sales quotas and contests for the non fiduciary, “suitability” reps, who are often paid extra to put clients in proprietary funds that are not in the clients’ best interests, but that reap commissions for the brokerage house.

Last Friday the SEC issued a statement announcing that three investment advisers “have settled charges for breaching fiduciary duties to clients and generating millions of dollars of improper fees in the process.” The release goes on to say that “PNC Investments LLC, Securities America Advisors Inc., and Geneos Wealth Management Inc. failed to disclose conflicts of interest and violated their duty to seek best execution by investing advisory clients in higher-cost mutual fund shares when lower-cost shares of the same funds were available.”

And according to an article in Investment News last week, it turns out smaller credit card and savings customers may not have been the only ones who were misled in the Wells Fargo “fake account” scandal. The article states that “according to inside sources, some clients of the bank’s wealth-management division were steered into investments that maximized revenue for the bank and compensation for its employees.”

When will this stop and why would any one continue to do business with one of these non Fiduciary firms?

The big problem is lack of transparency. Most investors don’t understand how the business works and how broker-dealers make their money. That means the investors are, in effect, investing blindfolded. And while there are many good, principled people at the larger firms, because they are not bound by the Fiduciary Standard, there is lots of potential for recommending something that is “almost as good” as the best product for you.

The result is that, according to a survey just released by the CFA Institute, a majority of investors believe that their advisors fail to fully disclose conflicts of interest and the fees they charge. Only 35% of individual investors polled believe that their advisor always puts their clients’ interests ahead of their own and only 25% of the institutional investors who participated in the survey.

April is National Financial Literacy month and one of the most important Financial Lessons investors – and potential investors – can learn this month is what “Fiduciary” means and why it’s so critical to your financial health.

When you’re working with a fee-only Fiduciary, they have sworn to only recommend financial products that are the best for their clients. Most broker-dealers in large wire houses have only agreed to uphold the “suitability” standard, which means they are allowed to recommend investments that are “suitable” – not best – for you but potentially yield a markup for their company or bonus or commission for them.

If you’re unclear about what fees you are paying, share classes you own, or how much your funds are costing you in annual expenses, contact us for a free analysis of your currents investments and the costs associated with them.

Particularly during Financial Literacy Month, make sure your Financial Advisor is working for you.

 

The Imperfect Fiduciary Rule just got Worse

Last Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit struck down the Department of Labor’s Fiduciary Rule, stating that it was “unreasonable’ that brokers handling investors’ retirement savings should be required to only act in clients’ best interest.

Unreasonable for advisors to only act in their clients’ best interests? Let that sink in for a moment…

In a nutshell: it’s still considered acceptable in the financial industry for advisors to give clients advice that is less than the best for the clients when it yields a higher commission for the broker.

In case you were wondering, the plaintiffs challenging the DOL’s Fiduciary Rule were the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, the Financial Services Institute, Financial Services Roundtable, and Insured Retirement Institute. None of whom, clearly, are friends to the individual investor.

Because different Courts’ decisions have not been consistent about this Obama Administration effort to protect individual advisors, there is speculation the question will climb at some point to the Supreme Court, so this isn’t over. And while the Fiduciary Rule was not perfect, this is clearly worse.

Meanwhile, what can you as an individual investor do to make sure your interests are not being sacrificed for the benefit of your advisor? Very simple: make sure your advisor is ALREADY a Fiduciary. And if they’re not, switch. Why leave your money in a big brokerage house where conflicts of interest and commissions potentially eat into your gains and your future? Or where – instead of being given the full picture – you’re being steered toward a product that isn’t the best possible choice for you because of brokers’ sales goals or “contests”?

Individual investors have the power to tell the industry that this is unacceptable by voting with their feet (or computers.) Choose an advisor who has sworn to uphold the Fiduciary Standard and ONLY recommend choices that are in your best interest.

Just because the 5th Circuit is willing to settle for less doesn’t mean you should.

 

***

If you’re concerned you’re not getting the fullest picture about what’s right for you and the best, un-conflicted advice, give us a call for a free portfolio review or learn more about our fee-only, Fiduciary approach.

A True Measure of Uncompromised Advice

Do you remember the scene from the movie Matilda when Harry (Danny DeVito) shows his son his dodgy-car salesmanship?

While highly over exaggerated in the film for the sake of comedy, it is true that whenever you buy something from a salesman, you should ask… what’s in it for them?  It’s safe to say that a healthy amount of skepticism should probably be given to anyone trying to sell you a product.  Shouldn’t that advice translate over to the world of investment products as well?

Especially following the financial crisis, the financial services industry is considered among the lowest trusted businesses.  It makes sense.  Individuals tend have a hard-time trusting people who look at making a quick buck for a living.  While that isn’t necessarily the case, it is true that there is a conflict of interest that often exists for many advisors (at wirehouses, independent broker/dealers, and insurance backed firms) who have an obligation to provide a standard of care for their client, but also have a sense of duty to their firms.  Their compensation structure (having sales targets and commission based compensation packages) fundamentally misaligns the interests of both parties. That strikes us as a conflict that is unmanageable and ultimately, comes at the cost of the client.

In the fallout of the financial crisis, regulators have tried to step in over the last decade to ensure that the world of retirement advice acts without conflicts of interest, specifically by holding all financial advisors to a status of “fiduciary.”  It means that these advisors who have potential conflicts of interest will have to increase their disclosures and explain what they do for clients as it relates to advice on retirement assets.  These advisors are upset!  While they might not admit it, they are concerned that this new rule will affect their income.  The increased pressure these advisors are putting on the administration has resulted in the Labor Department seeking an 18-month delay in its implementation.  While the rule is designed to protect the retirement savings of clients, the pushback could ultimately cause the rule to never get implemented.

So again, where do you as a client fall in this equation?  Just how valuable is your “trusted” relationship?

That is where we come in.  At Sherman Wealth Management, we have always been a fee-only fiduciary.  That means while competitors are off arguing about fees, disclosures and conflicts of interest, we already subscribe to the status of “fiduciary” and will remain unaffected by the changes.  We provide uncompromised advice and our compensation is not based on commissions or any salesmanship of a product.  The only thing we are “selling” is our best customized advice for your unique financial situation.  We believe that working with an advisor who is already committed to functioning in your best interest will give you peace of mind about your retirement savings.

Feel free to reach out to us anytime with questions or comments.  Unlike Matilda’s Mrs. Trunchbull, you won’t have to hunt us down.

 

***

The views expressed in this blog post are as of the date of the posting, and are subject to change based on market and other conditions. This blog contains certain statements that may be deemed forward-looking statements. Please note that any such statements are not guarantees of any future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected.
Please note that nothing in this blog post should be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase an interest in any security or separate account. Nothing is intended to be, and you should not consider anything to be, investment, accounting, tax or legal advice. If you would like investment, accounting, tax or legal advice, you should consult with your own financial advisors, accountants, or attorneys regarding your individual circumstances and needs. No advice may be rendered by Sherman Wealth unless a client service agreement is in place.

Are You Getting Your Money’s Worth in Financial Advice?

Measuring value

Recent news about a new fiduciary rule has left many folks more confused than ever about fee structures, and concerned about whether they’re getting the best value from their financial advisor’s fees or their brokerage firm’s fee structure. According to a recent podcast from the Wall Street Journal, it’s not only how much you pay – but also what you are paying for – that’s a source of communication breakdown between those clients and their advisors.

While the Department of Labor is pushing to get advisors and brokers to make it easier for clients to understand their fee structures, so far it doesn’t look like many of the bigger firms are taking them up on it.

Since any firm or advisor can claim to be client-driven, transparent, and “fee-based,” how can you be completely sure about what you’re getting and how much you’re paying? If your advisor is fee-based, rather than strictly fee-only, they may be earning commissions when they recommend certain investment products. Obviously, that creates a potential conflict of interest: those advisors have incentives to trade more frequently, and to recommend specific products in order to generate higher commissions for themselves and their firm, whether or not they’re best for you.

One way to avoid uncertainty – and the potential headaches it brings – is to work with a fee-only registered investment advisory firm (RIA). Fee-only RIAs and advisors do not earn commissions so they are not motivated by the frequency of trades, so they are less likely to encourage buying and selling unless it’s the best choice for you. Because RIAs are held to a fiduciary standard, they are legally bound to always – and only – act in your best interest.

Do your advisor’s feed include additional services?

Even if you are working with a fee-only RIA, however, you may be still not getting your full money’s worth. Many clients neglect to take advantage of untapped services that are included in their advisor’s fees, such as tax and estate planning, insurance advice, and financial coaching, among other services. If you’re not sure what additional services your advisor – or the advisors you are considering – provide, ask them. It’s the best way to ensure that there’s an open path of communication and that you are getting the most value out of your wealth management experience.

Only you can decide what kind of fee structure is best for you, what you feel is the appropriate amount to spend on investment management and financial planning, and what additional services are important to you to help you grow your wealth.

If you’re concerned you’re not getting your money’s worth, though, or that you’re paying too much, here are some good questions to ask yourself: How adequately served do you think you are? Are you confused with what services you are getting and what you are paying for? Do you feel valued? Are your goals being met and are you being listened to?

If you’re not satisfied with the answers to any of these questions, remember that you have options. Sherman Wealth Management is proud to be a fee-only independent RIA firm, because we feel it is the best way to meet our ethical standards and guarantee that all potential clients have a simple and cost-effective way to access investment management and financial planning.

Knowing what those options are, and getting clarity in your fee structures – whatever kind of advisor you ultimately choose – will allow you to feel more confident about the decisions you make, now and for your future.

This article was originally published on Investopedia.com

***

The views expressed in this blog post are as of the date of the posting, and are subject to change based on market and other conditions. This blog contains certain statements that may be deemed forward-looking statements. Please note that any such statements are not guarantees of any future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected.
Please note that nothing in this blog post should be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase an interest in any security or separate account. Nothing is intended to be, and you should not consider anything to be, investment, accounting, tax or legal advice. If you would like investment, accounting, tax or legal advice, you should consult with your own financial advisors, accountants, or attorneys regarding your individual circumstances and needs. No advice may be rendered by Sherman Wealth unless a client service agreement is in place.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

403(b) Plans: The Flaws Teachers Should Know

Teachers 403b

It’s no secret that many teachers are underpaid, in spite of the vitally important work they do. I know first hand: my mother was a public school teacher and a single mom. While some teachers may have other assets and savings they can draw on, a great number of teachers will rely on the retirement plans commonly used by teachers, known as 403(b) plans, as a source of income once they retire.

This Is Money Teachers Will Need

In a recent series, The New York Times detailed many issues with the 403(b) plans so critical to a comfortable retirement for teachers. Their first piece, “Think Your Retirement Plan Is Bad? Talk to a Teacher” makes many of the same points we touched on previously in Teachers: Who is Managing Your 403(b)?

As the Times correctly points out: “Teachers in about a dozen states may not qualify for Social Security. And while public school teachers often are offered decent pensions, many of them do not work for the decades required to qualify for a full payout. And pension formulas are becoming less generous for newer recruits.”

Unlike 401(k) plans that are overseen and regulated by federal law based on the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) of 1974, many 403(b) plans fall outside of ERISA oversight and protection.

Who Can Teachers Trust?

Instead of having access to a financial advisor who is a fiduciary, someone who exclusively – and always -must have the client’s best interests in mind, teachers are often presented with salespeople from insurance brokers who earn commissions for recommending certain products. As one teacher recounted in part two of the NYT series: “From the teacher’s standpoint, they really miss out getting quality advice,” said Mr. Bergeron, 27, who sold the plans for Axa Advisors’ retirement benefits group. “People who are in the schools pitching them and positioning themselves as retirement specialists are really there just to sell them one product.” (For more, see: An Investor’s Guide to the New Fiduciary Rule.)

Fee-only fiduciary advisors are advisors who only recommend investments that are the best for their clients, not ones that reward themselves. Fiduciary financial advisors aren’t trying to hit a quota or working for sales commissions on the products they recommend to you. Fiduciaries are committed to providing the best advice to investors – like teachers – looking to build a strong foundation. These advisors grow with you, not at your expense by profiting off the products they recommend to you.

Many of the millions of employees in this country have access to 401(k) plans through their employer that are approved and monitored by the employer in some way, ensuring at least some oversight of the plan itself. Unfortunately, public school teachers as well as some teachers working for nonprofits and religious institutions are easy prey for companies trying to sell high-cost products because their retirement plans often don’t have the same oversight. Given the loosely regulated industry, the insurance salespeople or “advisors” pitching to teachers can recommend investment products that best for their own pockets, not the plan owners’.

The Costs and Confusion

While 401(k) plans are not perfect either, as we have pointed out before, the majority of them offer more traditional investment options, such as mutual funds or stocks and bonds, making it easier to understand how your money is invested. In contrast, 403(b) plans are often held inside annuities, which can be confusing even for the most intelligent individual investors. Discussing Axa Advisors, a broker that often tries to sell annuities, The New York Times writes: “The most popular version of the Equi-Vest annuity has a total annual cost that can range from 1.81 to 2.63%, according to an analysis from Morningstar. In contrast, large 401(k) plans usually charge an annual fee of less than half a percent of assets, according to a May report by BrightScope using 2013 data.”

Even if teacher realizes that they are paying excessive costs for their retirement investments, they are often locked into these annuities and required to pay a penalty if they want to make changes. If a teacher wants to transfer their assets out of the Axa Equi-Vest annuity into their own IRA, for example, they would have to pay a 5% penalty on the portion of that withdrawal that had been contributed within the last six years.

One of — if not the biggest — advantage of many retirement plans is tax deferral, which allows these accounts to grow and compound over a long time horizon. That ability to grown and earn compound interest is obviously compromised when you are paying excessive fees year over year.

Teachers are one of our most important assets and deserve to be rewarded for their years of dedication to our country’s children, and therefore our country’s future. All too frequently, however, teachers not given access to solid, low-cost and efficient long-term investment options in their retirement plans. Nor are they given access to a financial advisor they can turn to with questions, knowing that they can trust the answers they are given.

We encourage teachers to spend some time finding out more about their 403(b) retirement fund managers. It’s vital to find out whether they are a fiduciary, how they make money (fee-based or fee-only), and how personalized their investment strategy is.  (For more, see: 6 Questions to Ask a Financial Advisor.)

This article was originally published on Investopedia.com

***

The views expressed in this blog post are as of the date of the posting, and are subject to change based on market and other conditions. This blog contains certain statements that may be deemed forward-looking statements. Please note that any such statements are not guarantees of any future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected.
Please note that nothing in this blog post should be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase an interest in any security or separate account. Nothing is intended to be, and you should not consider anything to be, investment, accounting, tax or legal advice. If you would like investment, accounting, tax or legal advice, you should consult with your own financial advisors, accountants, or attorneys regarding your individual circumstances and needs. No advice may be rendered by Sherman Wealth unless a client service agreement is in place.
If you have any questions regarding this Blog Post, please Contact Us.

Fear Keeps Millennials on Investing Sidelines

Millennials are nervous about investing. Recent surveys have shown that 70% of millennials keep their savings in cash rather than invest it in the stock market.

But by not investing early on, these people in their 20s and early 30s miss out on the key advantage they have at a young age: time. Because your investment returns are compounded, the earlier you start investing the more — and longer — will the returns add up, ultimately leaving you with more money in the bank.

So what are millennials waiting for? Many of the concerns holding them back from the market boil down to a lack of information about investing. Some of the most common fears are:

‘I have no idea where to start’

Many potential young investors have no idea where to start even if they wanted to buy just one stock. And then they don’t know how to choose which stock or fund to invest in. Since most people don’t get personal finance education as part of their schooling, investing can seem enormously daunting and precarious.

A little online research can demystify many of the basic investing concepts, such as how compounded interest works, how patience can be beneficial, and how to not overreact to temporary dips in the market. Working with a financial advisor to develop a plan and ease into an investing strategy also can help reduce your stress and anxiety about entering the stock market.

‘I haven’t even paid off my loans — I can’t start saving’

Concern about debt, particularly student loans, is understandable and widespread among millennials. Student loan borrowers have an average debt of almost $30,000 for undergraduate loans. The question of whether to pay off student loan debt more aggressively or use the extra money to start saving is a tough one because people don’t have the same financial situations. Your debt, cash flow and spending circumstances are unique and will require a plan that’s customized to you.

Keep in mind, however, that your years as a young professional are your prime saving period. If you can stomach not using all your extra money to pay off loans, you could reap the long-term benefit of investing early. Paying down a high-interest loan is a priority. But if the interest is low enough, consider creating a financial plan that allots some of your savings to an IRA or 401(k). Over time, the return on that investment, with the help of compounded interest, can make the trade-off worthwhile.

If you don’t have high-interest loans, creating a long-term, comprehensive financial plan that includes saving and investing is the best way of making sure you’ll have the funds you’ll need in the future, whether it’s to pay down debt, buy or rent a house, or make any other important expenditure. If you live on a tight budget, controlling and mapping out your spending becomes even more important.

‘I don’t trust, or can’t afford, financial advisors’

Many advisors require high asset minimums that may be well out of reach for young investors. And even then, the advisor could put your money in inefficient investment products that could generate commissions and other hidden fees for the advisor and inflate your investing costs.

Many advisors are not legally obligated to act only in their clients’ best interest; they merely have to suggest “suitable” investments. In many cases this means investments for which they are paid a commission. But those who uphold the fiduciary standard are required to put their clients’ interests first. And fee-only advisors are paid solely for the advice they give you, and not through commissions on the products they recommend.

Millennials are right to be wary of the industry, but there are advisors who won’t put their profit goals ahead of yours. Look for a fee-only fiduciary advisor. You may also want to work initially with a fiduciary advisor who charges by the hour if advisors with asset-management minimums are out of reach.

You need a financial plan that’s customized for your own situation and goals. But that doesn’t mean you can afford a delayed start. The sooner you map out a financial plan and start saving and investing, the bigger the payoff will be down the road.

This article was originally published on Nerdwallet.com

***

The views expressed in this blog post are as of the date of the posting, and are subject to change based on market and other conditions. This blog contains certain statements that may be deemed forward-looking statements. Please note that any such statements are not guarantees of any future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected.
Please note that nothing in this blog post should be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase an interest in any security or separate account. Nothing is intended to be, and you should not consider anything to be, investment, accounting, tax or legal advice. If you would like investment, accounting, tax or legal advice, you should consult with your own financial advisors, accountants, or attorneys regarding your individual circumstances and needs. No advice may be rendered by Sherman Wealth unless a client service agreement is in place.
If you have any questions regarding this Blog Post, please Contact Us.

Financial Failings of NBA Legend Antoine Walker

Former NBA All-Star forward Antoine Walker possessed a varied skill-set that enabled him to play both inside and outside. A big man who also shot the three, Walker was notorious for his hilariously erratic shot selection and, later in his career, an aversion to running that led to lazy play.

The quality of financial advice Walker received throughout his career was evidently very close to the quality of his shot attempts, as he filed for bankruptcy in 2010, two years after he retired from the game. In a recent column in the Players’ Tribune, Walker writes a letter to his younger self detailing what went wrong and what he could have done better.

Surprisingly, there are a few money management lessons that anyone—NBA star or not—can apply. (For related reading, see: Do You Need to Change Your Financial Advisor?)

Actively Screen Advisors
Screen advisors before you hire them, and after you do, make sure you know where your money is going. Walker frames his letter with the importance and difficulty of saying “no,” whether to friends asking for money or, most crucially, a friend of a friend who asked for money to start a real estate venture.

The advisor, who Walker met at a dinner with NBA colleagues, started Walker Ventures with bank loans guaranteed by Walker’s personal portfolio, an incredibly risky move. Walker let the advisor have complete control of managing the properties since he was playing basketball nine months of the year. Ultimately, Walker Ventures was forced to close after the housing crash with $20 million of debt. The advisor went to jail, and Walker was forced to file for bankruptcy.

There were a couple ways this could have been prevented. First, Walker didn’t do much due diligence before making the deal. He could have run it by another advisor, who probably would have told him it was structured as an extremely risky venture. Second, because of his schedule, Walker did not adequately check up on the investments.

Many people, particularly young investors, share Walker’s desire to make some money outside of their main job, especially to save for retirement. Finding a financial advisor who is trustworthy, and right for your unique needs, is very important. (For related reading, see: 6 Questions to Ask a Financial Advisor.)

The Upside of Having Someone Say No
Walker’s trouble with the real estate venture was compounded by his reckless spending. While he confesses that he spent lavishly on himself, including a $350,000 Maybach car, it appears that what took the biggest bite out of Walker’s wallet was his spending on family and friends. “I gave them whatever they wanted and spoiled them. You can’t do that,” Walker said in a CNN/Money interview. “It ended up being an open ATM throughout my career.”

While most of us don’t take our friends to a Gucci store and let them buy whatever they want—as Walker has said he did—spending without at least an idea of what is manageable is a problem many people encounter. For young professionals in particular, overspending can seriously hinder retirement saving.

A good financial advisor will do more than simply invest your money. They will incorporate periodic spending goals, major expenditures like vacations, and life events like a new home or wedding into your comprehensive financial plan. Sometimes, this could mean advising against a big purchase for the sake of a long-term goal.

Obviously, we don’t all have $110 million to blow like Antoine Walker. But lackadaisical spending control and being too busy to check on our investments or advisors are traps anyone could fall into. Ensuring that your money is in the right hands is a universally important objective. (For related reading, see: Which Investor Personality Best Describes You?)

This article was originally published on Investopedia.com

***

The views expressed in this blog post are as of the date of the posting, and are subject to change based on market and other conditions. This blog contains certain statements that may be deemed forward-looking statements. Please note that any such statements are not guarantees of any future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected.
Please note that nothing in this blog post should be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase an interest in any security or separate account. Nothing is intended to be, and you should not consider anything to be, investment, accounting, tax or legal advice. If you would like investment, accounting, tax or legal advice, you should consult with your own financial advisors, accountants, or attorneys regarding your individual circumstances and needs. No advice may be rendered by Sherman Wealth unless a client service agreement is in place.
If you have any questions regarding this Blog Post, please Contact Us.

Do You Need to Change Your Financial Advisor?

Financial Advisor

In his song “Real Friends” musician Kanye West raps, “Real friends. It’s not many of us. We smile at each other. But how many honest? Trust issues.” West wonders whether those around him are there because they really have his best interests at heart, or if they only care about him for his money.

Given recent developments in the financial advisory industry, many Millennials might be wondering the same thing about their financial advisor. The Department of Labor (DOL) will soon be enacting a new rule that requires all financial advisors handling a retirement account to abide by a fiduciary standard, which means always acting in the best interests of the client and not the advisor’s or corporation’s profits. It might be surprising, but that is currently not always the case. If your advisor is not a fiduciary, he or she may not be obligated to act only in your best interest. You can read more about the new rule and our take on the fiduciary obligation here.

Opponents of the rule, unsurprisingly the financial services industry’s lobbyists, who largely oppose the rule, point to a study saying that it will decrease access to financial advice for small investors since advisors “cannot figure out how to make money when working with them.” Without the fiduciary obligation, how do advisors currently profit from younger investors? Forbes recently published an article by the Morgan Stanley team where advisor T. Gregory Naples says that with Millennial clients he,

“starts them out in managed mutual funds until they reach $50,000. After that, he often switches them to more transparent and lower-cost stock and bond funds managed by institutional money managers.”

Breaking it Down

This is a huge admission. Let’s break down exactly what Naples is saying. Crucially, Naples admits that, until you hit $50,000 assets under management (AUM), he invests your money in more expensive, less efficient funds. Many of these “actively managed” funds, which try to beat the market’s returns, have higher costs because of labor and number of trades they execute. After this period, once your AUM gets to a point where Naples can more easily make money off of you through fees, he puts your money into more efficient places it should have been all along.

Later on, he mentions examples illustrating the power of compound interest, but neglects to mention that the unnecessary fees you are incurring from the inefficient funds he has invested your money into will eat away at the returns you get from the compound interest. This illustrates the folly of the argument that the fiduciary rule will drive young investors away. Young investors who are just starting out are, in fact, much better off being driven away from advisors with non-fiduciary practices like Naples. Entrusting your money to a non-fiduciary, traditional financial advisor as a young, new investor is like intentionally hitchhiking on a road known for having murderous truck drivers when there’s a much safer road nearby. (Read more about 6 Questions to Ask A Financial Advisor)

People naturally gravitate towards big firms with name recognition. But as the Naples quote demonstrates, these large, non-fiduciary firms may not always be the best option, particularly for young investors. What the back-and-forth over the DOL rule reveals is that non-fiduciary advisors often don’t even really want your money. Most seek accounts with higher balances. So why go where your money is not wanted?

 

This article was originally published on Investopedia.com

***

The views expressed in this blog post are as of the date of the posting, and are subject to change based on market and other conditions. This blog contains certain statements that may be deemed forward-looking statements. Please note that any such statements are not guarantees of any future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected.
Please note that nothing in this blog post should be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase an interest in any security or separate account. Nothing is intended to be, and you should not consider anything to be, investment, accounting, tax or legal advice. If you would like investment, accounting, tax or legal advice, you should consult with your own financial advisors, accountants, or attorneys regarding your individual circumstances and needs. No advice may be rendered by Sherman Wealth unless a client service agreement is in place.
If you have any questions regarding this Blog Post, please Contact Us.

4 Things You Can Learn From John Oliver About Retirement Planning

On his HBO show Last Week Tonight, comedian John Oliver recently turned the national spotlight on the wealth management and retirement planning industry. In light of a new Department of Labor rule requiring all financial advisors to act as fiduciaries for retirement accounts, in which we strongly believe, Oliver skewered the opaque tendencies of brokers and traditional financial advisors. He urges viewers to bring their business to a transparent fiduciary who has your best interest at heart.

Oliver’s segment serves an important purpose — many regular people who trust a traditional financial advisor with their money, or millennials who are just now beginning to think about retirement planning, simply don’t know the many ways the advisor could be robbing them of their hard-earned money. While not everyone is as clueless as the woman whom Oliver ridicules for asking CNBC host Suze Orman whether she should spend $4,000 to get an elf-spotting certification in Iceland, the many ways traditional financial advisors hurt their clients are often hidden unless the client does the digging themselves. With that in mind, here are four major takeaways from Oliver’s monologue.

1. Many financial advisors may not have your best interest at heart — but you can find one who does.

As Oliver notes, “financial advisor” is a vague term. Even so, many traditional financial advisors  are not fiduciaries, and instead operate on commission. (An advisor who is a fiduciary must always act in the best interests of you, the client.) This means they can execute trades and strategies that line their own pockets with little regard for your financial well-being. We believe that this is unacceptable; as a result, we operate as a fee-only fiduciary that does not receive any sort of commission. While some advisors make money by endorsing a particular investment or product to their clients, we are paid only by our clients.

2. The “active management” of many funds and advisors can destroy your capital.

As we’ve previously detailed in this blog, you shouldn’t expect to win with actively managed funds. Not only do these funds fail to outperform the market, but in doing so they also accrue massive fees due to the large amount of trades they are making. While compound interest grows your investment over time, interest isn’t the only thing that compounds — fees do as well. Oliver cites a study in which an index of stocks, selected by a cat throwing a ball at them, outperformed an actively managed fund overseen by experts. The cat earned returns of 7%, while the pros garnered only 3.5%. Oliver summarizes the situation succinctly: “If you stick around doing nothing while everyone else around you [messes] up, you’re going to win big.” At Sherman Wealth Management, we believe sticking with investments that focus on low cost and tax efficiency is the best way to save for the long term. ETFs are an investment vehicle that we utilize to accomplish this goal.

3. It doesn’t have to be this complicated, and it might be getting simpler.

There are easy steps you can take. Start saving now — it’s never too early. When screening financial advisors, ask if they are fiduciaries. With your money in the hands of a fiduciary who puts your best interest first, you can be confident in your advisor’s motivations. 

Feel like the little guy/girl who can’t get the time of day from your “financial advisor”? Read our post – Why Go Where Your Money’s Not Wanted?

4. These principles aren’t abstract — they have real consequences for real people, like you.

To demonstrate all of this, Oliver examined the 401k his own employees at HBO were using through their provider. The retirement fund charged 1.69% fees, and their broker refused to offer low-cost, low-fee plans. The advisor even messed up the calculations on the compounding interest, making his original math off by over $10,000,000. These are not the actions of someone who values his/her clients more than a paycheck; on the other hand, we value our partnership in our clients’ future success.

Where Oliver went wrong is when he questioned why anyone would invite their financial advisor to their wedding. We are proof that a relationship like that is possible between client and advisor. As a fiduciary, when we consistently act in the best interests of our clients, we end up building strong friendships with them.

At Sherman Wealth Management, we have long been at the forefront of the fiduciary movement for transparency and conflict-free advice. At a traditional insurance company or wire house, advisors will often recommend expensive funds produced by their institution; on the other hand, we can take a more holistic view of investments to determine which are best for you. We believe in growing with you, not at your expense.

We encourage you to trust your retirement to an advisor who will act only in your best interest. Curious what that looks like? Schedule a free portfolio analysis and strategy session with us.

Check out the full John Oliver video here.

 

***

The views expressed in this blog post are as of the date of the posting, and are subject to change based on market and other conditions. This blog contains certain statements that may be deemed forward-looking statements. Please note that any such statements are not guarantees of any future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected.
Please note that nothing in this blog post should be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase an interest in any security or separate account. Nothing is intended to be, and you should not consider anything to be, investment, accounting, tax or legal advice. If you would like investment, accounting, tax or legal advice, you should consult with your own financial advisors, accountants, or attorneys regarding your individual circumstances and needs. No advice may be rendered by Sherman Wealth unless a client service agreement is in place.
If you have any questions regarding this Blog Post, please Contact Us.

Is Your Retirement Advisor a Fiduciary?

Is your Retirement Advisor a Fiduciary?

Do you want a financial professional who is opposed to financial transparency managing your money?

The upcoming and long anticipated proposed rules by the Department of Labor (“DOL”) exposes that very debate, as it seeks to eliminate the ability of financial advisors to profit by selling retirement account products to investors without being held to a “fiduciary standard.”

For those wondering what that means, with a fiduciary standard an advisor must always act in your (their client’s) best interests. A fiduciary standard ensures that the advisor’s duty is to the client only, not the corporation they represent. To the surprise of many, that currently is not always the case. Financial advisors have had the ability to profit (through commissions and high fees) to the potential detriment of their clients. That is exactly what many large financial institutions and insurance companies have done. In fact, the federal government estimates that there are roughly $17 billion dollars of fees generated each year from conflicted advice.

The DOL has made clear –and we agree– that a commission based investment model creates a conflict of interest. Companies with a commission based model operate with an inherent conflict: the pressure to sell products that are more profitable for them and/or their firm can be important factors in how they direct you to invest. For example, an advisor may receive a 5% commission by selling you a fund through their company when you could get a similar product elsewhere without commission. Think of it this way: would you want to work with an accountant who also gets commissions from the IRS? Of course not. You want your accountant to represent your best interests. Would you go to a doctor who makes money each time he prescribes penicillin? No, you want your doctor to prescribe what is right for you. That is the primary reason we stay completely independent and operate as conflict-free, fee-only advisors.

The proposed DOL rule will hopefully begin to fix this issue as it is expected to require a strict fiduciary standard for financial advisors in the context of sales for retirement account products.  This standard will require advisors to certify that they are acting independently and in their client’s best interest, and are not motivated by the prospect of a commission. This has created a firestorm among big insurance companies, broker dealers and other institutional investors who, as we pointed out, don’t typically operate as fiduciaries.

In a letter sent last week to the SEC, Senator Elizabeth Warren, a strong proponent of the proposed DOL rule, pointed out that presidents of Transamerica, Lincoln National, Jackson National and Prudential all have called this proposal “unworkable.”  She commented on the self interest in their position, and the danger in permitting unwitting investors to be guided by non-fiduciaries in the context of their retirement investments.

Why would a rule that requires a financial advisor to act in their client’s best interest create such an uproar? One reason is that unlike Sherman Wealth Management, they are in a commission driven model, and therefore fear that the way they currently serve clients would not meet the standards of this new rule. We hope that because of the conflict a commission driven model creates, that eventually enough pressure from policy-makers like Senator Warren and Labor Secretary Perez will propel this proposed new rule beyond just retirement accounts. In the meantime, think to yourself why anyone would oppose this rule if not for purely selfish reasons?

***

The views expressed in this blog post are as of the date of the posting, and are subject to change based on market and other conditions. This blog contains certain statements that may be deemed forward-looking statements. Please note that any such statements are not guarantees of any future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected.
Please note that nothing in this blog post should be construed as an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to purchase an interest in any security or separate account. Nothing is intended to be, and you should not consider anything to be, investment, accounting, tax or legal advice. If you would like investment, accounting, tax or legal advice, you should consult with your own financial advisors, accountants, or attorneys regarding your individual circumstances and needs. No advice may be rendered by Sherman Wealth unless a client service agreement is in place.
If you have any questions regarding this Blog Post, please Contact Us.