How Banking Woes Create Business for Advisors

THINKADVISOR: You said on stage that Raymond James is committed to the advisor-centric model and won't be creating a direct-to-consumer strategy. Can you elaborate?

SCOTT CURTIS: Yes, and to begin with, let's think back to the late 1990s when Scottrade and E-Trade first came out. At that time, there was this big discussion: Why would anyone need to work with a broker when you can just do it all yourself for $20?

Back then, approximately 20% to 25% of those with $100,000 in investable assets referred to themselves as self-directed. Here we are some 25 years later, with a much more robust technology landscape, and that percentage has stayed pretty much the same. When you go up the asset scale the number really falls, as well.

So, that's the real point here. We believe in and are fully committed to the model of human-centric advisors taking the lead with their clients.

And, let's be clear. Developing a direct-to-consumer business is not just a snap of the fingers. There's a big marketing spend required, and ultimately, you have to decide if you want to compete with your own advisors — or if you want to do what we are doing and focus your energy and resources on supporting your advisors.

For us, this is a clear decision. Our focus is on serving the advisors. The advisors are our clients, and we have a duty and a responsibility to them. This is where we can best compete.

Of course, we are leveraging technology and evolving with the times. We are delivering more self-service capabilities for those clients who are interested in directly handling certain transactions on their own.

For example, depositing a check is something clients want to do on their own and are comfortable doing on their own, and we make that possible for them. Simple account transfers are the same, but when it comes to managing the bigger picture and crafting the financial plan, the human advisor's role remains crucial.

The same is true when it comes to estate planning, charitable giving, legacy planning, etc. You could theoretically do all this yourself as an individual consumer with the right tech, but the human expertise that an advisor is bringing to the table is essential. We believe that, and we aren't going to be changing our direction.

Your colleague Jodi Perry spoke at the conference about the Department of Labor's proposed regulations about the reclassification of independent contractors. Can you explain what's at stake for Raymond James and its independent advisor force?

This is an important issue, and that's why we are happy to have Jodi Perry, the president of our independent contractor division, on the board of organizations like the Financial Services Institute, which is advocating against this development.

The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA) and the American Securities Association are also active on this issue. These groups are all strongly opposing anything that would jeopardize the independent contractor status of advisors who choose to operate as such, as independent contractors.

What is going to happen remains to be seen. Ultimately, if we assume the worst and that advisors who are registered with a broker-dealer and who are acting in an independent contractor capacity cannot continue to operate in that way, they would probably be left with two primary choices.

One is to effectively become a statutory employee, with some nuances. At Raymond James, we have an option called Advisor Select where you essentially pay your own expenses and you pick your own real estate, but you are an employee, and you get to take advantage of the firm's benefit plans.

The Advisor Select approach is functionally pretty similar to being an independent contractor, because you remain responsible for your own expenses. We assist you with the accounting so that you can make that happen.

Critically, this model isn't viable for everyone, and your location matters. It works well in 49 states, I would say, but it doesn't work in California nearly as easily, given their own local rules and regulations. Basically, in California, we can't deduct business-related expenses from an employee's pay, and that makes the model difficult.

The second option would be to take a fundamentally different route. If you can't be an independent contractor and maintain a Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA) registration, you may have to just drop that registration and become a fee-only advisor operating under a registered investment advisor.

A financial professional in this situation would have to roll up under a separate RIA — maybe a corporate RIA. This is because, basically, it is the FINRA supervisory requirements that get in the way of these folks being able to maintain the independent contractor status. That's where it gets more complex for these people.

Ultimately, what I can say today is that we continue to engage on this, and we are grateful to our advisors for being involved. They have sent thousands of letters to elected officials opposing any elimination of the ability to remain an independent contractor registered with a broker-dealer or an RIA.

We remain optimistic that there will be a carve out, I will add, because our profession is not really at the core of the bigger issues that are at the heart of this particular policy discussion. We feel good about those chances, but we aren't being complacent about this.

Changing gears, when we talk about banking sector turmoil, does that make the job of recruiting talent easier?

So yes, it has impacted the recruiting opportunities we have. That's clear.

Also, though, our advisors are seeing an opportunity that is just as important. Frankly, their clients are concerned about their cash, and many of them have seen clients take cash that was sitting at some of these troubled financial institutions that have been in the news and move it to Raymond James.