The Inherent Conflict of Interest Between Asset Under Management Fin. Planner Compensation & Personal Financial Planning

(A Email To Ms. Joyce Hanson relative to her featured front page story about Merrill Lynch's Wealth Management's "Goals Based Planning" in Investment News - A weekly Crain Publication)


Subject: John Thiel & Merrill Lynch's Wealth Management's Goals Based Planning & AUM An Oxymoron & Inherent Conflict of Interests

Ms. Hanson

                     If all you know is a hammer, everything looks like a nail - Maslow

The monetizing business model of both investment firms with asset management divisions and personal financial planning firms (actually asset managers in personal financial planning clothing i.e. a Trojan Horse) is assets under management (with the emphasis on under in reality). The amount of assets under management monetizes the value of the asset management/personal financial planning Trojan horse firm - way more than fees (be it hourly, bracketed, flat fee etc.)

As the cofounder of NAFPA (from which I resigned though I was their Fee Only Personal Financial Planner of the Year in 1985), author of two editions of ENOUGH(sm), blogster (which updates More vs Enough -- healingfinancialanxiety.blogspot.com) AND RETIRED from planning, assets under management personal financial planning compensation is not only an oxymoron to fee only planning but an inherent conflict of interest.

Personal financial planning is first, second, third about managing goals NOT the primacy of managing assets. (Managing Assets is just a tactic).

When one is compensated for managing assets this has the inherent conflict between managing of goals.

And here a couple of examples.

1) how many planners said - keep the mortgage - don't pay it down - and invest in the market?  (Think 2007). Well the mortgage - even after tax increases the amount of the goal (be it slow down, ed, or retirement). One is playing leverage (for the planner as well) which goes both ways. In the meantime, the planner has more assets under management to get his or her 1% annually on....
2) sometimes - especially with those with 'enough' (even with a cushion 'just in case') they need to take less risk (however you define it) which usually means a lower rate of return - but less volatility and potential for loss. This means less revenue from assets under management lowering the monetized value of the firm.

The 'managing goals' Trojan horse is not new. Yes, now it is for assets under management. But do a little historical investigation - and the first attempt I believe was Connecticut General's Living Planning - which was on the death side of objectives versus assets - a ruse for the sale of 'viola' more insurance needed. (Who woulda thought?)

I have personally seen where 'planners' - being compensation primarily via assets under management constructively make planning 'the second class citizen of the firm'  (the dimini? of the firm). For example, neglecting the potential of long term care needs (when life coverage was available and not even discussing it with these clients) and I could give other examples.

And while many can argue that there are conflicts in all compensation methods - transactional, fee, etc - holding out 'goals based planning' as planning when it in reality (and I wonder compensation formulas for planners) an oxymoron. In perspective, there is a difference in degree between going 65 in a 55 mile per house zone and going 120mph. Goals based planning when the compensation is overwhelmingly from assets under managment is 150mph - qualifying it for Fast and Furious 7. So the (im)moral equivalency argument doesn't hold STP The Racer's Edge.

I realize Investment News' readership is primarily those whose compensation is transaction based or assets under management. That said I hope you, Crain and your editor see it fit to give the same front space to an examination of planner compensation and mutuality of clients' interest. And please, understand, I know there is client amnesia (I wrote a piece by that name.) I also know there is no parasite without a host - wanting 'more, more, more' relative to others seeking external validation by more (more, better, now has a habit of becoming less, worse, later). But as fiduciaries - kicking and screaming - recognized in law or not - but in fact - leadership is by example

In A Nutshell: More vs Enough vs Life After Enough - Cascades (Linear & Non Linear)

ENOUGH(sm)

Not ‘Be’ Beholden

Not Take Shit

FUability

Independent of Independent Business

Choice

Alignment with Life Goals & Values

Heal personal financial anxiety

Pursuit of Meaning

Life After ENOUGH(sm)

What Next

Making A Difference

Confrontation with ‘Why’

Meaning

Completing

After Life Insurance

Re-Connection

Continuation

More

Acculturation

To Get Enough (Which Is Never Enough)

Scorecard vs Others

External Validation of ‘Enoughness’

Get More Assets Under Management

More, Better, Now result typically Less, Worse, Later

Habituation

Avoidance of What Next, Why & Meaning as too busy getting More

The MORE Stampede

The MORE Stampede

More!, Better!!, now!!!

Becomes

Less, Worse, Later

The Less-on of

The MORE-ON Stampede

(manage goals not assets or get trampled in 2014)

Deep Risk; Deep Do Do!!

Deep Risk; Deep Do Do!!

What is risk?

·         A four letter word (that doesn’t begin with ‘F’)?

·         A game by Parker Bros?

·         Not achieving the expected outcome/goal/objective?

·         The probability of not achieving expected outcome/goal/objective?

Furthermore, how is uncertainty different than risk?

Whereas risks are known and may, within some variance, be measured and with some semblance of probability, uncertainty is, as Donald Rumsfeld best stated, ‘the unknown, unknowns.’

All is ephemeral (also translated as ‘vanity’)

Ecclesiastes

Man, fearing extinction of sense of self (overwhelming identified with the body), seeks to alleviate risk and uncertainty (in futility) trying to ‘insure’ permanence, continuity and certainty – PERIOD – through acquisition.

Insurance is a tool of acquisition to minimize risk. Plain and simple, insurance is the transference of some degree of risk. PERIOD. Insurance is based on taking a smaller certain loss to prevent a much larger risk. (Note, though rated AAA+ by ‘so called independent insurance rating agencies,’ Mutual Benefit Life, New England Life, Confederation Life all constructively went under.’).

Traditionally and theoretically, the personal financial life planning process  is one of prioritizing and aligning one’s resources and risks to ‘insure’ or increase the probability of making the expected outcome (the expected goal).  However, as the French (frogs) say, ‘that’s all well and good in reality, but how about the theory?

The reality is quite the opposite given:

·         the ‘more’ cultural categorical imperative override derived from the prime mobile of ‘acquisition,

·         ‘the sub derivative reality that the client seeks ‘more,’ regardless of lip service to the opposite

·         Overwhelmingly, planner compensation is based to assets under management or commission

Thus, given the above, the more, more more context & consequential more-onic thinking is compounded and becomes normative by comparison, rationalization and justification superseding, overruling, & countermanding assertions of the process.

Regardless, of the distinctly different platforms of more or enough, there has been a general acknowledgement of the following risks (though not all inclusive) relative to ‘more’ or ‘enough’ orientations. The relative degree of  each  of the following ‘risks’ has been further classified as either ‘shallow’ or ‘deep’  by author William Bernstein

·         Market risk

·         Reinvestment risk

·         Liquidity risk

·         Business risk

·         Tax risk

·         Interest rate risk

·         Concentration risk

·         Job/Career risk (1)

·         Inflation risk (purchasing power risk)

·         Deflation risk

·         Currency risk

·         Political risk

What has changed as a consequence of cultural shift towards entitlement,  grievance card industry membership, taking not making (you didn’t build it), and redistribution (theft renamed) in the name of ‘fairness’ by Animal Farm (2) Fairisses, are two shallow risks that have become potentially deep risks  and more probable:

·         Confiscation risk

·         Devastation risk

True, devastation can come from natural disasters (hough many would classify the so called phony scandals of ‘IRS targeting conservative groups, Benghazi, and Obamacare as a man made devastation disasters. But the confiscation risk potential disaster is sequentially front and center. Yet, it is barely noticeable as the  left continues to lull to sleep the country (regardless of ‘duck’ calls’ analogous to the story of the frog in the kettle:

If you drop a frog in a kettle of boiling water it will jump out immediately in reaction to the pain. On the other hand, if you put the frog in water that is room temperature, slowly heating it, the frog will remain in the kettle and eventually cook to death.

So deep confiscation risk starts with slowly but sequentially increasing the temperature:

·         Ignite with  ‘hope and change’ (even if hoax and chump change),

·         Boost the temperature with a stimulus  (that wasn’t shovel ready) and a summer of job (that didn’t occur)

·         Increase temperature with envy  having upper income ‘folks’ pay  ‘little bit more’ to ‘spread the wealth’

·         Fuel the coveting by raising income taxes on ‘the rich’ (even though 46% pay no federal income tax), and 3.8% redistribution tax again for upper level income people for Obamacare,

·         Heighten the flame with heated class warfare rhetoric (even though the income inequality gap has become greater despite the above and because of the above) calling makers takers and ‘you didn’t build it’ in reaction formation

·         Turn on the after burners intensifying the income inequality pitchfork teleprompter reading while dousing and marginalizing equality of opportunity.

And thus, the frog croaks in the deep do do sleep of confiscation risk – without even singing polliwog a yank(eed) my doodle all the day.

Man is asleep

Guirjieff

Remember Confiscation risk next election.

1.-  Each job (employed source of income) has a ‘beta’ (a volatility). Most doctors income (pre-Obama) has a low beta/volatility factor whereas those in sales (for example real estate which is highly dependent on interest rates) has a much high volatility to their income.

2.- “All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others” akin the smug elitist so called egalitarianism of SP’s (secular progressive collectivists).

Why ENOUGH Is Never ENOUGH

Why ENOUGH (sm) Is Never Enough

Today, of Americans officially designated as ‘poor,’ 99% have electricity, running water, flash toilets, and a refrigerator; 95% have a television, 88% a telephone, 71% a car and 70% air conditioning, Cornelius Vanderbilt had none of these.

The Rational Optimist by Matt Ridley

            As a puppy when playing fetch with both Moses (my male standard poodle who graduated in May of 2013), my female standard poodle -Her Royal Highness (Goodie) - wasn’t satisfied with just her ball – she wanted Moses’ ball despite her inability to hold  both tennis balls in her mouth simultaneously. The result, her Majesty wound up holding neither. (Simcha ((my 7 month old standard poodle puppy)), momentarily, tried this feat – but gave up on it after one afternoon – satisfied with one tennis ball to play with or puncture at a time.)

            It seems no one is “happy” (as in satisfied or flourishing (1)) with one tennis ball and no one has ‘enough.’ There is never enough.

            How come?

            Two previously stated reasons: the soldering of defective premises of acquisition (and it’s derivative more) and happiness.

(More) …It’s the oldest established permanent floating crap game

Guys & Dolls

            First, fearing extinction of ourself (which we identify(2)) of our physical body), man’s preferred strategy to secure permanence, continuity, certainty (immortality) is acquisition. (Note: acquisition in Hebrew is ‘cain.’ And yes, this is the same ‘cain’ as in Cain & Abel as well as the metaphorical reference per the Orson Wells’ classic movie titled ‘The Citizen Kane’). The derivative of acquisition is ‘more.’ The irony, is ‘more for more’s sake” manifesting itself as ‘more, better, now’ has a habit of becoming ‘less, worse, later.’ As e.e. cummings wrote, ‘more, more, more, what are we all morticians?’ and Edward Abbey noted, ‘growth (more) for growth’s sake is the ideology of a cancer cell.’

            Nevertheless, we pursue ‘more’ (two tennis balls) Fast & FUR-iously for ‘happily ever after.’

            Secondly, implicitly and explicitly, is the mirage that getting more – securing more – acquiring ‘more’ will yield enduring happiness. Yet, ‘more’ neither yields certainty, permanence, continuity let alone happiness. Happiness is but a temporary palliative relative comparative state (to others) requiring increasing dosages of more to fuel the hamster hedonic treadmill. To paraphrase an H.L. Mencken anecdote: ‘happiness in my husband making $100 more a week than my sister’s husband.’

Happiness (itself and or promised by the acquisition of more) is an illusion. Happiness is Disneyland packaged  and promised by advertising to solve one’s ‘lack, not enoughness, defectiveness.’ While Disneyization sells ‘happily ever after,’ (which is more) as Tom Hanks and that perky Meg Ryan become now and forever in You Got Mail, advertising pitches ‘more’ as the answer to ‘the dissatisfaction & lack’ yielding sex, status, and eradicating one’s zits (literally and figuratively).

Grabbing too much winds up with nothing

Rabbi Akiva

            Given Ecclesiastes ‘all is ephemeral,’ the pursuit of certainty, continuity, permanence’ via acquisition and it’s derivative more compounded with the additive promise of happiness neither yields immortality nor ‘happiness’ - nor can it. If anything, seeking ‘more for more’s sake,’ more to avoid ‘what next in one’s life,’ or more out of comfortable acculturated habit and hardwiring is never enough and never yields enough.

There are no solutions only tradeoffs

Thomas Sowell

            What are potential tradeoffs to the delusion of ‘more’ and illusion of happiness?

            Relative to happiness:

·         it is better to seek equanimity (rising above the good and the bad)

·         to seek, find ,discover, rediscover “flow in”  one’s life whereby competency meets challenge and time ‘flies’ while ‘engaged.’

·         find, discover, rediscover not the meaning OF life but rather meaning IN one’s life to flourish and ‘flow’ toward

·         akin to abstaining from cookies while losing weight, go Disney Hallmark Channel free (like gluten free) and the Hallmark until you lose the illusion of happily ever after and rich & happy forever

Relative to disassociating from More

·         know what ENOUGH is – really

·         want what you have

·         seek equanimity rather than than ‘a hit of more’

·         find one’s flow (see above) to engage and flourish

·         find, discover, rediscover meaning IN one’s life

·         re-member materially you are better off than Vanderbilt

·         most certainly have dogs in your life

Notwithstanding  the above most will still attempt to get both tennis balls in their mouth, anyway – as ‘enough’ takes ‘balls.’

         

1.- flourish is another name for ‘flow’ whereby one is engaged as challenge meets competency and ‘time flies.’

2.-  our identification, despite denials otherwise, is ‘being through having’ (and ‘more’ having is ‘more’ being – cumbaya.)

The Story of The Black Sheep & More

The Story of The Black Sheep & More

Grabbing too much winds up with nothing

Rabbi Akiva

            Most interpreters of the story of the black sheep story come to conclusion that the black sheep was ostracized, removed, banished, expelled,  and or rejected.

            Wrong.

             Au contraire, mon ami, Francois.

The black sheep knew that the farmer’s good care and feeding wasn’t out of the kindness in his heart, but rather to fatten up the sheep for thicker lambchops (sans Shari Lewis and Charley Horse) increasing his compensation at slaughter.

            Rather than waiting for the inevitable, the black sheep choose escape (with the further secondary gain of not having to endure his sheepish relatives including Pearl Schwartz & Cousin Junior at “Passover”.)

            Therefore, the black sheep – rather than being an outcast – proactively took it on the lamb as he ‘knew more would be less – the end of him’ unlike the ‘more-on’ mutton heads who remained.

            This black sheep was no Pascal lamb.

The Ultimate 'MORE'

The Ultimate ‘MORE’ for MORE-ONS in 6 words:

 plenty of nothing you haven’t got.