InvestmentsMay 23 2016

What’s best for the client is what’s best for your business

twitter-iconfacebook-iconlinkedin-iconmail-iconprint-icon
Search supported by
What’s best for the client is what’s best for your business

Many advisers, like stockbrokers in the past, continue to prefer the day-to-day activity of recommending individual trusts and funds to clients one at a time, and the connection to the investment markets that this conveys.

Why does recommending a model discretionary fund manager (DFM) make more sense for both client and adviser alike?

What is best for the client will, in the long and the short run, be best for the adviser, so there is a win-win when good investment outcomes grow more likely. This begins with accurate risk assessment.

Clients have a level of risk tolerance that will remain consistent over long periods. They will also have an individual loss capacity. Both tolerance and capacity can be reliably measured but these scores are useful when mapped to actual portfolios.

A DFM has the anonymised data of all their clients to help maintain these mappings, and to ensure asset allocation is consistent with the tolerance and capacity of each client segment. When changes occur, whether in asset class behaviour, fund performance, tax treatment or governance, an immediate change is made. A DFM investment team looks only at markets, year-round, hour by hour, giving continuity of monitoring assessment. This is a strength and major factor in achieving the right, final client outcome.

Many would agree that tax and pension legislation are large enough subjects in which to achieve mastery, without having to cover the world of investments on top Patrick Ingram, Parmenion

Periodic withdrawals and additions of capital can have the same effect when modelling is weak.

At the heart of professionalism is a thoughtful, objective approach to the challenges faced by clients and a set of dependable solutions.

Generally this is met by segmentation of clients by size, or need. When a client is accurately segmented, a professional investment proposition will precisely, effectively and in a timely fashion adapt their investments to their needs. The speed of response, continuity of oversight and depth of research of a DFM tick all the boxes.

In a ‘one stop shop’, if the investment process goes wrong, it may not be addressed right away if embarrassment is the first reaction.

The demands of regulation not to carry out an activity without expertise is a powerful driver. Many would agree that tax and pension legislation are large enough subjects in which to achieve mastery, without having to cover the world of investments on top. Continuity of oversight is not only a matter of keeping on top of CPD and the day-to-day swings of markets, it is also about maintaining the ongoing research and due diligence endeavour of individual fund managers.

Recommending a DFM portfolio delivers great client outcomes and establishes the discrete professionalism of the adviser. What is the business logic for the advice firm? The cost to an adviser of maintaining a DFM portfolio recommended to a client is very low. The costs of maintaining an ongoing research and monitoring capability of individual funds or in-house models, to any standard of professionalism are very high. On the revenue side, adviser remuneration derives from the advice work undertaken in the key tasks of initial recommendation and periodic review. It’s simpler for the client to understand.

Finally, one of the true costs to managing investments on a one-at-a-time basis is that it begs the question, who can say what that business is worth? The recent M&A activity in wealth management has been for firms built around professionalised, modelled portfolio solutions.

Patrick Ingram is head of corporate relationships at Parmenion