Questions to Ask When Picking a Financial Adviser

April 14, 2009
Print This Post or Email with:

An article in the April 13, 2009 edition of the Wall Street Journal entitled Seven Questions to Ask When Picking a Financial Adviser largely misses the boat. Granted, it is a challenge to find a “reliable” financial advisor; however, the article did a poor job of advising you on how to go about it. Reading it may leave you with the conclusion that it is impossible to find a financial planner you can trust. There can be nothing further from the truth.

I take exception with the emphasis of the article and several of its points.

How does the adviser get paid?

Mentioning that there are different methods of compensation, as the article does, is not sufficient.

As I’ve said in previous posts, the key issue in choosing a financial advisor is finding one who will act in your interests. To determine that, you must know exactly how and who compensates your chosen advisor. If an advisor is fee-only, you’re off to a good start.

Remember that a stockbroker must act in the employer’s best interests, and that you are not his employer. A Registered Investment Advisor, on the other hand, must act in a fiduciary capacity, i.e. in the clients’ best interests.

Stockbrokers are subject only to a “suitability” standard. They are regulated by FINRA, which (despite their rhetoric) is dedicated to protecting stockbrokers and their employers, not necessarily investors.

What do the adviser’s clients say?

This may or may not be relevant or helpful.

Registered Investment Advisors are governed by the 1940 Investment Advisor Act, which expressly prohibits providing “testimonials,” which client references would fall under. Of course, a client recommendation or testimonial could easily be concocted anyway.

What’s the adviser’s track record?

The WSJ article didn’t even come close to getting this issue right. Choosing an advisor based on his/her supposed investing track record is the wrong approach on several counts!

Even if you did find an advisor with a “superior” track record, we know that it is meaningless, because, as has been stated before, “Past Performance is No Guarantee of Future Results.” If you’ll recall, Bernard Madoff had a superior track record, many testimonials and lots of personal references and endorsements. And we all know what he did.

Key Financial Solutions does not try to “beat the market.” We are not active managers, because studies show that the added costs offset any possible gains of active trading.  Market timing and stock selection do not work.

Since we are not mutual fund managers, we do not have one uniform documented track record. Real financial planners take into account their client’s needs, financial objectives and tax situation before investing their money.

Because our clients have different risk tolerances and time horizons, they naturally have different portfolios and, therefore, different investment performance.

Financial Planning versus Investment Performance

Understand that beating an index is not a financial plan. What a good financial planner will do is give clients the best chance to achieve their goals.  Because the financial plan sets the parameters of the portfolio, a portfolio is simply a tool to realize clients’ goals.

Don’t get me wrong, we are quite proud of our portfolio design, because we use low cost, tax-efficient mutual funds to build globally diversified portfolios.  I am personally fascinated by asset allocation and portfolio strategy.  I use automated reports and individual spreadsheets to monitor a portfolio and to make changes, when appropriate.  Certainly all of these necessary tasks contribute something to investment performance, but not as much as having a plan and sticking to it.

Real Life Returns

Since investor behavior is a very large component of investment returns, we act as coaches so that clients do not make big mistakes.  For example, we manage how clients respond to the euphoria near market tops and to the panic and despair around market bottoms.

Behavioral advice – coaching clients to continue to do the right thing and to avoid doing wrong things – will have a greater impact on investment returns than attempting to choose next year’s hot sector or mutual fund.

Believing in full disclosure and transparency, we report results quarterly so that a client can see exactly how well his or her portfolio is doing. This report is net of all fees, which are clearly stated, rather than being hidden. But I do not recommend giving quarterly results much importance.

Conclusion

When considering whether to retain an adviser for a long-term relationship, avoiding conflicts of interest should be the first consideration. A strict fee-only method of compensation is the best approach for most people. Members of the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors are strictly fee-only planners who sign a Fiduciary Oath.

NAPFA has always maintained that an advisor who is compensated solely through commissions faces immense conflicts of interest. This type of advisor is not paid unless a client buys (or sells) a financial product. A commission-based advisor earns money on each transaction—and thus has a great incentive to encourage transactions that might not be in the interest of the client. Indeed, many commission-based advisors are well-trained and well-intentioned. But the inherent potential conflict is great.

Comments

5 Responses to “Questions to Ask When Picking a Financial Adviser”

  1. Russ Thornton on April 14th, 2009 6:25 pm

    Great post. Roger. I also read the WSJ article and cringed at some of the advice given. I’m glad you called them out on several points.

  2. Bill Winterberg on April 14th, 2009 6:35 pm

    Found your article from @RockTheBoatMKTG’s tweet.

    I think you captured the shortcomings of the original WSJ article and really provided good approaches that consumers can use to find a competent, capable adviser. Thank you for posting your comments.

  3. James Kaplan on April 15th, 2009 9:42 am

    I agree with your critique of the article. You should be writing for the WSJ – I think an article written by an actual planner would lend a better perspective.

    You point out many issues with the article – I note that telling people to ask potential advisors to “combine all of your clients into a single portfolio and tell me how the overall portfolio did?” is a ridiculous request because the number it would produce would be essentially meaningless.

  4. Sam Fawaz on April 15th, 2009 12:26 pm

    I agree, the post is well written and captures the essence of what long-term and fee-only planning is about. Thanks for speaking for many of us who have the clients’ best interest in mind. Financial writer Bob Veres can’t even get an op-ed piece on fiduciary advisors published in the WSJ or Washington Post. So much for a fair press.

  5. Michael Zhuang on April 21st, 2009 7:40 pm

    Very nice, I totally agree. The biggest value a financial planner can add is in fact being a behavioral coach for the client. The biggest cost of investors is conflicts of interest which I found in abundance in brokerage clients’ portfolios.

    The staggering costs of conflicts of interest” is a true story and a cautionary tale.