notices - See details
Notices
Enterprising Investor Default Hero Image
4 August 2016 Enterprising Investor Blog

How Can Investment Professionals Add Value?

Enterprising Investor Blogs logo thumbnail

How can the investment profession best serve its clients?

At a time when there's no shortage of confusion, and indeed a shortage of growth, it pays to ask. Interesting questions abound in investing, but the important ones stick around.

The way they are answered tends to change though, so in an effort to take the temperature of our industry, we asked CFA Institute Financial NewsBrief readers where they think the sector can best contribute value to clients.

The results are mind-boggling.


Where do you think the investment profession can add the most value to clients?

Where do you think the investment profession can add the most value to clients?

Asset Allocation Is King.

The vast majority of the 763 respondents clearly view asset allocation and client hand-holding as the two areas where investment professionals can offer the most, with about four out of five participants opting for one of these two choices. This is hardly a revelation. I have spent considerable time and energy writing and speaking about multi-asset investing, of which asset allocation and portfolio construction are critical components, precisely because I believe in that message.

But the magnitude of these preferences compared to the other choices is shocking. A mere 5% (!) of respondents opted for security selection. For a profession that has long considered Security Analysis its bible and Warren Buffett its ultimate role model, we've clearly come a long way.

The asset managers among us now realize their limitations in picking stocks and other securities, and asset owners have recognized these shortcomings as well. The implications of this for today’s investment professionals are quite far-reaching. Finance pros have been trained for and performed a different job, one that many have not done well. And now, alas, they are expected to do something for which they have not been trained!

The solution is not to give up on our heritage altogether, though. That’s why I am both pleased with the overall survey results and disappointed by the 5% figure. Multi-asset investing is about pulling all the levers and adding value in any way we can. So the future star of the investment profession is not an asset allocator or a stock picker. The successful investor will be the one who can do both well.

Asset Allocation Is Not King?

An important caveat to my interpretation of the survey results: Some of my colleagues pointed out that respondents might simply have been influenced by "Determinants of Portfolio Performance," by Gary P. Brinson, CFA; L. Randolph Hood, CFA; and Gilbert L. Beebower, first published in the Financial Analysts Journal.

As later publications indicate, the results from Brinson and company were more about the time series analysis: that, over time, the return variation for a single portfolio of investments, be it the overall market or a number of endowment plans, as used by Brinson and his coauthors, is ultimately driven by asset allocation.

That does not mean that return variations across funds are largely explained by asset allocation, as many who misinterpreted the paper came to believe. As a matter of fact, measured across a number of funds with similar objectives, asset allocation is actually less important a driver of returns than security selection. Roger G. Ibbotson and Paul D. Kaplan, CFA, found that asset allocation only explains about 40% of the return variation in their sample of balanced funds measured over a 10-year period.

The Client Is King . . . Please Hold the King’s Hand.

More than a third (36%) of poll participants thought the investment profession could best serve clients by helping them navigate the emotional roller-coasters that come with investing, steering them away from the impulsive decisions that can damage their portfolios over the long term.

Behavioral finance is accepted in more quarters of academic finance. In practice, this is especially true for wealth managers since retail clients tend to have less experience with market volatility. It is heartening to see that CFA Financial NewsBrief readers agree on this.

So what's the ultimate lesson of these results? The investment world — as previous generations know — has changed, and investment professionals need to develop new skills to deal with a new reality.

An earlier version of this article was entitled "How to Add Value."

If you liked this post, don't forget to subscribe to the Enterprising Investor.


All posts are the opinion of the author. As such, they should not be construed as investment advice, nor do the opinions expressed necessarily reflect the views of CFA Institute or the author's employer.

16 Comments

JM
James McRitchie (not verified)
4th August 2016 | 3:15pm

How about helping them change good companies by making them even better? Some CFAs help their clients file shareholder resolutions on corporate governance, environmental and social issues.

LC
Larry Cao, CFA (not verified)
6th August 2016 | 4:13am

James,

That's a fair point and is beyond the scope of this survey as it was originally intended. An issue that has been bothering many of us is that the public seems to see doctors and lawyers as professions so much so that they'd pay for their service and certification is required to get into those lines of work. Investment seems to be less established as a profession in that sense. We were simply asking the NewsBrief readers how they think our profession adds value.

Thanks for visiting our blog and sharing your thoughts with fellow readers of the blog.

Warm regards,
Larry

CB
Christopher Bradley, CFA (not verified)
4th August 2016 | 5:25pm

With regards to your remark "That’s why I am both pleased with the overall survey results and disappointed by the 5% figure. Multi-asset investing is about pulling all the levers and adding value in any way we can. So the future star of the investment profession is not an asset allocator or a stock picker. The successful investor will be the one who who [sic] can do both well."

Keep in mind that we were given discrete choices when voting. It's not necessarily to say that stock selection isn't value additive, but perhaps not considered the "most" value additive amongst those options. No need to be disappointed.

LC
Larry Cao, CFA (not verified)
6th August 2016 | 4:30am

Christopher,

Point taken and I suppose I should be less disappointed.

From a scientific point of view, asset allocation and security selection have equal potential in affecting portfolio risk and returns. Given that more of us have security analysis training and idolized Warren Buffet, I was hoping that at least half the votes would have been cast in favor of security selection. That's why I was disappointed.

The only justification favoring asset allocation that much over security selection is that we all realize asset allocation has at least an equal shot at making an impact and it is so far the road less traveled by, maybe that's where the largest opportunities are.

Thanks for visiting our blog and sharing your thoughts with us.

Warm regards,
Larry

JJ
JJ Jelincic (not verified)
5th August 2016 | 9:37am

It is not clear to me that you can define a "good" asset allocation if you have not first developed the appropriate goals.

Some once said if you don't know where you are going all roads will get you there.

LC
Larry Cao, CFA (not verified)
6th August 2016 | 4:38am

JJ,

Thanks for visiting our blog and sharing your thoughts.

You made a good point. If we phrased the question in true Econ 101 fashion, it would have read: "All things equal, where can an extra unit of an average investment professional's input generate the maximum amount of extra utility for his or her clients?" And that is indeed what we meant when we asked the question.

Warm regards,
Larry

HV
Henry Verbeek (not verified)
8th August 2016 | 12:05pm

I'd be interested in comparing client responses to the value proposition to those of "insiders" to the industry.

LC
Larry Cao, CFA (not verified)
9th August 2016 | 10:52pm

Henry,

Good point. Our respondents include both those who manage money and their clients. It would be interesting to see how each group's response differ. Deeper issues remain even then though as we'd still want to know why they vote the way they vote - for example, if clients fail to see the value of security selection, does it really mean security selection is useless or is it just that the clients are unable to see its value for some reason?

Thanks for visiting our blog and sharing your thoughts.

Warm regards,
Larry

DS
Don Steinmann (not verified)
8th August 2016 | 12:41pm

*Most* value is the key point here. I think hands down it's in helping clients deal with behavioral issues. According to JP Morgan, over the last 20 years, the S&P 500 has averaged an 8.2% annual return, inflation has averaged 2.2%, and the average investor has averaged a 2.1% annual return. So in an 8% equity growth environment, investors are under performing by 6% and are not even keeping up with inflation. This is the most shocking number that I know of in all of finance. Protecting clients from "buy high, sell low" is the single biggest affect we can have on client returns.

LC
Larry Cao, CFA (not verified)
9th August 2016 | 11:04pm

Don,

Thanks for visiting our blog and sharing your thoughts. Understanding behavioral issues are certainly critical to any investment process. Bear in mind though we are all human and we'll never put all our money in stocks all the time. Nor should we.

Warm regards,
Larry