Forum

Wealth Professional forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Notify me of new replies via email
Wealth Professional | 22 May 2015, 09:30 AM Agree 0
The current fight to ban upfront fees is compromising the industry’s future success and likely strengthening the hand of robo-advisors and banks, caution industry veterans.
  • Kevin O'Brien | 22 May 2015, 10:27 AM Agree 0
    I was at a meeting for Advocis in Toronto (fall 2014) and a comment was made in regards to England's out-right banning of commissions on financial products...Perhaps the desired result of a 100% ban on commissions is that the government will be able to provide voters total dependence on social programs in return for votes... this was a sobering thought but nevertheless it was mentioned to the room.
  • Niki | 22 May 2015, 10:47 AM Agree 0
    This is going to do a few things.

    1) Advisors will have to re-think their succession plans--if they have one.
    2) Advisors will have to think about selling or sharing a portion of their books to start-up young advisors. How else are they going to have a succession plan.
    3) The competition in the Industry will be reduced by the number of advisors who will not be able to start as FAs without assets. Are you cool with that?
    4) With fewer Advisors (a drop in 33% maybe?), the Industry will need to get a grip on the Education levels--including the achievements prior to becoming an advisor. Master's or PHD anyone? More invested in knowledge--the better. Physicians, Surgeons, Dentists, Lawyers--all have years of education. Why not FAs?
    5) Selling one's book may become illegal too! Ever thought about that?
  • Kathy Waite Your Net Worth Manager | 22 May 2015, 11:54 AM Agree 0
    Funny I keep hearing about the average advisor being 58 but I don't see any books for sale. I think they are all sitting on them collecting the trailers!
    My son "the new generation" was in negotiations with a guy recently who wouldn't sell to him because he uses ETFS and they " are dangerous" the level of knowledge some of the old timers is laughable. They just sell own brand garbage.

  • Frank Miemiec | 22 May 2015, 03:24 PM Agree 0
    I disagree. You assume that all young advisors have to get in the business the same way you did. Young advisors today should apprentice with the thousands of ageing advisors as part of a planned business succession. The ageing advisors will pay them part of the No Load trailer fee income they already receive from existing clients, until they are ready to sell them the whole practice. When all of us were young we were competing to grow our books when managed money was still new, and did not have thousands of senior advisors needing to prepare to sell their large books. The managed money marketplace is now relatively mature and requires collaborative succession to ensure service continuity for clients. Young advisors will survive just fine being successors to successful senior advisors who can afford to pay a regular income for their services from existing revenues. Successful young advisors will simply build their own service revenue stream on top of that base. DSC is one way to start a practice from scratch, but not the only way to get started in the business.
  • Ken kivenko | 22 May 2015, 04:39 PM Agree 0
    The industry has to change with the times. Robo advisors are just one threat. Artificial Intelligence and voice recognition are now so advanced that advisors should be worried. That is why a Best interests standard and trusting personal relationships are the new norm
  • Niki | 22 May 2015, 05:10 PM Agree 0
    In terms of Robo Advisors, I wonder who will be liable for software errors in relation to all the things that can go wrong with human beings as their clients? Personally, I have had dealings with systems (not financial) that have robots at the other end, and quite frankly, it is phenominally frustrating! No matter what happens, whether correct or not, you cannot develop a relationship with a robot, that is anyway meaningful. Imagine for a moment: "Oh yay, the robot recognized me"!
    I would not use a robo-lawyer, a robo-physician, a robo-surgeon (you go in for a mole that needs to be biopsied and come out with a new knee), a robo-accountant, a robo-teacher, a robo-coach, a robo-dentist (you go in for a check-up and come out with a whole new set of teeth), a robo-nurse (imagine in the old folks home), so I wonder just how many people will relish the thought of a computer program taking care of their unique situations?
    Michael Steinhardt, the great Hedge Fund Manager stated that it is one thing to understand matters theoretically, and I paraphrase, and quite another to implement them in reality.
    Although robo-advisors are without a doubt a threat to the FA Profession, I really wonder about the long term ethics of implementing a system that simply answers pre-programmed industrially correct responses in a complex world, where all people are different?
  • Ken MacCoy, CHS | 02 Jun 2015, 05:33 PM Agree 0
    I agree with Frank.

    Robo advisors are not a threat to advisors who are ethical, qualified and have a trusting personal relationship with their clients.
  • doug | 04 Jun 2015, 03:01 PM Agree 0
    this for change here.
Post a reply