'As an Industry, We Can Do Better' for Clients, RIA Says

Q&A August 05, 2024 at 06:00 PM
Share & Print

Chris Manske

Financial services employ tricks and illusions to fool clients, causing them to fall into financial traps.

That's according to the recently published "Outsmart the Money Magicians," by Christopher Manske.

Manske, who was a Merrill financial advisor for more than a decade before founding an RIA, Manske Wealth Management, 12 years ago, argues that the system is rigged. The book's intent is to reveal institutional "deceptions" and how clients can avoid them.

"Wall Street uses tricks to fool customers," he tells ThinkAdvisor in an interview. "What we need are ethics and integrity."

For example, Manske says, changes in valuation are shown on statements but not profit, per se. That lack of clarity can encourage retirees to sell valuable investments, he adds. He also calls out conflicts of interest, such as revenue sharing.

In the interview with Manske, whose firm manages more than $500 million in client assets, he explains "The Wall Street Wizard of Oz" tactic, in which "the buck [is] passed to some supposed genius behind the curtain."

Here are highlights of our conversation:

THINKADVISOR: Why did you write a book "demand[ing] financial reform," as you describe it?

CHRISTOPHER MANSKE: Wall Street uses tricks to fool customers. As an industry, we can do better for them. Reputation is a powerful thing, and Wall Street has a terrible one. It needs to be better.

But won't the potential implementation of the Labor Department's new fiduciary rule help? 

You can't legislate excellence. We don't need lawmakers to come in and make rules because there's always some clever way around a rule.

What we need are ethics and integrity — a strong moral compass.

The tack of the "Wall Street Wizard of Oz," as you call it, puts "an unknown someone behind a curtain at the end of the Yellow Brick Road." Please explain.

In money management, this concept is prolific: Clients aren't talking directly to the person responsible for the management of their money. 

They've passed the buck to some supposed genius behind the curtain. This helps to diffuse accountability.

Why do you label the Internal Revenue Service and Wall Street "tricksters"?

Because of the regulations surrounding the way Wall Street reports to Main Street. Wall Street is following the tax rules prescribed by the IRS.

For example, investment statements don't show profit in a clear way. You can see a change in value, but maybe some of that change is your own deposits going into the account. 

You see taxable gain and loss, which is not the same thing as profit.

The number shown is based on what we can sell the investment for. So [the firm] is encouraging you to do a transaction.

Is this one way that "retirees get tricked into selling good investments," as you write?

Yes. It's like the magician putting a plastic film around one of the glasses he uses in a coin trick.

The film has been printed to look like it's filled with coins, which is how it appears to the audience.

Likewise, the investment statement has a "costume." It shows the yield based on the price you get if you sell the stock.

"Upfront fees clearly go against the very thing Wall Street supposedly offers," you write. Do clients even know they're paying upfront fees?

I wish they did. I wish it were very clear and that they would avoid them and never pay an upfront fee.

They're definitely the opposite of what a person hires Wall Street for: "I've got some money. Will you please make me more?"

"OK," Wall Street says. "Give me some of your money right this second."

So on Day 1, I have less money. 

If Wall Street's goal is really to help people grow their money, they would do the work first and then charge. 

With open architecture, "brokerage firms are getting kickbacks by making other companies' products available to their firm's clients," you maintain. Please elaborate.

There's a conflict of interest. Sadly, every major brokerage firm does this. It's: "Will you give us a cut of the revenue because we're providing you access to our customers?"

There should be no payment — no revenue sharing. It should be: "We vetted you. We believe you're top-tier. You're now available to our clients, and we're holding you accountable for excellence.

"If you don't meet that level of excellence, you can't be in our system and won't be offered to our clients."

You write that many advisors take on clients who have investable assets below their stated minimum. Why have a minimum, then?

It's just a marketing ploy to make customers feel like they're getting something special. It's garbage. 

The advisors state a minimum to create an illusion of exclusivity. 

Advisors seem more attractive to prospects when the advisors tell them, "We work only with people who have $1 million."

So if you've got $1 million, you're allowed into this club. But it's fake.

Why would an advisor lower the stated minimum?

Say I've introduced an advisor to a couple of celebrities and they're making a lot of money off them. So I ask the advisor, "I've got $150,000. Can you take on my portfolio?" 

They won't say no because they're not going to kill the goose laying the golden eggs. They'll take me on and ask for referrals.

Another example: I'm the advisor's biggest client; therefore, they need to keep me happy. If I ask them to open an account for my cousin who just graduated from college, they're not going to say, "I won't because my minimum is $1 million."

Of course they'll open the account — because their biggest client asked them to.

Many advisors are now providing tax strategies but not preparing tax returns. Please explain.

A conflict of interest is created when the brokerage offers both investment advice and tax filing services. 

There are investment choices that make the tax return more complex. So as the advisor, I could suggest certain investments knowing that I'm going to make more money when I do the tax preparation.

How would you sum up the broad problem you see in the industry that affects both advisor and client?

The vast majority of advisors are really good people who want to do the right thing for their clients.

But the system in which they find themselves is in great need of improvement.          

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.

Related Stories

Resource Center