Meir Statman draws analogies between investor behavior and nutrition, in his book What Investors Really Want. For example, we all know that the best way to eat nutritious, low-cost meals is by dining on healthy food at home. But that’s just not fun for most of us: We’d much rather indulge in rich foods at expensive, fancy restaurants.
Investors want what Statman calls “utilitarian benefits.” We know that a diversified, low-cost portfolio is theoretically best, but we'd rather have the amusement and bragging rights of expensive, risky investments like hedge funds and specialized equity managers.
In keeping with the dining analogy, investment advisers are like waiters catering to the diverse appetites of their clients. Clients want their advisers (waiters) to guide them through their investment choices (menu selections). A successful financial adviser recognizes that the ingredients for satisfying clients are as follows:
- Menu: A successful waiter needs a good menu with tasty selections that serve a variety of palates. A successful financial consultant needs a variety of solutions that meet a wide range of investor needs.
- Selection: A successful waiter helps diners select something from the menu they will like. A successful consultant identifies client needs and matches them to a solution that will make them happy.
- Follow up: A successful waiter asks for feedback and makes changes as necessary. A successful financial consultant monitors progress toward the achievement of goals and recommends changes along the way.
Menu of Models
A tasty menu item has quality ingredients and is skillfully prepared. In investing, we create models, each designed for a specific type of investor. Risk is the quality ingredient, and packaging that risk to provide the highest return is the skillful preparation.
Most models start by identifying points on the efficient frontier, like the five points shown in the graph below. Each numbered portfolio theoretically provides the highest return for the indicated level of risk. Harry Markowitz won a Nobel Prize in 1990 for his theory of portfolio choice, recognized as the birth of modern portfolio theory (MPT). The efficient frontier is the centerpiece of MPT.
Efficient Frontier
Most do not realize that another Nobel Prize-winning theory refines the efficient frontier. William F. Sharpe also won the Nobel in 1990 for his capital asset pricing model (CAPM), which demonstrates that risk control is best achieved with cash, among other things. As shown in the graph below, the capital market line, which blends the “market” with cash, dominates the efficient frontier by providing higher returns for the same level of risk. (It’s important to realize that the “market” in this context is the entire world of risky assets, not just the US stock market.) This represents a challenge, because we can’t know the real composition of the current market, but we can guess. Here is an example:
Example of a World Market Portfolio Estimate
Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM)
Other refinements to models are like the house specialties that set some restaurants apart. Models can be refined in two ways:
- Market views can adjust asset weightings — timing. For example, the current bond manipulation to zero interest argues for shorter duration bonds because there is no reward for taking duration risk.
- Active rather than passive managers can be used. Investors want active managers, and advisers want to give clients what they want, but it’s very difficult to identify skillful active managers. Advisers don’t want to spend the time, energy, and money that it takes to identify skill (as summarized in this infographic), so active managers who underperform are the norm.
Choosing a Model
Selecting a model is like placing a dinner order. There are three ways in which investors can choose:
- Risk-based is like the diner who asks the waiter for a recommendation. Investors don’t know their risk capacity. They want their advisers to tell them. Risk questionnaires can help, with the guidance of an adviser.
- Age-based uses a target date fund glide path to identify an appropriate asset mix. It’s like older diners ordering bland, soft food versus youngsters ordering the more exotic dishes.
- Goals-based uses a model that is expected to earn a return that will produce the desired objective. Calculators help advisers solve for the return that will match cash flows with targeted ending wealth. Then a model is selected that is expected to earn at least that desired return. Goals-based investors are like discriminating diners seeking a culinary treat. Even though they are the most challenging, they are also the most likely to appreciate good service.
Follow Up
Just as waiters help diners through the various courses of the meal, advisers help their clients navigate through phases of life, monitoring progress toward the achievement of objectives and making changes as necessary. We call this “portfolio navigation.” If we've exceeded expectations, we can save less (spend more) and/or reduce risk. If we’re trailing expectations, we can save more (spend less) and/or increase risk. Investors have choices.
Portfolio Navigation
Investors want to make money, just as diners want great food and great service. But both also want to have fun and brag about the experience. Successful advisers are like successful waiters: Both require three key competencies that, while easy to understand, are challenging to do right.
Now you know. Bon appétit!
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.
Image credit: ©iStockphoto.com/Hong Li
13 Comments
Confused? Yes.
My biggest concern is with the concept of those who advertise themselves as an "advisor", which in my research is NOT a term found in the Securities Act. The term found in the Securities Act is spelled "adviser", and this article and comments, use both spellings.
That would be fine, (using two spellings) if you were legally assured that either spelling is considered the same. Yes, they are in the dictionary, but not so in the law.
In other countries (Canada for one) it has been found that brokers can earn more trust (and therefore more money) if they conceal their broker-type licenses (dealing rep is the term in Canada) and they can cheat the system just a little bit by calling themselves an "advisor" (which is a mere title, that anyone can use according to FINRA), rather than an "adviser", which would mean they were breaking the law.
In the end, the public (and most investment industry experts) have no idea if there is a difference between an "advisor" and an "adviser", and thus the clever companies get to have their cake and eat it too. They can earn the trust of the client, more easily, and not have to hold themselves to the fiduciary standard that the "adviser" licensed person must. Big commissions.
Does any of this make any sense? Does anyone have an interest in commenting upon the different terms, the FINRA explanations about there being two VERY different terms. The fiduciary duty of an "adviser", verses the suitability duty of an "advisor", etc.\
I am interested in dialogue with the aim to do serious research and debate into this topic. My own info sent to HBO's John Oliver, and his 20 minutes production on this topic is found here for more background. Thanks for any dialogue. [email protected]
http://unpublishedottawa.com/letter/76561/third-world-style-securities-…
If that's how it works in Canada that is very strange. Here in Australia it doesn't really matter what you call yourself - adviser, advisor, financial consultant etc - they all come under the same regulation.
Ultimately it's all about what you are doing (the service/advice you are providing), not what you decide to put on your business card.
TRUST!!!! That is a key word in Financial Planning. When Investing money TRUST is IMPERATIVE. What has worked for me over many years is starting off in Low Equity Funds so the client sees you are GROWING THE MONEY. Then once that has been accomplished the client TRUSTS you and now you can direct money to Higher Equity Funds still leaving a good portion of the clients money in the Low Equity Funds as assurance to the client. However the TIME that a client wants to be Invested has a profound influence on where and what to Invest in.