Archive for April, 2010
Help Wanted: Salesmen Preferred
Posted by Scott Martin in News on April 24th, 2010
Looking for a job in the trust industry with a high base salary and lots of perks? Jobs are abundant once again, but product knowledge and sales skills are essential.
The long recession froze hiring budgets throughout the financial industry, but now the trust business is thawing as firms staff up for the growth cycle. Positions are opening, offers are getting made and compensation is on the rise—as long as you’re the kind of candidate that trust companies are hunting.
“We’re seeing more demand for upper management and sales types, anyone who can drum up business,” says Maggie Cunningham, a partner in Tulsa-based national recruiting firm BancSearch and a specialist in filling trust company jobs.
So far, regional trust companies have been fastest to staff up through the recruiter channel, Cunningham told me.
Saturna Trust, based in Reno, is one such expansion-oriented outfit. President Ken Cain told me that his company is taking on new talent at a pretty fast rate. In the last few months, he hired someone to sell into the philanthropic channel and a new wholesaler to cover the Midwest.
“As we bring in new business, we need new bodies,” he says.
The big boys are staffing up too, but as yet they’ve been hiring through their in-house departments instead of going through recruiters.
Wilmington Trust, in spite of reporting a loss yesterday in the first quarter this year, remained positive about its wealth management and trust businesses. The firm added a total of 18 new wealth managers to its Atlanta team in the last six months. More hires are on the way as the gigantic trust company looks for opportunities to cross-sell its trust and investment services to high-net-worth clients throughout the Southeast.
Relationships are Everything
Significantly, Wilmington is looking for people who not only know how to crunch the numbers but can manage client relationships. Most of the recruiters I talked to for this story confirm that relationship managers are in and traditionally paperwork-oriented administrators or fiduciary staff are out.
“We’re just not seeing a lot of call for pure trust administration,” Cunningham told me.
While a lot of managers admit that they need to hire administrators, she says, not many are pushing the button.
Instead, they’re betting that better back office technology will help their existing support teams handle more accounts. And they’re routing more of their basic service requests away from trust officers and to front-line support, Cunningham says.
“Some of the larger banks now, if there’s under $3 million in the account, it goes straight to the call center now,” she told me. “Smaller organizations will still assign a trust officer to relatively small accounts, but even there, under $1 million can go to the call center instead.”
Other recruiters agree that you need to be able to do more than run the numbers to get a job in the trust business right now.
“You’ve got to have the interpersonal skills to deal with clients,” David Glaser, president of New York headhunting firm EGC Resources, told me. “There’s just not a real home anymore for somebody that’s just a strong technician like there was years ago.”
Glaser says the way it usually works is that trust companies wait until the rainmakers prove they can front new business, and then they bring in the support. But because the typical trust operation runs lean anyway, that could take awhile.
What People Are Making
In any event, the days when a trust department ran on commissions seem to be over as well. Instead, more managers are offering new trust officers that can bring in business a relatively high base and a performance bonus.
Saturna’s not paying anyone on commission. “We just don’t do it,” says Ken Cain.
As for base and bonus, Glaser estimates that the typical split probably breaks down into 70/30. On a plain vanilla trust officer compensation package, that translates to a base that starts at around $80,000 a year.
That fits the offers Maggie Cunningham is seeing. She says that bank trust departments tend to pay higher salaries in order to keep people aboard through boom and bust. But even trust officers getting jobs at RIA firms are working on salary now—although it’s likely to be a smaller one.
“They’re still in a different type of world because a lot of them got started in the wirehouses and so have that performance-based compensation model in their heads,” she told me.
Packages vary widely depending on where you are. High-growth markets like Nevada are competing harder for relatively scarce talent, but in the Midwest, years of bank mergers have brought trust company compensation down.
“Here in the auto belt, there’s been a real compensation reset,” notes Hunter Judson, who heads a banking-focused recruiting firm based in Grand Rapids, Michigan.
“Other markets are less affected, but in places like Detroit, you’re having people take 20% lower salaries than what they got at their old bank before they got consolidated out,” he told me.
People are settling because even though new jobs are finally opening up again, there’s still a lot of competition for each spot. Cunningham says she’s finally placing people who were laid off seven months ago, and even those who kept their jobs are getting restless.
“There’s a lot of dissatisfaction out there,” she told me. “If bonuses don’t pick up this year, a lot of people will start looking to move if they haven’t already.”
What’s the best advice for these people? Brush up your interpersonal skills so you can prove you can deal smoothly with clients. And don’t get hung up on your title, Judson says.
“It’s gotten impossible to generalize in the trust business from company to company and even from position to position within a department,” he told me.
“What a title means at one bank is very different from what you’ll end up doing at another bank, and if you go to a smaller outfit you’ll almost certainly have to do more things. Don’t get stuck on your old title. You can’t eat it.”
Scott Martin, contributing editor, The Trust Advisor Blog. Steven Maimes contributed to the research.
Permalink: http://thetrustadvisor.com/news/jobs
SEC’s Top Cop Says Agency to Police Collective Investment Trusts
Posted by Scott Martin in News on April 17th, 2010
Collective funds are by law on the turf of bank regulators. But the SEC’s new anti-Madoff crusade now wants to put collective products on agency’s hit list.
“The SEC can’t get into the bank, but I can get into the advisors. It’s important for me to see if the banks are using their exemption properly … or merely renting a space [to advisors] inside a trust company,” says SEC’s Andrew “Buddy” Donohue, head of the SEC’s investment management unit.
Donohue fired a warning shot at bank regulators by threatening to go after the advisors who sell collective investment trusts. Experts say a move like that may just be saber rattling, but it pits the SEC against bank regulators over oversight of about $1.6 trillion in the collective funds market.
On the surface, these vehicles—also known as collective trusts, commingled funds or common trust funds—look a lot like institutional mutual funds and invest in all the conventional asset classes. Advisors do brisk business selling them to retirement plans.
But while mutual funds are SEC-registered, collective investment trusts are managed by a bank trust department and so falls under the jurisdiction of the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, which is part of the Treasury Department.
If Donohue gets his way, that may change. In a speech at Practicing Law Institute’s Investment Management Institute in New York, he said he’s got his eye on these bank products. If he decides they need tighter regulation, he’ll make it happen, one way or another.
“I can’t get into the bank,” he reportedly elaborated in an off-script comment after the speech. “But I can get into the advisors.”
The OCC has refused to rise to the bait so far. All I got out of them was a terse “we’re aware of it and no comment.”
Rattling the Chains
Longtime agency watchers are a lot more expansive, but on the whole they’re a little mystified at what you could read as an SEC power grab.
“Collective investment trusts used to be considered a settled matter,” Maureen Young, a partner at high-powered law firm Bingham McCutchen, told me.
“If the SEC is really concerned about these products, maybe they’re hoping that they can get some response by rattling the chains and going after the brokers,” she added.
George Washington University law professor Arthur Wilmarth filled me in on the long struggle over who would regulate these products following the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act over a decade ago.
“As they say, nothing is as precious in Washington as a bit of turf,” he told me. “They fought for years and just couldn’t agree,” he added. “It took Congress basically threatening to bang the agencies’ heads together to get the job done.”
By the time the last dust settled, it was already 2007 and the once-obscure collective investment trust was becoming big business in retirement plans.
There’s about $1.6 trillion invested in these trusts now, according to Morningstar data. About half of it is in traditional pension funds; the other $800 billion—the real growth market—is in 401(k)s and other defined contribution accounts.
Getting Tough
Some of the people I interviewed for this story suspect that the size of this marketplace is the factor that brought it to the SEC’s attention after years of letting the OCC tend its own knitting.
Others wonder whether the SEC is looking for ways to prove that it’s indispensable in a world where the Obama Administration seems intent on reshuffling the regulatory deck and all the agencies have made mistakes.
In any event, Donohue isn’t alone in talking tough.
“We simply show up,” said Gene Gohlke, associate director of the SEC’s Office of Compliance, Inspections and Examination, speaking at the same conference as Donohue.
“If there are allegations of wrongdoing, we don’t want to give firms a good deal of lead time to clean up,” he added.
But while statements like this paint a tough picture of the commission as a sort of rapid-deployment vigilante regulator, it’s going to be tough to put that rhetoric into practice, former Nevada banking commissioner L. Scott Walshaw told me.
“From a bank regulator’s perspective, the OCC or whoever else is being stepped on is going to have something to say about this,” Walshaw, now a regulatory advisor at Advisors Institutional, says.
“Common sense would dictate that it makes more sense to just sit down with the OCC and maybe see if they can express their concerns without infringing on anybody’s turf,” he added.
Headed for the Mainstream
Meanwhile, there are already 1,200 collective investment trusts in Morningstar’s database and more launching all the time.
“We talk to established money managers about these vehicles every week,” says Steve Deutsch, who leads the company’s research in this area.
Deutsch sees collective trusts heading for the mainstream of the asset management marketplace very quickly. That’s probably why the SEC is getting involved, he says.
“If you want to be mainstream, you’ve got to have all the features of a mainstream product, and I think that’s what the SEC is concerned about,” he added.
As Deutsch notes, these trusts already walk and talk a lot like mainstream investment products. Improved record-keeping capabilities allow them to report NAV on a daily basis. They trade on Fund/SERV. And since Morningstar tracks them, there’s third-party transparency.
Last but not least, they are already strictly regulated—not only by the OCC, but in so far as collective trusts are essentially retirement plan options, by the IRS, ERISA and the Labor Department.
For example, Victory Capital Management is a substantial player in this space with about $3 billion in collective trust assets under management.
“It’s not like there’s no oversight,” says John Kutz, the head of the company’s retirement plan business.
“There’s tremendous oversight. There’s a lot of auditing. These are fiduciary products. The OCC makes sure every ‘i’ is dotted and every ‘t’ is crossed, at least where we’re concerned.”
Victory is still bullish on the business, expecting its AUM to double in the next few years. Evidently, a little oversight is worth the effort.
Scott Martin, contributing editor, The Trust Advisor Blog. Steven Maimes contributed to the research.
Permalink: http://thetrustadvisor.com/news/sec
Billionaire’s Heirs First to Win 2010 Estate Tax Jackpot
Posted by Scott Martin in News on April 10th, 2010
Washington lawmakers’ estate tax hiatus has now potentially cost the IRS billions in lost tax collections. Experts say death of Texas billionaire Dan Duncan makes retroactive reinstatement of the death tax less likely because the stakes are now a lot higher.
Houston gas pipeline mogul Dan Duncan was the 74th richest person in the world when he died on March 28. If he’d passed away three months earlier or ten months later, his $9 billion estate could have generated up to $4 billion for the IRS. But because there’s no federal estate tax this year, the government gets nothing.
As the first billionaire to die in this year without an estate tax, Duncan presents a tempting opportunity for a revenue-strapped Congress to follow through on threats to reinstate the tax for 2010 and possibly even make it retroactive to the beginning of the year.
However, probate gurus say the sheer amount of money on the table makes a retroactive tax more unlikely. Big estates mean big lawyers ready to fight to see those billions of dollars go to the deceased’s heirs, and the headaches could go on for years.
“I never imagined it would get this far,” Joel Dobris, an estate planning professor at University of California-Davis, told me.
“The longer they wait, the stronger the ‘no retroactivity’ argument sounds,” he added. “Maybe they waited too long.”
The lack of clarity has already weighed on less monumental estates for months, says Don Ford, founder of Houston law firm Ford & Mathiason.
“We’ve had two clients fall into this already,” he told me. “They’ve died this year and would have had taxable estates under either last year’s rule or next year’s rule. But now we’ve just got to hang on and see what happens.”
Ticking Clock, High Stakes
Ford has heard that all the movers and shakers in Washington agree that the hole in the estate tax has got to be fixed, but nobody can agree on how to do it.
If nothing happens, the tax will reset in 2011 with an exemption of $1 million and a maximum rate of 50%. That would make a lot of upper-middle-class voters unhappy, Joel Dobris says, so the prospect of doing nothing isn’t popular in Congress.
Late last year, the House approved an eleventh-hour plan to keep the tax alive in 2010 under the 2009 rules, which impose a maximum 45% tax rate on estates worth over $3.5 million. But the bill went nowhere in the Senate, feeding speculation that when and if Congress reinstates the tax for this year, it would be on a retroactive basis to cover those who died after January 1.
Back in January, estate planner Phil Kavesh told me that whatever happens, making the tax retroactive would be a bit like Russian roulette: the longer the game goes on, the more dangerous it gets.
“Sooner or later, some billionaire will die this year, and then there’s a real incentive to argue that any kind of retroactive law is invalid,” he said.
Not a Big Revenue Source
Nobody in Congress really expected a billionaire of Dan Duncan’s caliber to die this year without significant estate protection already in place.
In fact, the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimated last year that restoring the estate tax at 2009 levels would have only added about $468 million to the federal government’s 2010 revenue.
That kind of cash really wouldn’t have made much more than a symbolic difference in a $3.5 trillion operating budget. But symbolism matters a lot in Washington these days, UC-Davis professor Joel Dobris told me.
Duncan gave away hundreds of millions of dollars over his lifetime to local hospitals, schools, community groups, and other charitable organizations. Details of his estate plan aren’t available, but it’s likely he made huge additional bequests to be paid after his death.
If his advisors were up to the job, the bulk of his remaining wealth was probably held in trust, so it probably wouldn’t be subject to estate tax either way. (There’s no Texas estate tax, so that’s not an issue in this case.)
However, a significant slice—about $362 million, according to my math—of his fortune was locked up in a controlling stake of the energy partnerships he’d built or bought over the years.
The absence of federal estate tax this year frees his heirs from the need to liquidate that equity in order to pay the IRS. As a result, the Duncan family has already announced that it won’t be selling out soon.
Looking Ahead
For the rest of us, the clock is ticking and the spring and summer Congressional recesses are ahead. It’s theoretically possible that gridlock and inertia will leave the door open for more billionaires to leave tax-free estates this year, in which case Houston lawyer Don Ford worries that the retroactivity issue could come back in 2011.
“Does this get pushed back to next year when it becomes a real issue, and then they try to make the new exemption and rates retroactive?” he wonders. “That’s when it becomes a little unsettling.”
No matter what happens to the estate tax, Ford told me that his clients take comfort in the trusts and other estate planning instruments he’s put in place for them. “Uncertainty like this only demonstrates the value of what we do,” he told me
Scott Martin, contributing editor, The Trust Advisor Blog. Steven Maimes contributed to the research.
Permalink: http://thetrustadvisor.com/news/billionaire
Who’s Charging What for Trust Services?
Posted by Scott Martin in News on April 3rd, 2010
Trust fees are headed higher according to our pricing survey completed this week. Some firms work strictly from a rate card. Others decide what your client will pay when the business is placed on the table. Either way, it’s good to know what the “market value” of trust services.
There’s still a fair amount of mystery surrounding exactly what’s baked into each of those basis points.
“It’s never as simple as just lining up the fees,” says Mike Flinn, a Phoenix-based trust consultant at Advisory Trust Company. “Once you start drilling down into the basis points, it becomes pretty clear that different firms really do different things,” he added.
To find out where the sizzle hits the steak for various types of trust company, The Trust Advisor Blog conducted a survey below of what they’re charging.
|
Who’s Charging What for Trust Services |
|||||||
|
Trust Company |
State |
Trust account minimum |
Minimum annual fee |
First $1 million |
Next $2 to $3 million |
$3 to $5 million |
Above $5 million |
|
DE |
$500,000 |
$3,000 |
0.50% |
0.40% |
0.30% |
0.25% |
|
|
DE |
$1 million |
$6,000 |
0.60% |
* |
0.45% |
Neg. |
|
|
NH |
None |
$3,000 |
0.90% |
0.55% |
0.45% |
0.35% |
|
|
IL & |
$5 million |
$20,000 |
0.40% |
0.40% |
0.40% |
0.20% |
|
|
GA |
None |
$3,000 |
0.60% |
0.35% |
0.35% |
0.35% |
|
|
NM |
None |
$4,000 |
0.75% |
0.75% |
0.50% |
0.35% |
|
|
NV |
None |
$1,000 |
0.50% |
0.50% |
0.50% |
0.40% |
|
|
NV |
$100 |
$100 |
1.00% |
0.80% |
0.70% |
Neg. |
|
|
SD |
None |
$4,000 |
0.50% |
0.50% |
0.42% |
0.35% |
|
|
DE |
$1 million |
$8,000 |
0.60% |
0.40% |
0.40% |
0.25% |
|
|
* Breakpoint is $2 million. NOTE:Accuracy is not guaranteed. Please consult the institution directly to confirm costs. The Trust Advisor Blog realizes that this is not a comprehensive list of all firms. To make sure your institution is included or excluded in the July 2nd edition of this survey please let us know. We will be expanding coverage; please also include any other services offered such as investment management, special purpose trusts, HSAs, etc. Advisors and estate planners may reproduce this survey upon request. To contact us, click here. |
|||||||
|
Source: Websites and telephone interviews. ©2010 TheTrustAdvisor.com |
|||||||
The Basic Account
One thing we discovered: if you just want a no-frills account, Flinn adds, it’s probably going to cost at least $3,000 a year. “That’s really the minimum anyone can comfortably charge.”
“Maybe $2,500,” he conceded. “But at that level, it’s going to be very difficult to stay in the business.”
While $3,000 happens to be what Advisory Trust charges on the low end, it does seem to be an informal sweet spot within the trust industry. Other companies that start at that level include New Hampshire Trust and Georgia-based Reliance Trust.
There are companies that charge small accounts less (Nevada’s Summit Trust will go as low as $100 a year), but plenty start their fees at $4,000 and up. It all depends on the size of account they’re courting and what makes economic sense, Christopher Holtby, president of Wealth Advisors Trust Company, told me.
“Hitting the sweet spot is part art, part science,” he explains. “There are very specific things that every trust has to do, and everything else is extra.”
Good scale for big fish
Northern Trust doesn’t publish its fee scale, but president Dan Lindley was kind enough to give The Trust Advisor a peek.
Although the $20,000 minimum fee looks steep at first, it makes a lot more sense when you consider that Northern Trust isn’t really interested in personal directed trust accounts with less than $5 million in assets. For a client with that kind of wealth, the $20,000 translates into at most 40 basis points a year—pretty low by industry standards.
(Really big clients get institutional-strength discounts. Once a Northern Trust account grows beyond $30 million, the company will only charge 5 basis points: $500 a year per $1 million.)
The upshot is that by concentrating on high-end clients, a white-glove firm like Northern Trust can build a lot of sizzle into its steak, even though the cost per dollar of AUM is comparable to what bare-bones vendors charge.
“Northern Trust in Delaware charges a reasonable, competitive fee and in return provides comprehensive services to our directed trust clients backed by more than 120 years of experience as a fiduciary,” Lindley told me.
Other high-end trust companies argue that at this level, it’s pointless to advertise your fees because high-net-worth clients and their advisors are happy to pay for the service.
Some vendors refused to participate in the survey because they either work on an a la carte basis (Alaska Trust) or figure out what to charge once they see the trust paperwork (Commonwealth Trust). As Alaska Trust founder Douglas Blattmachr told me, it’s pointless to advertise how much a generic offering would cost when the fact is that at this level, one size fits none.
“It really does depend on what the client wants us to provide,” he says.
When asked to present a benchmark, he estimated that a relatively bare-bones Alaska Trust account might charge 50 basis points a year or an annual minimum of $3,500. That’s about where vanilla Commonwealth trusts start, Jim McMackin, who runs the company’s marketing, told me.
Splitting smaller pies
Naturally, it’s going to cost extra if the trust company also manages the underlying assets. But there are a lot of vendors out there that are happy to offload the investment responsibilities and knock a bit off their fees in return.
Companies like Wealth Advisors Trust, Advisory Trust and Santa Fe Trust, cater exclusively to investment advisors looking for a place to refer their clients who need to open a trust.
Account minimums tend to be relatively low—Wealth Advisors Trust and Santa Fe Trust can theoretically start a trust with as little as $1—but expenses can be a little higher to cover the fixed cost of administering these tiny trusts.
For example, Santa Fe Trust accepts very small accounts, but according to its published fee scale it will still charge them at least $4,000 a year. At an annual fee of 75 basis points, this suggests that a trust really needs to have more than around $533,000 in it to “earn out” that $4,000 minimum fee.
By comparison, Wealth Advisors Trust’s scale “earns out” at a slightly higher level ($800,000 in the account), which indicates that its platform is built to support a somewhat more affluent clientele. Others on our list (Advisory Trust, Reliance, Saturna, New Hampshire Trust) justify their minimums at lower levels.
Whatever happens, says Kathy Roberts, the CEO of Santa Fe Trust, small accounts shouldn’t be loss leaders.
“We don’t take a trust that isn’t going to be profitable,” she told me. While she’ll take on a tiny trust if the grantor insists, she warns that advisors should recognize that the trust company will pass on the cost of running it and sometimes it just doesn’t make sense.
Where we go from here
Most of the people I talked to say the cost of running a trust has already gone about as low as it can go.
Mike Flinn from Advisory Trust and Douglas Blattmachr of Alaska Trust agree that the cost of fiduciary compliance and routine service probably isn’t going any lower than around $3,000 per trust any time soon, especially given the current trend toward higher regulation.
“It’s expensive to be a fiduciary,” Blattmachr acknowledged in our conversation. “So that provides a floor on what people can offer.”
But beyond that level, technology keeps improving and letting efficient trust companies bring down their overall cost proposition. Blattmachr says low-end players can use technology to better serve the mass market. Kathy Roberts of Santa Fe Trust agrees.
Either way, Christopher Holtby of Wealth Advisors Trust told me that there’s always room for enthusiastic competitors.
“Wherever fees go,” he says, “there are going to be a lot more entrants in the trust service business.”
Scott Martin, contributing editor, The Trust Advisor Blog. Steven Maimes contributed to the research and the editing.
Permalink: http://thetrustadvisor.com/news/fees
Do You Own an Apple iPad?
The Trust Advisor will be publishing an upcoming article on wealth management applications for the new Apple iPad device.
I have seen the device and its amazing. Forbes reported that Apple sold between 600,000 and 700,000 iPads today alone.
We would like to include any comments our readers have about their experience with the device, either good or bad and what applications they may be using.
Click this link to submit your iPad comments
Thank you — Jerry Cooper, Sr. Editor, the Trust Advisor







Recent Comments