Finding a Good Financial Adviser (Part 2)

In Part 1, I talked about keeping track of incentives when it comes to financial advice. I didn't want to make the post too long, so I decided to split it in two parts.

Let's look at the factors that identify good advisers: compensation structure, encouragement of complacency, corrupt practices, and over-complication of investment choices.

Compensation

Compensation is a very important factor. After all, if you want to look at incentives this is the first stop. Let me be clear though, do not expect anyone to work for free. Good advisers should earn a good living and you should willingly pay them fairly for their services without having unreasonably expectations.

In the financial advice world, the two main compensation structures couldn't be more disparate: clear asset-based compensation that you pay directly, or murky kick-back compensation that the funds pay (and you pay indirectly).

Always choose an adviser with compensation arrangements you fully understand.

Good advisers charge a transparent fee which covers all money management costs along with other financial advice. Fees usually start at 1% of invested assets and can drop to 0.5% of assets for large accounts. The higher your assets, the lower the percentage.

Good advisers will not make any money other than this fee. No bonuses, kick-back schemes, referral schemes, or Cayman Island vacations paid for by the fund companies they recommend. Any extra money they earn should be passed directly to you.

As a general rule, avoid advisers who earn money from commissions, sales charges, bonuses, etc. Usually you have no clue how they are paid and they often don't make a big point of volunteering that information either. The less you know and the quicker you pass by that information, the happier they are.

Here's how it works with these other guys. You invest in a fund or insurance product they recommend and they take 3-5% right off the top in sales fees. Then they get another 0.5-1.0% of your assets in hidden annual commissions.

Often, they get an extra bonus if they sell products over $xxx from one fund company. This could incentivize them to push you into bad products so they hit their bonus targets.

These advisors will also collect fees and commissions by selling you loans and insurance products. This can push them to sell you loans and insurance you don't need (or are over-priced compared to the broader market).

These advisors might also get referral bonuses (money or gifts) from people they refer you to. This could include a mortgage broker, real estate seller, car dealership, or travel agent. These handshake deals can be very lucrative and totally unknown to you or even their bosses.

It's one big murky system but unfortunately it's the most common form of compensation in the Canadian personal finance world. The largest advisory firms in Canada work this way because it's lucrative for them—stay far away!

Complacency

All too often clients with advisers are way too complacent with their investments. Almost stupidly, they trust everything their adviser does... until a market crash that is. Communication can be poor and portfolio risk levels are often inappropriate.

Good advisers take the time to explain everything to you and should answer all questions you have in a way that you easily understand. No industry jargon or doctor's office Latin. They should be clear and reassuring, but blunt and honest.

Good advisers will freely admit they can't control the market and neither can you or anyone else. The only thing they can do is structure your portfolio so that in most situations it will meet your needs: your risk tolerance, volatility tolerance, income needs, tax efficiency, and return expectations.

They should encourage you to stick to the strategy you developed together regardless of current market performance. The only time investment strategies should change is if something drastically changed in your personal situation. Market corrections should not affect investment strategies!

Good advisers will provide you with good information that compares your investment returns with the market benchmarks on at least an annual basis. That is the MSCI ACWI Index (in Canadian dollars) for all stocks and the FTSE TMX Universe Bond Index for bonds. *Let me know by way of comment if these links are changed*

If your portfolio exposes you to 60% stocks and 40% bonds, the real benchmark comparison should be 60% MSCI ACWI and 40% FTSE TMX Universe Bond Index. Do not accept performance comparison to a compilation of multiple indices.

Do not be fooled by advisers recommending a complicated portfolio and then comparing to a complicated benchmark. Comparisons should always be made in the exact proportions of major asset classes that were specified in your original financial plan which they developed with you! Don't forget, complicated plans are simply your adviser believing their complicated portfolio will outperform a simple portfolio.

Bad advisers will turn to jargon when they are asked questions they don't understand. They try to appear much smarter than you through terminology. They will sound very wishy-washy on investment strategy and will promote "tinkering" with your portfolio when you aren't happy with returns.

Bad advisors will also be hesitant to provide you with clear investment return information. They will rarely compare your performance to the real benchmarks.

Never trust an adviser who compares your performance to a "custom benchmark" established by the fund company. Also, never accept a comparison to "comparable funds". That's slang for we picked the crap out there to make you believe we look good. Don't forget, less than 20% of actively managed funds outperform their benchmarks so there's lots of crap to choose from when picking comparable funds.

Corrupt Practices

Good advisers develop investment plans with you based on your personal situation. They will be very clear about how they are diversifying and structuring your portfolio to meet your risk tolerance, tolerance for volatility, financial situation, and expected return on investment.

Once this plan is in place, good advisers will stick with it regardless of market performance. The only trading they should be doing is the initial buying in the desired proportions and the maintenance to keep the desired allocations as the market moves. The portfolio adjustments should be periodic and systematic. Once a quarter, twice a year, annually, when the allocations are off by more than 5%, or another similar standard.

Bad advisers love to play on your emotions. They over-promise returns and under-explain risk. They put you in assets based on your naive beliefs or their gut instincts. Run far, far away as fast as you can if an adviser suggests you buy what they believe should "outperform". Or is "currently trending upwards". Or if they can "guarantee an easy X% with minimal risk". The only investment with minimal risk is government bonds—they will return 2-3% a year.

Bad advisers also promote portfolio tinkering. Gold goes up, they put you in their 'Assertive Gold Miners Value Fund'. Oil prices crash, they suggest you move out of the 'Global Oil Opportunities Fund' and into their 'European Banks Disciplined Equity Fund'. They simply are not sticking to any plan, if there even is one to begin with. It's emotional investing, performance chasing, and you will lose in the long run.

To make matters worse, this portfolio tinkering by bad advisers is borderline criminal. Every time they move you out of a product and into another they can collect a sales charge (3-5% of the purchase value remember). Not only that, by the time the next fund is "hot", its sector is probably already overbought and won't continue climbing the same way.

Research has shown that funds which outperformed their sector over the previous five or ten years are very likely to underperform the sector benchmark in the next similar time frame.

Dalbar, a U.S.-based financial industry analytics company, publishes an insightful report annually on investor and adviser behaviour. Year after year Dalbar finds that mutual fund investors substantially underperform broad indices. So what are Dalbar's recommendations to advisers? Stop over-promising clients on performance, pay attention to client risk tolerance and properly control risk exposure, and make accurate promises in clear terms of probabilities.

Complicated Portfolios

Good advisers have you invested in products you easily understand. It should be so easy that you could do it yourself if you had the time, discipline, or confidence. Index ETFs, larger individual companies, gold bullion, farmland or timber funds, office or apartment building funds, you get the drift.

Stay away from any funds that charge more than 1% in management fees. Hell, stay away from funds that charge more than 0.50% in management fees. It's unnecessary and no, they will not perform better because their managers are "smarter". Very, very, very few investment managers are able to consistently outperform the comparable index.

Good advisers also limit your portfolio holdings to a reasonable number of investment products. For sure less than 20 holdings, probably less than 10. Warren Buffett's $150 billion investment portfolio owns less than 50 different stocks; the top 10 holdings account for 80% of his total portfolio. If the Oracle himself can invest $120 billion in just 10 holdings, a good adviser can definitely keep your six or seven-figure portfolio down to 10 holdings.

Bad advisers push you into complicated products that you don't understand. This includes funds with other creative names like "disciplined", "balanced", "special", "concentrated", "strategic", and so on. Fancy words that translate to under-performing, overpaid, stock-picking, not-so-magical investment managers who are probably plain greedy to boot.

Bad advisers also put you into portfolios with an enormous number of holdings. If the portfolio proposed suggests you invest in 50, 80, or even 100 different funds, stocks, and other products, run away. It's a tell-tale sign that your adviser is massaging products into computer software programs in order to present you with implied future performance based on past performance that fits your wants and needs just right. Or he is presenting complicated portfolios to appear more valuable and knowledgeable.

Bad advisers tend to sell you into products which are very similar. I can almost guarantee the 'Opportunity Senior American Fund' will perform similar to the 'US Strategic Equity All-star Fund' over the long haul: very poorly. Don't get fooled into thinking two shitty products are actually different. Shit is shit. Period.

A Good Adviser Is...

A good adviser is honest and clear about their compensation. They encourage the use of low-cost products, like ETFs, because it doesn't impact how they get paid.

Good advisers work with you to structure a portfolio with 20 or fewer holdings which aligns with your risk tolerance and financial circumstances. They promise you realistic, or even cautious, expected long-term investment returns.

Good advisers acknowledge they cannot help you outperform the market benchmarks, but they can keep you from drastically underperforming those benchmarks.

Good advisers help you stick to the investment plan that you created together, regardless of market performance and your emotions.

A good adviser is like a good sports coach—they use their knowledge and confidence to push you farther than you could go on your own while protecting you from injury.

Comments & Questions

All comments are moderated before being posted for public viewing. Please don't send in multiple comments if yours doesn't appear right away. It can take up to 24 hours before comments are posted.

Comments containing links or "trolling" will not be posted. Comments with profane language or those which reveal personal information will be edited by moderator.

Finding a Good Financial Adviser (Part 1)

In the past I have talked about incentives. Research demonstrates over and over that incentives are powerful influences in decision making. One great example of this is the use of taxation on deterring certain behaviours over the long term: cigarette and carbon taxes for example.

In Canada we largely live in a buyer-beware consumer culture. While certain protections exist for blatant fraud and gross negligence in duties, for the most part the average consumer can really be jerked around before someone gets smacked for it.

Things like negligence, minor fraud, or just unethical behaviour can be very difficult to prove as an criminal or fair trading protection offense. It gets especially difficult when nearly every "professional" in the field is doing it.

For this reason, it is important to understand the implications of each decision you make, or you are encouraged to make.

Ripe for Abuse

The personal finance industry is one profession that is particularly ripe for abuse. After all, it is all about money.

Most potential clients know little about finance to begin with—financial literacy is extremely low. Canadians don't understand stock markets and most perceive stocks to be inherently risky. There are heaps of terminology and jargon that can rival any legal document. Cloudy compensation structures are the norm. For these reasons, there is a massive reliance on trust in the "professionals"—guys and gals who hold three-letter designations and are employed by some bank, insurance company, or investment group.

Getting certified to provide financial advice and other services isn't overly difficult. All you need to do is find a job at a registered firm, take a few quick courses online while you're working, and buy a few nice suits. Nothing too crazy. You actually don't even need to have graduated from high school.

Investment firms are money making machines. Assets under management is everything, so sales abilities rather than financial knowledge and strong ethics are driving factors for employment. In other words, you can be a broke-ass, failed at school, living in mom's basement, financially illiterate bum, but if you can sell and put on a good facade, well... you're hired.

Choosing a Good Adviser

I personally am a strong believer in being your own adviser. Provided you are willing to put in the work and keep your emotions under control, the incentives are lined up the way they should be—no one cares more about your money than you.

That said, I also realize that my personal knowledge of the investment and finance world is better than average. This makes me much more comfortable with self-directed investing compared to many others.

I have mostly learned by reading and making mistakes. I've consumed tonnes and tonnes of books, blogs, financial reports, financial media, and other documents. While I learned how to read accounting documents and financial statements at university, my formal education did little for me when it comes to investing. The best education is losing money and doing a thorough analysis of what went wrong.

I'd be the first to admit that I've made some mistakes, but overall self-directed investing has been a huge success for me. Despite the mistakes I've made, I am absolutely convinced I would be worse off now had I worked with a "professional" from day one.

Reasons why? Compensation, complacency, corruption, and complication.

In the personal finance landscape, the odds are stacked against me. I would probably have chosen a salesperson, not a good money manager.

It's important to be able to separate good advisers from bad ones, even if you have limited knowledge of finances and investing yourself.

Here are four factors to help you find a good adviser, not just a greedy salesperson.

Comments & Questions

All comments are moderated before being posted for public viewing. Please don't send in multiple comments if yours doesn't appear right away. It can take up to 24 hours before comments are posted.

Comments containing links or "trolling" will not be posted. Comments with profane language or those which reveal personal information will be edited by moderator.