財務顧問不應該把產品委外, 卻忽略了如何幫客戶達成財務目標

財務顧問不應該把產品委外, 卻忽略了如何幫客戶達成財務目標

財務顧問的薪酬模式—財務顧問不應該把產品委外,卻忽略了如何幫客戶達成財務目標 我刊登在FPSB官方部落格Financial Planet上的文章 Remuneration Models: Why Planners Shouldn’t Outsource Product Sales 原文網址:http://www.financialplanet.org/2012/remuneration-models-financial-planner/

財務顧問的薪酬模式—財務顧問不應該把產品委外, 卻忽略了如何幫客戶達成財務目標 除了純粹收取顧問費的財務顧問外, 產品的配置與搭配對一般的財務顧問來說都是必要的, 因為經由如此可以協助客戶完成他的財務目標。 那麼對財務顧問來說, 我們跟一般的銷售業務又有何不同? 最大的不同應該是: 財務顧問在替客戶選擇最適合的商品時, 是根據它是否能幫客戶達成他們的財務目標來做選擇, 而銷售業務則是根據產品的價格, 可以收取的傭金多寡..等來做選擇。 在臺灣一些財務顧問選擇只做規劃, 不替客戶做產品端的服務, 但是這樣將無法達成客戶的完整財務規劃, 其一是他將失去對產品端的主導權。理財規劃的四個流程: 規劃、計畫施行、監控及調整, 他將只有負責前端的規劃, 後三個步驟必須由客戶自己另外找人來完成, 這將失去完整財務規劃的意義。 財務顧問如果選擇把產品委外, 交由其他業務負責, 例如投資交給基金公司, 保險交給保險業務員負責, 他將失去整體的主導權。第一是他不能擔保, 其他的業務員是否可以按照他所替客戶做的財務規劃的邏輯思考及規劃架構的精神, 去幫客戶做產品的安排。例如他原本考慮到客戶保費負擔過重, 超出客戶可以負擔的預算, 因此幫客戶規劃把保費較貴的儲蓄險轉為保障較高, 但是保費相對低廉的定期壽險, 但是當客戶去找保險業務員時, 他可能因為傭金過低, 結果還是建議客戶購買終身壽險或其他保費較高的商品, 於是當初的規劃變成失去意義了。 財務顧問在幫客戶做規劃時, 應該先替客戶做整體考慮, 先不要有把產品端的考慮加入。例如我上次在跟一個客戶談財務規劃時, 他一直在問我投資標的如何配置, 但是經過一番詳談後, 他才透露希望照顧其兄弟姐妹, 也希望為其小孩準備一筆基金, 以便他以後可能留學與創業之用。這就是財務顧問跟一般投資顧問的差異點所在, 投資顧問可能只為客戶考慮投資收益, 我們卻必須替客戶考慮到他的整體狀況:他的人生願望, 待完成的財務目標..等, 如果我還是從產品銷售導向的方向去思考的話, 在當下我可能就會忽略掉替客戶做整體財務規劃的目的, 而開始跟他討論起商品如何投資資產配置的方式..等等, 而忽略了更重要, 該替客戶規劃的事項了。 Remuneration Models: Why Planners Shouldn’t Outsource Product Sales With the exception of fee-based financial planners, recommending products is a necessary part of the financial planning process. So, the question we have to ask is, “What makes us different from product salespeople?” When financial planners are deciding which product is a best fit, they are looking for a product that helps clients achieve their goals. When a product salesperson is making the decision, they consider the price of the product and the commission they’ll receive, among other things. Some planners, when building their financial planning businesses, choose to be fee-only to avoid any conflict of interest. To do this, they either outsource product sales to other parties or they don’t recommend products at all. I can understand the benefits of a planner who doesn’t make product recommendations: they maintain their objective image as a planner and there is no confusion about their role. Fee-Only Planners Can’t Complete the Financial Planning Process The purpose of doing financial planning is to develop a comprehensive plan for the client. The financial planning process has 4 steps, in my opinion: planning, implementation, monitoring, and adjustment. A fee-only planner who does not recommend or sell products is only in charge of the planning stage. After the planning, the implementation stage, in which an advisor and/or products are selected, takes place. The client might choose an advisor or products on their own or with the help of the planner. Either way, the planner has given up control over the solution-provider. How can the planner make sure the product seller has the same philosophy as themselves? And, how can the planner guarantee that the seller will suggest products that are in the client’s best interest? In addition to losing control, the planner will lose the opportunity to watch the client achieve their goals. The fee-only business model can work, but only if clients are independent and fully knowledgeable about financial products. If you are outsourcing to a salesperson during the implementation stage, you might deal with the following problems: 1. You will have to manage several salespeople in different financial areas: insurance, fund house, bank etc. If they do something wrong, the client might hold you responsible. 2. You will lose the ability to control the whole project. Since the planning and the solution will be done separately, your philosophy might not be carried through all the way. For example, you find a client’s yearly premium of insurance is over their budget. Your suggest the client lower their premium by changing the endorsement policy to a term life policy. When the client approaches an insurance agent and asks for a term life policy, the agent does not want to sell the term life policy, because of the low premium and low commission rate. At the end of the day, this client was torn between product sales and financial planning. Financial Planning Considers a Client’s Entire Life If you are at the supermarket preparing for a party, you have to purchase decorations, candles, napkins, and other things. You must consider how compatible all the purchases are together – the colors, the look, etc. This is similar to what financial planners must do for clients. When we recommend/purchase products for clients, we consider how the product will fit into the bigger picture of the financial plan. A lot of times, the product with the lowest price is tempting, when not considering the big picture. But, after getting to know a client’s goals, there are many more factors that should be looked at, such as risk and maintenance. I recently met with a new client who is a well-off doctor. He has a lot of investments in stocks, funds, and annuity insurances. The dividends he’ll receive from these three product categories will easily allow him to have a satisfying retirement. He was curious about investment and asset management but instead, I asked him what he wishes to accomplish in the future. He responded that he wanted to help his elder sisters and brothers, save for his son’s study abroad, and possibly open a business. I proposed the idea of a trust that would have pay his siblings monthly and/or allow money for study abroad or opening a business. The client had never heard of this suggestion and thanked me. If my focus during the meeting was on selling products, I would have spent my time discussing asset management and investments, neglecting his future goals. Many planners handle their clients’ investments and they are very skillful at it. In my opinion, investment needs to follow the same rules of financial planning. Planners watch the market trends and modify asset allocation, but they don’t always pursue maximum return. Risk control, in my opinion, is more important than return. We have to maintain low volatility and keep the necessary return within an acceptable amount of risk. The Difference Between a Financial Planner and An Investment Adviser It would be helpful to clarify the role of a financial planner versus that of an investment adviser. Investment management is a part of the financial planning process. The goal of a financial planner is to maintain the client’s money so it is readily available when they need it in the future. The client might have their money in a single investment or a fixed monthly investment. The goal of a investment adviser, normally, is to pursue maximum return. Client’s measure their adviser by investment performance. Investment advisers don’t need to consider life goals or plans and they don’t care about when the client will need money in the future. For example, I had a near-retiree client with a fifteen-year investment. When the financial crisis hit, they lost fifty percent of their total investment. What would have happened if this client was planning to withdraw a certain fixed amount from this investment for their spending money during retirement? What if this was the only source of their retirement income? The investment had dropped fifty percent. Even if the investment returned ten percent every year, following the financial crisis, it would take ten years to return to the original amount. When managing an investment portfolio, the goal is not to pursue maximum return while ignoring risk. A few years ago, some offshore products were introduced to Taiwan that caused a serious loss to clients: Viatical and Life Settlement. Some investment advisers used these products for their clients. This is not the proper way to manage a client’s assets. When we survey a product, risk is the first issue to be considered.



WordPress.com 標誌

您的留言將使用 WordPress.com 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

Twitter picture

您的留言將使用 Twitter 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )


您的留言將使用 Facebook 帳號。 登出 /  變更 )

連結到 %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.