We would love to hear from you. Click on the ‘Contact Us’ link to the right and choose your favorite way to reach-out!

wscdsdc

media/speaking contact

Jamie Johnson

business contact

Victoria Peterson

Contact Us

855.ask.wink

Close [x]
pattern

Industry News

Categories

  • Industry Articles (21,155)
  • Industry Conferences (2)
  • Industry Job Openings (35)
  • Moore on the Market (414)
  • Negative Media (144)
  • Positive Media (73)
  • Sheryl's Articles (800)
  • Wink's Articles (353)
  • Wink's Inside Story (274)
  • Wink's Press Releases (123)
  • Blog Archives

  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • August 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • November 2008
  • September 2008
  • May 2008
  • February 2008
  • August 2006
  • Asset-Based Fee Models Are Under Scrutiny

    July 13, 2018 by Rich Blake

    Sometimes in financial services, what is accepted practice can come under a new light and suddenly seem fraught with conflicts that in hindsight should have seemed obvious. Goals can shift as if picked up by heavy gusts (often in the form of newspaper headlines). Just ask mutual fund managers who used to allow some large clients to do after-close trading of fund shares circa 2003.

    In recent years, a growing chorus of industry voices have begun calling out a practice at the core of money management: charging an asset-based fee.

    The discussion gained traction as part of the debate over the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule, which, had it not been delayed by the Trump administration and then ultimately struck down by courts, would have created higher standards for advisors with a hand running retirement assets. A push for improved advice-giving practices is now in the hands of the Securities and Exchange Commission, and so the debate still has room to rage on.

    This past spring, the Wall Street Journal published a piece, “Is It Time to Adopt a Uniform Fee-Only Standard for Financial Advice?” Around the same time, more heating fuel came courtesy of RIA executive Bert Whitehead, president of Cambridge Connection, a Bloomfield Hills, Mich.-based RIA, who wrote an article for Advisor Perspectives, “Why AUM-Based Fees Don’t Meet Fiduciary Standards.” In the March 2018 piece, Whitehead wrote that while the Investment Act of 1940 specifically permits advisors to charge fees as a percent of assets, this “was intended for managers of mutual funds, not for advisors.”

    The main problem, he said, is the conflict inherent in the way charges vary based on asset classes. A few years ago, Whitehead encountered this conflict firsthand and in dramatic fashion. “A new client, who had been working for a… stockbroker and who called himself a fee-only fiduciary, hired us,” Whitehead said. “My client had about $2 million under management. In transferring the assets, I noted that 97 percent were in stocks. Since the client was 67 years old and planning to retire in two years, this was too heavily weighted in equities.”

    May Day Movement  

    On May 1, 1975, the SEC mandated the death of high commissions and set the stage for the growth of the AUM percent fee, according to securities lawyer John Lohr. A couple years prior to that, the wrap fee had been invented by EF Hutton. By the late 1980s, wraps took off and started to become the norm as did the phrase, “I only do well if you do well.” Less common were specifics regarding how much of the bundled expense was for advice versus investment management.

    There’s almost no common consensus or industry standard about how much of an advisor’s AUM fee should really be an investment management fee versus not, according to research done by financial planner Bob Veres. And a Fidelity RIA Benchmarking Study two years ago found that there is virtually no relationship between an advisor’s fees for a client with $1 million in assets and the breadth of services the advisor offers to that client. “Not to say that financial planning services aren’t valuable, but that there’s no clear consensus on how to value them effectively,” financial planning expert Michael Kitces wrote last summer.

    Kitces noted the movement away from asset-based fees starting back in 2015. “Whether due to fears of the next bear market, a struggle to differentiate in an increasingly crowded AUM-fee landscape, or the pressure of competition from robo-advisors, a growing number of financial planners are talking about changing from the assets under management (AUM) model to adopting some form of (typically annual) retainer fees instead,” he wrote at the time.

    “This is indeed a debate and a useful one,” said Knut Rostad, cofounder of the Institute for the Fiduciary Standard. “Especially as market forces increasingly inform the discussion.”

    Stanford University professor Ashby Monk, an expert in institutional money management, concurs that it is a debate and sees the trend as viable. “It seems to me that budget-based fees are the future,” he said.

    Trouble Spots

    Even if no major changes come out of the SEC’s newly proposed “best-interest” rule set, existing fee regulations — and instances where industry members run afoul of them — are numerous, as spelled out in an April 2018 Risk Alert issued by the SEC’s Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations.

    The terms of a client’s advisory fees and expenses are typically detailed in an advisory agreement and described in an advisor’s Form ADV and other materials provided to the client.

    Among the most frequent deficiencies that OCIE staff has identified pertaining to advisory fees and expenses: fee-billing based on incorrect account valuations, billing fees in advance or with improper frequency and applying incorrect rates.

    Originally Posted at BISA Portfolio on July 12, 2018 by Rich Blake.

    Categories: Industry Articles
    currency