Many Advisors Say They Do Comprehensive Planning. The Facts Suggest Otherwise.

Analysis October 23, 2024 at 04:21 PM
Share & Print

What You Need To Know

  • Reliance on financial advisors has increased significantly among retail investors over the past decade.
  • Most advisors' deliverables often fall short of a comprehensive planning characterization.
  • While a broader suite requires time and resources, firms that do so often grow faster.
Businessman with multiple arms multi-tasking

A new research report from Cerulli Associates published in partnership with Osaic, shows that reliance on financial advisors has increased significantly among retail investors over the past decade — as has the perceived importance of having a comprehensive financial plan.

As of mid-2024, 53% of investors agreed that having a written financial plan is important, up from 41% of retail investors as of year-end 2014 and 38% in 2009. Clients also tend to feel a deeper connection to their advisors when the services they provide are "comprehensive" in nature, going far beyond oversight of the investment portfolio.

Against this backdrop, many advisors told Cerulli that they view themselves as comprehensive financial planners, but an objective review of their business models and service deliverables suggests that many firms are not truly living up to this characterization. Failing to do so can reduce a firm's growth potential in an increasingly competitive marketplace, the researchers warn.

Whether an advisor takes the time to understand an individual's goals, needs and risk tolerance (cited by 55% of clients) and whether the advisor looks at an individual's entire financial picture (49%) are both more frequently identified as a factor rated as being extremely important when choosing an advisor, according to the study.

Performance of investments relative to the overall market also matters (46%), but less so.

Consequently, in terms of new client acquisition, advisors whose service offerings are oriented toward comprehensive wealth management have a competitive advantage, the authors conclude.

What's in a Comprehensive Plan?

The Cerulli report identifies more than 10 key service areas that underpin truly comprehensive financial planning.

At the start of the list is investment management. While the oversight of investments is seen as table stakes by most clients, it is still important. Advisors may not be expected to blow away the S&P 500 in their portfolios every year, but they still need to ensure that clients aren't falling behind.

Next is income tax planning, which can include a wide range of services such as estimated tax payments and withholding, advice on income tax timing and tax-related aspects of other wealth management services.

Related to this is the service area of cash flow management. As the Cerulli authors point out, advice on how to manage cash flow shortfalls and savings strategies for cash flow surpluses are highly valued by clients.

Estate planning is another key area. Advisors can provide significant value by helping plan for the transfer of assets, the management of an estate and other issues related to an individual's death or potential incapacity.

This connects to charitable planning, through which advisors support clients on how to achieve goals related to philanthropy — with a particular emphasis on tax-related considerations.

While not applicable for every client, executive compensation planning is another key service area. This involves advising clients on the management of executive compensation — including stock options, restricted stock and non-qualified deferred compensation plans.

The remaining service areas are lending and credit management, risk management and insurance needs analysis, education planning and retirement income planning — including insight on Social Security claiming and elder care planning.

Who's Providing What?

The Cerulli report goes on to assess the degree to which the advisor industry is delivering these services on a comprehensive basis, finding a wide variety among firms in terms of their approach. The report also shows that firms often overestimate their level of comprehensiveness.

According to the report, about 7% of all advisors can be described essentially as money managers or portfolio managers. This is the group that is providing the least comprehensive level of planning services, with an average assets under management of $285 million and a market share of about 9%.

The research suggests that 57% of advisors fit into the category of "case-based planners," meaning they provide modular issue-based planning with most clients.

Such advisors may still emphasize asset management as part of their value proposition, but they make some attempt at making the financial plan an important part of their deliverable. This is the biggest cohort of advisors identified by the research, and they control about 50% of the market with an average AUM level of $210 million.

Next comes the group that Cerulli labels as "comprehensive financial planners," making up about 26% of all advisors overseeing 23% of total advised asset. This group has an average AUM of $230 million, according to Cerulli, and it provides complete financial plans with nearly all clients based on an extensive analysis of their goals, assets and liabilities.]

The final group in the report, dubbed "private wealth managers," goes even further in the development and delivery of the financial plan.

This group represents about 10% of all advisors, but 18% of all advised assets, thanks to an average AUM level of $882 million. Such advisors deliver the standard planning capabilities complemented by specialty investment services, charitable giving, stock option planning, and complex trust and estate planning.

Are Advisors Overconfident?

Among the most striking elements of the report is Exhibit 5, which shows big differences between the perceived type of practice that advisors say they are running compared with an objective analysis of their practice type conducted by the researchers.

For example, while just 5% of polled advisors assessed their business model as being in the "case-based planner" category, the figure in the surveyed sample of advisors was 61%. Likewise, while 60% of advisors said they work in a "comprehensive financial planner" style practice, this was true for only 25%, based on Cerulli's assessment.

Just as striking, 28% of polled advisors said they worked for a "private wealth manager" style practice, but just 6% of them actually do so.

Evolving the Service Offering

Advisors told Cerulli that the greatest challenges associated with adopting a more comprehensive service model are the time and the range of subject matter expertise required to provide these services.

"This is particularly true when comparing these services to investment management, which requires far less customization and thus can be implemented with relatively high levels of efficiency," the authors point out.

Many practices choose to add specialized staff as part of moving from an issue-based planning approach to a more comprehensive planning model. This is one reason why comprehensive financial planner and private wealth manager practice types employ specialized staff with far greater frequency than investment-oriented practice types.

In particular, specialists operating in the advice realm — including para-planners and investment specialists — can remove a significant portion of the workload from a financial advisor's plate, freeing up the advisor's time to focus on delivering advice.

"For many advisors, including those affiliated with a broker-dealer, these specialists don't need to be insourced," the authors explain.

"Many home offices provide a range of financial-planning-oriented support services that can be of significant value to smaller practices without the scale necessary to hire a full-time employee, and these resources can often help practices bridge the gap," they say.

Credit: Adobe Stock

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