By: Jack Waymire | February 2, 2012
The big money management firms seem to be getting bigger so I don’t think so.
The big firms have two major advantages that they exploit with their marketing. They have revenues that permit them to spend a lot of money are marketing. It takes more than $100 million to build a brand name in America.
Their marketing prowess enables them to become brand names. A certain percentage of investors believe they are safer when a brand name firm invests their assets.
These investors are making two major mistakes. First, size is not a good indicator of investment acumen. Chances are the company is better at marketing financial services than producing exceptional returns.
Second, investors who believe they are safer must have missed the headlines that documented billions of dollars of fines that big companies have paid for cheating investors. It is fairly well known that company executives are paid huge bonuses for short-term earnings. They are not paid to help investors achieve their financial goals.
No Comments
By: Jack Waymire | February 1, 2012
I’m fascinated with the advertising messages of money managers who want people to believe they produce exceptional results for their clients.
Unfortunately, no money management firm can make that claim so they resort to marketing messages that convey exceptional results without saying they actually produce those results.
One of my favorites is Franklin Templeton’s message that it has been able to “achieve great heights”. If heights are results then they must be doing a great job for their clients. Why don’t they come out and say that then document the claim with GIPS compliant, audited track records?
No Comments
By: Jack Waymire | January 31, 2012
Several money managers, most notably T. Rowe Price, market their funds as beating their Lipper averages. But, what does than mean and should it influence your decision when you select money managers to invest your assets?
First you have to understand how the Averages are constructed. They are the average performance of the 30 largest actively managed funds in an asset class (for example, large capitalization growth stocks). By excluding the small funds, that may outperform their larger counterparts, Lipper benefits the largest funds in the asset class.
Second, the funds are all “actively” managed. Lipper excludes funds that are passively managed. A high percentage of actively managed funds under-perform their passive counterparts. Once again, Lipper’s methodology benefits particular types of funds.
I wonder if large funds buy services from Lipper? If they do, Lipper may manipulate its averages to minimize the impact on its larger client
(1) Comment
By: Jack Waymire | January 30, 2012
Yes, if your investments are limited to large capitalization U.S. stocks. You can compare your financial advisor’s performance to the S&P 500. Advisors who outperform the S&P 500 are frequently referred to as beating the market.
The answer is No if you own a diversified portfolio of small, mid, and large cap stocks, plus bonds, international stocks, REITs, and other asset classes. In this case the S&P 500 is not an effective proxy for the performance of all of your assets.
You need a diversified Benchmark that represents the performance of all of the asset classes in your portfolio. In a few weeks InvestorWatchdog.com will launch five free Benchmarks with performance data back to 2008. You select the Benchmark that fits your current situation and tolerance for risk.
No Comments
By: Jack Waymire | January 26, 2012
In a recent study conducted by PaladinRegistry.com and ByAllAccounts.com, a disturbingly high percentage of investors said they relied on financial advisor references to validate their ethics and performance.
This is disturbing at two levels. No advisor will deliberately give a prospective client a bad reference. In fact, references are carefully chosen to make sure they only make positive statements about the advisor.
The next level is even more disturbing. Unethical advisors may use friends, not clients, as references. Or, advisors act as references for other professionals in return for positive comments about themselves. None of this is disclosed to investors.
References are too easy to manipulate and are subjective (think Bernie Madoff). Investors need a new objective way to evaluate ethics and performance.
No Comments
By: Jack Waymire | January 25, 2012
Financial planners, financial advisors, investment advisors, and money managers are financial fiduciaries. That’s because they are Registered Investment Advisors (RIAs) or Investment Advisor Representatives (IARs) who work for RIAs. What does this mean to you, the investor?
Fiduciaries are held to the highest ethical standards in the financial services industry. They are required to put their clients’ financial interests ahead of their own. In other words, your financial interests come first.
Non-fiduciaries are held to a lower ethical standard called suitability. In a nutshell, a suitable investment means that an investment is appropriate for an investor’s willingness and ability to take on some level of risk. Here’s a good article that explains suitability in more detail.
If you’re looking for a new financial advisor or your first financial advisor, make sure you select an RIA or IAR and require them to acknowledge their fiduciary responsibilities in writing. Remember: it’s your money so the financial professional you hire should have the highest level of accountability back to you, the client!
No Comments

Search by Key Word, Category or Author Name







