Archive for category News
Apple’s $2 Billion Tax Dodge Gets Tax-Free States Worried
Posted by Scott Martin in News on May 13, 2012
Routing revenue to tax-free Nevada has halved the tech giant’s IRS bills but the backlash may force trust havens and clients alike to reconsider business as usual.
Shunting business and assets to the most favorable jurisdictions was a time-honored element of tax planning process before growing public outcry against “fat cat” breaks got everyone riled up. Read the rest of this entry »
The High Price of Celebrity Suicides to Family and the Heirs
Posted by Scott Martin in News on May 6, 2012
Junior Seau tragedy only underlines what estate planners already know: killing yourself doesn’t necessarily negate a legacy, but it definitely raises red flags about everything from the life insurance to the legitimacy of the will itself.
Few would argue that former Patriots linebacker Junior Seau accidentally pointed a handgun at his chest much less pulled the trigger, but the fate of his estate plan may get murkier with suicide in the background.
Seau was only 41 and was generally considered a happy guy in the pro football world after he retired two years ago.
The star linebacker didn’t lack for cash — he lived in a $3 million house in Oceanside — and owned a restaurant, a clothing line and other businesses.
He also left a live-in girlfriend, an ex-wife he was still friendly with and three kids behind, not to mention his grieving parents.
The question now is what happens to his worldly possessions.
Like most suicides, Seau doesn’t seem to have left a formal note behind beyond a few out-of-the-blue “I love you” text messages to his family.
He also seems to have skimped on the more traditional elements of estate planning. No mention of a will or trust has surfaced.
Otherwise, there might be less controversy over whether he wanted to leave his brain to science. The fact that the decision of how to dispose of his remains devolved to his ex-wife is probably a good indication on that front.
Cutting through the Hollywood hype
But even if he had a will, don’t believe the Hollywood vision of suicide being grounds in itself to challenge the deceased’s mental health, the lawyers agree.
“The ‘not-of-sound-mind’ argument would likely only work if the testator signed the will at the same time he committed suicide,” says Pablo Palomino, a San Diego estate planner.
That’s because the moment of suicidal despair usually comes well after the will or suicide note is signed. Depressed people have moments of clarity, and it would be up to the litigators to prove that the paperwork was executed in an incapacitated state.
Forensic evidence can reveal more about Seau’s mental state in his last hours, but unless there were clear signs of outside influence — kind of unlikely where a gigantic and clean-living linebacker was concerned — the judge might well allow the will in order to protect the deceased.
“Inflammatory evidence will not be admitted,” states Kentucky lawyer Thomas Miller.
And the longer the time period that passes between the will and the suicide, the more likely that the will will hold up in court.
Darren Findling, a Michigan lawyer, represented the children of a suicide a few years ago. His client wrote a simple “give the money to the kids” note and signed it, apparently in order to keep her assets out of her husband’s hands when she was gone.
“Following extensive litigation,” Findling says, the will was recognized as binding and the kids got the money.
Even life insurance can go through
Many suicides die without big estates to leave behind, much less big estate plans. Actor David Carradine famously hung himself with only a reported $40,000 to his name.
But compared to accidental celebrity deaths like Heath Ledger, Michael Jackson and Amy Winehouse, suicides can be relatively methodical in winding down their earthly affairs before ending their lives.
Junior Seau left behind at least $2.2 million in California real estate equity and an unknown amount of liquid assets.
Hopefully he also had life insurance to make things a little easier for his kids that he’s gone and unable to pay child support.
Surprisingly, states like California make insurance companies pay out on suicide, as long as the policy was purchased at least two years before the death.
We saw this most recently when “Soul Train” legend Don Cornelius shot himself and his ex-wife Victoria got $300,000 in death benefits.
For Junior Seau, the question might be whether an ex-football player could get affordable life insurance after so many hits on the head. That’s part of what the autopsy of his brain will presumably uncover.
He did “fall asleep” at the wheel a few years ago and drive his car off a cliff after a fight with a girlfriend, it’s true.
But until a few weeks ago, he seemed as happy as always, making his promotional appearances and waving at the crowd.
And he was careful enough in his youth to set up a $4 million foundation to help kids. Maybe he was careful enough to make sure his own kids were looked out for and his legacy under control.
Otherwise, it’s a good thing the people he left behind seem to get along so well.
We see a lot of families get ripped apart by fighting over an unclear estate plan. Even nuisance litigation can cost the legitimate heirs thousands, even millions of dollars.
So far, Seau’s ex-wife and recent girlfriend are cooperating. Let’s hope it lasts.
Scott Martin, senior editor, The Trust Advisor
Permalink: http://thetrustadvisor.com/news/suicide
Outsourced Portfolio Programs Now Hot Item with Trust Banks and Wealth Advisors
Posted by Scott Martin in News on April 29, 2012
Performance isn’t everything when it comes to selling an asset management program. Leading consultants say providers that make an effort to keep working with advisors after they seal the deal can win big.
On paper, it’s a marriage made in heaven. Advisors are hungry for ways to farm out the investments, and asset managers are eager to sell their plug-and-play expertise.
But with just about everyone in the industry hawking their portfolio management solutions, it can be hard for advisors to pick through the noise and find the perfect partner.
“Many advisors think that once they get the operations — the plumbing — right that they are done,” says Paul Ahern, a principal at Winslow Capital Group.
“Not so. In fact, they are only halfway to success.”
To help Trust Advisor readers get a better sense of the plumbing their practices need, we’re putting together an in-depth map of the market listing who’s out there and what they offer advisors in particular.
“America’s Most Advisor Friendly Outsourced Asset Management Programs” will be ready for you on July 15.
We’re already hearing from advisors and consultants alike that outsourced portfolios are as hot as ever, but a lack of standardized jargon makes it hard for RIAs, family offices and independent brokerage reps to truly compare apples to apples.
UMA, SMA, TAMP
While “unified managed accounts,” or UMAs, are the current market darling, more traditional separately managed accounts (SMAs) and turnkey asset management programs (TAMPs) still have their fans.
The distinction between them is really more tactical than anything else.
SMAs were structured as a new asset class, making them easy to incorporate into an existing advisory platform and fill out with stocks, bonds, mutual funds or what have you.
UMAs tend to import all the security selection, strategic allocation and rebalancing across the portfolio, effectively importing the skill of third-party managers the advisor picks out.
Unlike an SMA, the assets remain under the advisor’s custody, making bookkeeping and fiduciary compliance relatively straightforward, even across asset classes.
And for advisors looking to farm out the entire investment management function, a “turnkey” TAMP program provides the entire bundle, from due diligence through to the back office billing.
While the details vary, the underlying business proposition is the same: outsourcing is cheaper than doing it yourself, says Robert Ellis, a consultant at Fast Track Advisors.
“Outsourced asset management programs allow advisors to focus on what they do best, which is work directly with their clients,” he explains.
“When advisors sit on the same side of the table with clients and select the managers and programs, they improve the value add they provide, while reducing their direct responsibility for investment performance.”
Picking an advisor-friendly program
But to get back to Paul Ahern’s “halfway to success,” delegating one of the core traditional functions of the advisory profession — the security selection — can be a tense affair.
The advisor needs to let go.
And once the grip has loosened, it needs to stay loosened.
No constant second-guessing. No coming up with your own model portfolios “just in case.”
With the right program, even the due diligence is built in, so there’s not even any need to pick the right managers.
That’s when a third-party program really starts freeing advisors up to become pure relationship managers and work with clients and prospects.
“When an advisor affiliates with a TAMP relationship for access to open architecture, they are not just taking on another product line,” Ahern says.
“Rather, they are committing to an equivalent of a restructuring of their wealth management business model,” he adds. “If a TAMP is only ‘bolted on’ to an existing advisor product set and just another product among many, then all the advisor has achieved in increased complexity and cost.”
“Friendly” is relative
To achieve that level of commitment and trust, it helps to know that the vendor won’t seize on the relationship as an opportunity to prospect your clients away.
Not many asset protection programs work that way, and even if they did, the provider is unlikely to alienate everyone in the business by stealing one retail account.
Even at their most “unfriendly,” UMA and TAMP providers simply aren’t bound by the conflicting interests that might get a captive trust company or product provider, for example, into trouble.
Instead, the “friendliest” vendors distinguish themselves by going out of their way to give advisors more: more service, more options, better performance.
At a minimum, they need to have competent technology, a stable operating environment and a responsive client culture.
From there, execution is everything. They need to work with advisors to manage the transition from in-house to third-party management, Paul Ahern says.
And after that, they need to keep working with you to capture new efficiencies.
Maybe you can charge clients more than you do now in order to pass on the value you now add in the form of improved investment performance — or charge prospects less because your overhead is lower.
A good partner will help advisors work out the details there, as well as make suggestions on workflow changes, new policies and compliance implications.
In other words, a truly advisor-friendly asset protection program will function as an “advisor to the advisors,” playing a consultative role.
This is not a one-time transaction. It’s a long-term relationship, and unless everyone at the table understands that, the real benefits will remain elusive.
If you are a SMA, UMA, TAMP or other outsourced asset management program provider and would like to be included in this report, simply click here
Scott Martin, senior editor, The Trust Advisor.
Permalink: http://thetrustadvisor.com/news/advisorfriendlytarp
Will Dating CRMs Be the Next Hot Thing?
Posted by Scott Martin in News on April 22, 2012
In a world where efficiency hunters are tracking and scheduling every casual contact, the case of the dating service spreadsheet gives advisors a taste of future best practices — and what to avoid.
The 28-year-old New York hotshot (right) who automated his love life according to each young woman’s age, looks and first impression is getting a lot of backlash from the online dating services.
David Merkur was a low-profile real estate banker who has acknowledged that he’s really more comfortable with spreadsheets. He just wanted to “stay organized” when it came to his little black book.
Now this number man’s solution to problems of romantic chemistry has gone viral, turning the once-dull art of customer relationship management into the hottest thing around.
As Merkur puts it, he worked long days as an associate director of Park Avenue firm Ladder Capital and found it tough to keep the two to three women he was meeting a week straight.
So he set up a spreadsheet to remember which was which and to remind him whether to monitor them “casually, closely or ASAP.”
That’s the real goal of CRM software, after all.
For many, CRM is still mostly a glorified electronic Rolodex — the icon you click when you need to look up how to reach a client or other business contact.
But as Merkur was finding out before his private adaptation of the technology went public, its true power comes from recording the details of every interaction and automatically scheduling the next one.
Let the robot do the work
If anything, Merkur looks like a bit of an amateur when it comes to setting up reminders that it was time to schedule the next date or send a follow-up “I had a wonderful time” text message precisely 72 hours later.
Just classifying your clients by “monitor casually” or “VIP” is okay when it comes to routing their calls, but a real modern CRM system should do the monitoring and prioritizing for you.
Emails from ultra-high-net-worth clients — the investors with the best “looks,” in the dating model — naturally rise to the top of the queue so an advisor can drop everything when they arrive.
More middle-of-the-road accounts slide to more of a “maintenance” cycle, letting the advisor respond as resources permit without making them feel like they’re just one more faceless account.
The system will also tell you when it’s time to check in on a hot prospect if too much time goes by without contacts. None of this vague “contact again week of X” or “might revisit” stuff. When the alarm goes off, a modern CRM will tell you the time is now.
Don’t play it cool
As in dating, you’re in charge of your CRM settings. Don’t settle for the default, whether it’s waiting three days before calling or three months before setting up your next client meeting.
This is your chance to go above and beyond expectations.
Remember, the high-net-worth attitude trackers at Spectrem found out that 40% of millionaires insist on being called back in under two hours.
Everyone in the industry knows that and has probably programmed their alerts accordingly. Get ahead of the pack and set your system to poke you 90 minutes after logging a call.
Email messages are a little less crucial, but if one in four HNW investors Spectrem talked to want two-hour response, why risk it?
And naturally, quicker is better. Unlike the dating world, there’s nothing gained in playing hard to get. The alerts should set hard limits on the maximum amount of time you wait before getting back to a client or hot prospect — faster service impresses.
One thing David Merkur failed to remember is that every woman on his list wanted to think she was the only one in his world. Every client wants to feel like the biggest account you have.
So when Merkur sent one of his girlfriends the list, part of the shock that got her to forward it on was seeing her vital statistics laid out next to the others.
The spreadsheet’s clinical tone probably didn’t help him cultivate a romantic image, either. (Click it to enlarge.)
You look good when they feel great
As Helen Mirren says in “Gosford Park,” the secret of good customer service is anticipating your client’s needs and behaviors.
The more clients — or girlfriends — you have, the harder it is to keep everything straight.
But the goal here is not so much to remind you which is which. It’s to make them feel special when you remember their birthdays and their grandkids’ names.
That’s ultimately what CRM systems enable. It requires more work at the beginning to program all that stuff into the software, but it pays off over time.
Spreadsheet Casanova David Merkur only had eight girlfriends and his spreadsheet didn’t have room for anything about them but where they grew up and how the dating negotiations were going.
An advisor with dozens or hundreds of wealthy clients — and more in the pipeline — needs a lot more help with the fine details that went into the portfolio or financial plan.
Even if you pride yourself on your memory, it takes effort to keep all that stuff in mind. Key it into the system and let go.
It should look so seamless your clients don’t know it exists. After all, you’re not exactly forwarding them the files you keep on them to prove to them how smart you are.
Scott Martin, senior editor, The Trust Advisor.
Permalink: http://thetrustadvisor.com/news/crm
Why Are Family Members Disinherited?
Posted by Scott Martin in News on April 15, 2012
What does it take to get written out of the family will? Is it betrayal, gambling, cheating, a lack of affection, or what? Our report this week delves into this thorny issue and finds some answers.
Nasim Afshar, 60, an attractive Persian woman, met her husband, British-born Nigel Ruddy, in Germany and was married to him for over 15 years. No one could say their marriage was in trouble. They loved each other.
Last month, Nigel died unexpectedly of heart failure in a hospital near their home in Barcelona. Nigel had been a thrifty man, always saving, even opting for wearing heavy jackets in home during the winter to save on heating bills.
He had one son from a previous marriage who enjoyed wine, women and gambling. Nigel always tried to teach his son the values of saving, but most of the time it went in one ear and out the other. But nevertheless, Nigel loved him.
And he died a rich man. Living in Spain permitted him to avoid most taxes and together with his properties in England and shops in Germany, he was worth well over $50 million.
This week two of Nigel’s wills surfaced, both providing for nothing for his wife beyond a prepaid debit card loaded with 10,000 euros and the right to “stay” in their home until she died. The remainder of his estate of millions went to his son.
What caused Nigel to disinherit his wife Nasim?
Sociologist Tom Brittan says many things built up over the years could have led to a spouse being disinherited at the final moment.
“Perhaps Nigel caught Nasim cheating during the marriage, but chose to do nothing over the years to keep a status quo marriage going,” he says. “And when dealt with death, he said ‘too bad, Nasim, this is your punishment.’”
Complications abound
Executors and estate planners are seeing more of this now, as multiple marriages and affairs are rampant. Meanwhile, the lawyers say it’s gotten harder to keep balancing between the deceased and all the would-be heirs.
Hollywood’s fetish for turning the reading of the will into a ritualistic cliffhanger has left its mark on generations of wealthy families, despite the best efforts of their estate planners.
The heavy legal lifting should have already been done. The money and property should be in trust and the surviving spouse should know exactly what the marital contract lays out as his or her share of the estate.
But the drama of stringing a hated relative along until the end still be irresistible for a testator with a grudge, even if it makes an already fractured family situation both worse and permanent.
“We see it all, and the decisions around who gets excluded from the inheritance are always unique,” says Michael Roberts, who runs Reliance Trust’s personal trust business.
“Any time you combine the financial and the emotional levels, every family is going to be reacting to its own history and setting rules for its own future.”
Finding a compromise before the coffin shuts
I couldn’t find a single attorney who relishes the prospect of helping a disgruntled client disinherit a relative — much less push their way back into an estate they’ve been deliberately shut out of.
Most are more sympathetic to California estate planner Jim Leese’s policy of trying to get all parties to reconcile their differences from one side of the grave or the other.
“Unless the hurt or ignored client acts responsibly and has the talk with the person who is offending them, the effect of the out-of-the-blue disinheritance may unwittingly breed family contempt between siblings for generations,” he recommends.
This means one last try to work things out before the aggrieved parent or spouse signs the relative out of the will. Even if it fails, at least the underlying issues come out where people can work on them.
Children might not know how deeply they’ve alienated their parents, and the threat of being cut out of the estate gives them a powerful motive to realize how serious the estrangement has gotten.
Only a prenup can freeze the spouse out
A spouse also gets the chance to reevaluate the relationship — or consider divorce.
In the United States, there’s not much point in waiting until the will is read to “surprise” a disinherited spouse because there’s not much leeway for disinheriting a spouse in the first place, the experts tell me.
“It takes work to leave a spouse with nothing,” says South Carolina estate planner Evan Guthrie.
In community property states, the spouse is entitled to half the marital assets, and he or she can petition for a share of the estate everywhere else, except in Georgia.
That’s the house, the cars, anything that passes through probate and sometimes even life insurance and other assets that avoid the probate process.
Unless previous agreements expressly signed that right away, no estate plan can interfere with that elective share, so any attempt to cut him or her out will ultimately be symbolic only.
Even in Georgia, the spouse is entitled to at least a year’s support from the estate, whatever else the will says.
Naturally, this can force wealthy families to sell a house, business or other property in order to give the widowed spouse a legal share.
And this, in turn, makes a prenuptial contract a necessity when such property is at stake. If the relationship has deteriorated, it makes more sense to take a fresh look at any prenup and renegotiate it now, rather than let your client try to take revenge through a will that the court will simply overturn.
Such a revised marital contract might not ultimately be much cheaper for your client than a divorce, but at least it creates an opportunity to establish what assets are off the table — and which ones the spouse can legitimately claim.
Of course, it eliminates the sour punchline of “surprise, you get nothing” when the will is read, but your client won’t be around to laugh either way.
Think of the interests of the heirs your client does want to protect.
Trust eliminates the uncertainty
The motives for cutting a relative out of an estate range from the most primal — hate, abandonment, regret — to the most rational.
Plenty of blended families work to limit what the spouse and children from a second or third marriage can inherit, in order to protect the interests of the original sons and daughters.
Others simply prefer to allocate the wealth they leave behind to relatives who need or deserve it the most.
Children who stay at home to take care of a parent may get it all, while extremely successful offspring may be passed over in favor of their siblings.
Some children may not have what it takes to responsibly manage their share of a family business, in which case there’s not much sense in courting disaster in the name of fairness.
Merit and need are subjective decisions, so lawyers warn that clients should discuss even the most “high-minded” disinheritance schemes with their families before committing their wishes to paper.
That way, when the will indicates that a child “receives nothing, and knows the reason why,” there’s actually no room for misunderstanding.
On that note, it may sound cruel to refer to beloved relatives by name and then acknowledge that they’re not entitled to a share in the estate, but it’s actually best practice.
Naming the “disinherited” son or daughter minimizes the odds that they — or their advisors — will contest the will as incompetently forgetting that they’re in the picture. Even if the relationship is good, this is a chance to express the love, while spelling out the lack of a financial obligation.
As always, putting the assets in trust can eliminate a lot of the misunderstandings.
If competence is an issue, the trust can ensure that the relative benefits from the economic value of the assets without taking an active role in the way they’re run.
And since individual beneficiaries don’t need to know what their relative shares of the income are, unequal bequests can be handled discretely, without the public announcement that Hollywood associates with the reading of the will.
That’s what trust officers are trained to do.
“The trust business is really about supporting family dynamics,” says Michael Roberts of Reliance Trust. “At the end of the day, the financial aspect is only the most obvious aspect of that.”
Scott Martin, senior editor, The Trust Advisor.
Permalink: http://thetrustadvisor.com/news/disinherit
Powerhouses LPL, Reliance, National Advisors Trust Find Gold Rolling Out Red Carpets for Advisors
Posted by Scott Martin in News on April 9, 2012
Our list of advisor-friendly administrators has expanded by 35% in under three months. Vendors keep coming out of the woodwork to cooperate with advisors instead of fight them for clients.
With close to $7 trillion at stake as wealthy American families shift their liquid assets into trust, more independent trust companies are targeting advisors — the key center of influence — to get their share.
Our latest survey of the trust industry (click the cover to the right for a copy) turned up another four corporate trustees that have all decided to align their interests with the advisors that ultimately push accounts their way.
To download our newly expanded and updated list of trust companies with a similar mindset, click here.
After all, there’s plenty of assets for everyone to get what they need, says Michael Roberts, who runs the personal trust business at Atlanta-based Reliance Trust.
Firms like ours simply don’t have a natural delivery channel sending us clients, so for our financial well being we need to work with and not against the advisors,” he explains.
“I know the first time I ever stole a client from an advisor, it would be the last from that advisor, and it’s a small industry and people talk.”
For advisors and sometimes owned by them, too
The four firms joining the club this quarter are Reliance, LPL’s Private Trust Company, Casper-based Wyoming Trust and advisor-owned National Advisors Trust.
The first thing that you’ll notice is that half of them are owned by advisors or by independent brokerage firms on behalf of their advisor affiliates.
LPL runs Private Trust Co. primarily as a way to give its nearly 13,000 brokers a way to offer their clients trust services without fear of handing the AUM to a potential competitor.
And National Advisors Trust has pioneered a similar approach, initially for the consortium of advisors who created it — the “shareholders” — and now as a more open institution.
Both companies will happily accept business from non-affiliates. National Advisors Trust, in particular, is actively courting non-shareholder RIAs.
“There’s still a conception that you have to buy into the company to use our services, but we actually opened up about five years ago,” says CEO Ronald Ferguson. “We are absolutely interested in talking to new firms and working with new advisors.”
Like other advisor-friendly trust companies, these institutions don’t have in-house wealth managers hungry for commissions or management fees, so the motive to ingratiate themselves into the lives of your best clients and squeeze you out just isn’t there.
They don’t have proprietary investment products to push into trust portfolios. And in most cases, they don’t even mind if your preferred custodian hangs onto the money.
Widening the playing field
Given their national focus, Private Trust and National Advisors Trust have national trust charters to ensure that they can serve any advisor and his or her clientele.
However, every company we talked to is willing and able to work with advisors around the country, and the number of hot trust jurisdictions is expanding rapidly.
This quarter opens the list to Wyoming, which offers wealthy families no state income tax and a wide range of specialized trust vehicles but has as yet remained in the shadow of more famous trust havens like Alaska, Nevada, South Dakota or Delaware.
According to Wyoming Trust trust officer Tassma Powers, Wyoming can offer everything that nearby South Dakota can, only hundreds of miles closer to the ranches and ski lodges of the elite.
Like its counterparts, Wyoming’s trust charter supports dynastic trusts that theoretically last up to 1,000 years, as well as asset protection trusts designed to shield family wealth from lawsuits. Moreover, there’s no state income tax.
And as in equally vacation-home-rich New Mexico, Wyoming trust companies also excel at administering trusts built around real estate holdings as a way to keep those ranches
As such, saving the plane ticket can make the difference for advisors who already schedule an annual trip or two to Jackson Hole to meet their clients.
Support for the centers of influence
The ability to support directed and delegated trusts, in which advisors go on managing the assets even after they pass into a trust, is a necessity. But every firm on our list goes a lot farther.
With no in-house wealth management operation, a truly advisor-friendly trust company looking to grow its business needs to work overtime to help the advisors it works with grow theirs.
Just about every company on our list offers some form of marketing support to help advisors integrate trusts into their other client service offerings.
National Advisors Trust, for example, feeds its affiliates — not just the shareholders, but the entire book of business — with plenty of training materials and even a private label program that lets advisors market themselves as a full-fledged trust company.
Naturally, National Advisors Trust is still doing all the paperwork and other heavy lifting, but the advisor now has a new competitive lever to pull when prospecting for trust-hungry clients and the lawyers and accountants who have their ears.
“We’re not expecting them to become trust officers, but we want to give them an entree, the confidence to knock on those doors,” explains Ron Ferguson. “We want them to feel comfortable that they have something that differentiates them from the investment advisor down the street.”
That proposition in itself aligns these companies not only with the interests of the advisors they work with, but with the future of the industry.
As Michael Roberts of Reliance Trust reminds me, the stranglehold the money center banks and wirehouses once had on the high-net-worth market is loosening fast.
“I spent 20 years working with a national bank trust department and saw them losing share, but my efforts to get people to team up with investment advisors fell on deaf ears,” he says.
“Advisors know how to talk about investments and their clients demand better investment products. This way, we let them do what they do best and concentrate on what we do well, and everyone wins.”
Scott Martin, senior editor, The Trust Advisor
Permalink: http://thetrustadvisor.com/news/advisorfriendly2q12
Does Hartford’s Annuities Exit Signal the End for Others?
Posted by Scott Martin in News on March 25, 2012
Dumping $1.4 billion business underlines the extreme pressure some insurance carriers have been facing, but retirement income experts say the variable annuity market is simply shaking out a lot of second- and third-tier competitors.
Annuities now account for the bulk of the Hartford Financial Services Group’s earnings, so the wealth management industry was stunned last week when the company unceremoniously pulled the plug on future sales and started winding down the business.
Hartford, of course, isn’t alone. Big names like ING, Sun Life and John Hancock have peppered the headlines over the last few months with similar announcements.
With all these names dropping out of the annuity business, advisors may be wondering what will be left on their retirement income shelf this time next year.
Turns out there will still be plenty of vendors happy to write this business — and there’s currently $240 billion of this business to write, according to the industry watchdogs at LIMRA, formerly known as the Life Insurance Marketing and Research Association.
Hartford was just a bit player anyway
Although Hartford’s decades of marketing have created huge brand recognition for its home and auto insurance lines, the company hadn’t been more than a niche player in the annuity business in a long time.
With “only” $1.4 billion in annuity sales, the company didn’t even make the Top 20 list of annuity vendors last year.
And given the infamously concentrated nature of the industry, you have to either go big or go home.
The ten biggest annuity carriers already write 61% of the total business. The next bracket is hanging onto another 18% share, leaving everyone else — including Hartford — to fight over the scraps.
So instead of Hartford being the canary singing about trouble brewing in the annuity coal mine, the real question is what that songbird was doing down there at all.
Analysts who follow the company are actually pretty pleased that this is happening.
“We think that this is the right decision for the company,” says John Nadel, who follows Hartford for Sterne Agee & Leach. “We applaud the actions.”
Not a bad business
The other annuity vendors departing the business were only marginally bigger players than Hartford, with only Sun Life even managing to capture a 1% share of the overall market.
If Sun Life couldn’t generate enough scale to keep selling new annuity contracts, everyone smaller — accounting for maybe $55 billion in annual sales — should definitely be thinking about their future.
Giants like MetLife, Prudential and Jackson National Life, on the other hand, are feeling no pain. Sales of variable annuities in particular soared 13% last year to a post-recession high, and these carriers have consolidated close to half of that high-margin business just between the three of them.
If anything, they’re even more eager to sell annuities than ever, given the way demand for these products spikes when the stock market looks rocky.
Jackson National, for example, was getting grief from its corporate parents last spring because its variable annuity business was so successful that it was crowding everything else off the map.
A year later, Jackson is still generating a staggering 64% profit margin on these products — sending a record $511 million back to corporate — and the executives have stopped complaining.
Scale is evidently the key here. Compare those huge margins to the money-losing proposition that a much smaller vendor like John Hancock was facing with its annuity business.
Between “volatile equity markets and the historically low interest rate environment,” Hancock restructured its annuity sales back in November.
Vendors like Hartford, crowded to the edges of the annuity industry, never quite recovered their balance after the 2008 market crash, when aggressive portfolio management imploded on carriers and sucked billions of dollars in capital off their books to pay promised benefits.
The leaders printed heavy losses too, but were big enough to survive. Smaller players are now acknowledging that they’ll never hit that scale.
Winding down contracts, not desperate for buyers
But since Hartford was earning relatively fat margins on its annuity sales, why dump that business?
Nadel thinks the big win for Hartford here is not so much in abandoning a profit center but in freeing up billions of dollars in capital currently tied up in the company’s life insurance contracts.
That money is better spent paying down debt and meeting the demands of activist shareholders like hedge fund king John Paulson, who owns 8.5% of the company.
Since the annuities ride alongside life insurance and Hartford’s retirement product sales, it doesn’t make much sense to keep them if those non-core businesses go on the chopping block, he says.
As it is, Hartford is perfectly happy to let its existing annuity contracts run down over the next decade or so — and the legacy book value there is worth about $10 billion.
Ironically, Paulson isn’t so cheerful, since he sees the company’s property insurance unit as the main problem.
And down on the street, annuity-focused advisors are actually booking strong sales and charging big commissions.
Just about all Americans are worried about protecting their retirement savings through volatile markets, and as LIMRA data points out, they’re as eager as ever to buy annuities and lock in at least part of their retirement income.
Annuities are even moving into retirement plan menus. For the victors, the spoils are going to get mighty sweet indeed.
Scott Martin, senior editor, the Trust Advisor
Permalink: http://thetrustadvisor.com/news/hartford
TAMPs Begin to Rise, Prosper Again as Markets Recover
Posted by Scott Martin in News on March 18, 2012
The 2008 crash proved to survivors that outsourcing investment management can be a better, safer way to win the race. Turnkey asset management keeps turning heads among advisors — and vendors — hungry to survive, scale and thrive in an increasingly cut-throat industry.
If turnkey asset management programs have hit a “cold patch,” the news somehow hasn’t hit the massive institutions currently angling for a chance to carve their slice of what they see as becoming a trillion-dollar market.
“Trust companies, private banks, broker-dealers, wirehouses and the private client RIA channel can all benefit,” says Andrew Clipper, director of Citi Investor Services’ OpenWealth platform.
“This is truly a universal opportunity for wealth managers to scale their business in a cost-effective and regulator-sensitive way while they support the added capabilities that clients increasingly demand.”
Clipper thinks that virtually all of the $18 trillion or so in investable U.S. assets is ultimately vulnerable to conversion to all-in-one or “turnkey” asset management programs: TAMPs.
And with giants like Citi ramping up or buying TAMP capabilities, specialist vendors that have built a steady business could find themselves forced to either grow more aggressively or cannibalize each other to keep up.
After all, one of the lessons the industry learned in the aftermath of the 2008 recession is that that unless you like wasting money, there’s no sense in trying to do everything on your own.
The opportunity is universal
The TAMP approach promises a wealth manager a front-to-back system for outsourcing every aspect of fee-based portfolio management in one all-inclusive package.
In theory, you sign the contract, turn the “key” and go. The vendor handles analytics, due diligence on outside managers, the entire back office suite, reporting and everything else.
With decent scale behind it, the TAMP might charge 30 basis points for the service, leaving the wealth manager free to earn about twice that fee for gathering the assets, working with clients and making sure everything runs smoothly.
That’s the proposition that helped TAMP vendors capture well above $250 billion in overall assets under management and administration, according to the data that Tiburon Advisors has collected over the years.
Granted, $250 billion is a lot of money, but market penetration has yet to crack 1% to 2% of the trillions currently parked in mutual funds, separately managed accounts and other vehicles.
Some fret that the TAMP business has already stalled or at best hit a “cold patch.” But crunch the numbers, and the top specialized vendors have kept generating heathy 7% annualized growth over the last two years.
Part of the problem with comparing TAMPs to mutual funds is that we’re talking about an open architecture approach and not an investment product, says Paul Ahern, a principal at open architecture wealth management consulting firm Winslow Capital Group.
“TAMP is a business model, a way to run your business and price your offering,” he explains.
“This is not really a matter of adding a new product to your platform. Firms that treat this as adding a new product set to their platform without being aware of the implications are asking for trouble.”
Making open architecture the industry standard?
After all, the TAMP approach wasn’t created to compete with mutual funds and other vehicles for a share of the $18 trillion pie, but to absorb them into a new way for advisors to build the best multi-asset-class client portfolios out of all the tools available.
|
Turnkey Asset Management Providers (TAMP) |
|||||
|
Company |
State |
Website |
AUM |
||
|
Adhesion Wealth Advisor Solutions |
NC |
$1.3B |
|||
|
BAM Advisor Services |
MO |
$3.5B |
|||
|
Bellatore Financial |
CA |
$501M |
|||
|
Brinker Capital |
PA |
$10.3B |
|||
|
Citi OpenWealth |
NY |
$14B |
|||
|
Dynasty Financial Partners |
NY |
$10B |
|||
|
Envestnet Asset Management |
IL |
$23B |
|||
|
Fiserv Investment Services |
WI |
N/D |
|||
|
FolioDynamix |
NY |
$12B |
|||
|
Genworth Financial Wealth Management |
CA |
$25B |
|||
|
Lockwood Advisors |
PA |
$8.5B |
|||
|
Loring Ward |
CA |
$7B |
|||
|
Placemark Investments |
TX |
$1.3B |
|||
|
SEI Advisor Network |
PA |
$30B |
|||
|
NOTE: TAMP assets only where applicable. Accuracy is not guaranteed. Please consult the institution directly to confirm current AUM. The Trust Advisor realizes that this is not a comprehensive list of all firms. To make sure your institution is included (or excluded), please let us know. To contact us, click here. |
|||||
|
Source: Websites and telephone interviews. ©2012 The Trust Advisor. |
|||||
That over-the-top proposition has been compelling enough to nourish an entire industry segment of TAMP service providers big enough to give affiliated firms a plug-and-play solution, but nimble enough to recognize the emerging opportunity a decade ago.
The leader, SEI, runs around $31 billion in third-party accounts or maybe 10% of the overall TAMP universe.
While SEI’s organic growth stuttered in 2011, rival names like Genworth, Envestnet and Brinker Capital kept adding accounts and scale through M&A, consolidating an already concentrated niche.
Over the last few years, broader-based institutions — the Fidelity, Prudential, LPL types — have also started nibbling into the space as well. We cut a lot of these firms off our list, but they’re casting a longer shadow across the industry.
LPL has been running a TAMP-like program, the Strategic Management System, for decades, and has been busy acquiring specialized portfolio management consulting firms to bolt onto its existing platform.
Raymond James and Fidelity have also been moving in this direction, and there’s always the chance that an acquisition will give another custody or clearing firm the power of an Envestnet or even a Genworth.
Based on an old AUM figure of $7 billion, Tiburon figures that Envestnet, for example, could go for as little as $200 million to the right bulge-bracket buyer.
A new generation of TAMP in the wings
In the meantime, not every TAMP is built the same. Pricing and fine distinctions in service mean that firms looking to buy a turnkey system need to interview the vendors to find the right fit, Paul Ahern says.
“It’s probably impossible to ever have one given TAMP that’s best at everything,” he points out. “They all have slightly different business models, so find the one that best suits your own business model and needs.”
Brinker Capital, for example, emphasizes its broad-based research capabilities, while vendors like BAM Advisor Services go deep with relationships with Dimensional Funds and similar elite fund managers.
Vendors like Fidelity and LPL will obviously steer their offerings toward affiliated firms, making adoption a no-brain decision for those already on the platform but perhaps not encouraging others to come across simply to get access to the captive TAMP.
And from here, the platforms can only get better as competition gets more intense.
Citi is pushing an even greater level of integration that helps outside position themselves as truly “holistic” in the way their monitor and manage client finances.
“I can’t speak for other vendors, but our TAMP platform provides the ability to manage money across accounts and even across institutions on a unified managed household (UMH) basis,” Andrew Clipper says.
The next generation of TAMP-like solutions is already emerging, Paul Ahern tells me.
These “hybrid” programs let subscribers choose whether to sign up for the full-service solution or go on perform specific duties themselves, effectively taking back functions that would conventionally be handed over to the TAMP.
For all practical purposes, this approach takes advisors full circle into a world of “a la carte” outsource relationships and pricing.
The difference is that by the time they’re ready to figure out what they want to take back from the TAMP, they already know how everything fits together — and where they can do it better.
Scott Martin, senior editor, The Trust Advisor. Steven Maimes contributed to the research.
Permalink: http://thetrustadvisor.com/news/tamp


