Posts Tagged Reliance Trust

Why Are Family Members Disinherited?

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

, , , , , ,

1 Comment

Powerhouses LPL, Reliance, National Advisors Trust Find Gold Rolling Out Red Carpets for Advisors

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

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments

GlobalBridge UMA Platforms Continue to Win More Trust Firms

Trust banks and independents are flocking to the firm’s easy-to-use manager selection and monitoring as their preferred choice for UMA overlay management.

In an environment where financial institutions are grappling with the notion that you can be both too big to fail and too big to earn a decent profit, banks and trust companies alike are adopting unified managed account (UMA) overlay wealth management as the answer.

GlobalBridge, a Minneapolis-based UMA overlay solutions provider, has seen demand for its services surge as the logic of outsourcing day-to-day investment decisions in order to focus on client relationships becomes crystal-clear.

The company now distributes the money management expertise that runs $440 million in client assets for 65 banks, independent trust companies like Atlanta’s Reliance Trust, a few independent broker-dealers and even a number of advisory firms.

Most recently, the company added River Rock Asset Management to the list and is currently negotiating with several other potential customers.

Delegating non-core wealth management functions like trading and back off routines, manager due diligence and research is a big part of the modern strategic landscape for any trust operation, explains GlobalBridge CEO Kelly Coughlin.

“Successful firms in the industry are focusing on their core competencies and offloading the rest,” he says. “This is a common theme in modern business, but it’s more important now than ever.”

Specialization is the key

Globalbridge’s UMA overlay system gives clients the benefits of world-class investment ideas at a better price than its competitors — for both the investor and the firm applying the overlay.

As industry analyst Robert Testa of Cerulli Associates has pointed out, freeing trust officers from the responsibility of performing as “pseudo-portfolio managers” eliminates distractions and lets them focus on their core competency: managing relationships with trust grantors and beneficiaries.

But refusing to delegate may be strangling bank trust departments in particular. Bernard Garbo, publisher of Trust Updates, notes that trying to do everything in-house can have a serious negative impact on profitability in today’s financial services industry.

“The most profitable trust institutions are simply not full-service organizations,” he says. “They are generally focused on only two or three markets, whereas 90% of the bank trust departments take a full-service approach to as many as five or six key account categories.”

On the independent trust company side, overlay can be a competitive advantage by giving a firm with limited in-house proprietary wealth management expertise present an investment services profile that compares with its biggest white-glove rivals.

Here, too, specialization is the secret. An independent trust company or regional bank can still focus on differentiating its investment platform in one or two proprietary strategies — large-cap value, for example, or municipal bonds — without having to support everything other asset class under the sun.

In fact, in June, $70 billion Reliance Trust teamed up with GlobalBridge to co-develop and cross-sell overlay solutions into the RIA and independent broker-dealer channels.

By letting both Reliance and GlobalBridge focus on what they do best — trust and custodial services, on the one hand, and managed accounts on the other — the deal “puts both firms in a solid position to deliver industry-leading open architecture investment platforms,” said Reliance CEO Anthony Guthrie when the deal was announced.

The UMA advantage

While older forms of open architecture investment management — separately managed accounts or SMAs — have failed to catch on with fiduciaries unwilling to actually sign over the underlying assets to the outside managers, systems like what GlobalBridge offers take a more sophisticated approach.

Instead of SMAs forcing a bank or trust company to export client funds, these new products work on a unified managed account or UMA model that keeps the assets in-house and imports the expertise of third-party managers.

This expertise is then applied or “overlaid” onto the UMA assets, creating a mirror of what the outside manager would do with the money — but without ever giving up control of the funds.

The bank or trust officer chooses which managers to use and how to allocate the portfolio among their strategies — GlobalBridge has about 70 managers and over 100 separate strategies to choose from, for example.

Because the funds remain in-house in a UMA system, trust officers can monitor and tweak the models to reflect their in-depth knowledge of their clients’ situations and overriding wishes.

Tax efficiency and the ability to screen investments to comply with a trust grantor’s investment policy statement are only the tip of the iceberg here.

Integrated solutions like what GlobalBridge offers can streamline the work of “managing the managers” by as much as 75% or even more, ensuring that both compliance and the fiduciary duty to invest client money the best way available are satisfied.

That kind of cooperative approach is the heart of the overlay philosophy, Coughlin says.

“We want to build our business around clients we enjoy and have mutual respect for,” he says. “Each of us wants to make sure the other is creating value, not trying to find who can do something for the lowest price. It’s always got to be a mutual thing.”

Scott Martin, contributing editor, The Trust Advisor Blog. Jerry Cooper contributed to the editing.

Permalink: http://thetrustadvisor.com/news/globalbridge

, , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

TD and Fidelity Win Top Honor as Advisors’ Most Trust-Friendly RIA Custodians

Looking for an RIA custodian that supports trust accounts?  Our survey reveals that Fidelity and TD Ameritrade in particular have come a long way to provide a flexible trust platform that really helps advisors.

A decade ago, all an advisor had to do was provide financial planning and wealthy clients unhappy with wirehouse service would come rolling in. But value is the key word in today’s custody vendor consideration.

Trust services have become a key differentiating factor, and all four of the major custodians — TD Ameritrade, Fidelity, Pershing and Schwab — now provide plenty of institutional support to their affiliates who want to incorporate trust in their business.

“We know that this is an important need for advisors,” says Matt Judge, head of TDA’s wealth management solutions group, adding that “the high-net-worth clients are definitely looking for this and going to advisors who can provide it.”

In fact, Judge estimates that 20% of the assets on the $100 billion TDA custody platform, or about $20 billion, is in now in “some kind of trust account.”

Based on conversations with other custodians, that’s probably the leading edge of the industry. For example, Fidelity, with $300 billion on its RIA books, only reports about $6.6 billion in advisor trust assets.

But the real story is how fast the numbers are growing as advisors wake up to the possibility that they can now put their hard-won clients’ money into a trust without losing the account to a traditional bank trust department.

At Fidelity, trust assets doubled over the last 15 months, says spokesman Steve Austin.

With all four of the big custodians actively competing with each other to offer the best trust platform, strategies vary. This year, TDA wins the trust-friendly prize because its trust support can match any of its competitors, even though we ranked it so low last year.

Fidelity is close behind with the most extensive “a la carte” approach, while previously top-ranked Pershing and Schwab — each of which still offer high-quality trust hosting service — slip down the list primarily because they have not been innovating as aggressively.

Trust Friendly RIA Custodians

Custodian

Trust Provider

Architecture

Marketing Support

GST Exempt Trusts

Asset Protection Trusts

Directed Trusts

State Tax

Score

Trust Network

Open

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6

Varies

Open

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

6

Trust Network

Open

Limited

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

5

Charles Schwab Bank

Closed

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

4

Source: Internal Research. ©2010 TheTrustAdvisor.com

TD AMERITRADE

Although TDA built out its in-house trust operation two years ago through its $225 million acquisition of Fiserv, that business — now rolled into the Maine-based TD Ameritrade Trust Company — primarily caters to retirement plans.

Since retirement accounts operate on a tax-deferred basis, Maine’s state income tax is not a downside factor here. And at this end of the trust business, the ability to offer asset protection, dynastic trust or other sophisticated vehicles that are not available in Maine is irrelevant as well.

For affiliated RIAs, TDA refers trust business to various directed trust service providers, including Advisory Trust Company and Wealth Advisors Trust. Based in Delaware and South Dakota, respectively, they can support all major trust types and do not subject clients to state income tax.

TDA is talking to a few additional trust companies to join its network and add to the menu of options that affiliates can choose from. They promised us an announcement could come soon.

However, if an advisor has a favored trust company outside the network, TDA will accommodate the accounts and any assets in them, Matt Judge says.

“It’s a truly open architecture,” he explains. “While we have partners to refer an advisor to, we can work with anyone that you want to work with.”

In theory, these third-party trustees could even be traditional bank trust departments or outside wealth managers, but Judge recognizes that advisors usually view these trust providers as potential competitors.

“Our partners focus only on the RIA market and don’t compete on advice,” he says. “Advisors retain the responsibility of managing these assets.”

TDA provides extensive marketing and educational support — including a monthly webinar and breakout conference sessions — for advisors looking to either add trust to their business or beef up their existing trust activities.

FIDELITY

Fidelity takes a segmented approach, giving affiliated advisors a tiered menu of ways they can structure their trust relationships.

At the most simple, Fidelity is happy to wrap trust assets into an RIA’s main brokerage statement and let the advisor act as trustee. This option is becoming a lot less popular after Rule 206  clamped down on the practice, but Deborah Gaff, the head of Fidelity’s trust services unit, tells me she still sees it from time to time.

Next up the pyramid, the company will act as agent for an advisor who is somewhat comfortable as trustee but still needs a little help running the disbursements and other transactions. At this level, each advisor effectively gets a dedicated trust officer to backstop the accounts.

For those who want to totally divorce themselves from the trustee role, Delaware-based captive Fidelity Personal Trust Company will take over as corporate trustee. All accounts are directed — the advisor is clearly spelled out as the investment manager of record.

Fidelity Personal Trust supports all major types of trust except special needs trusts, in which the firm prefers to act as an agent for a family member, Gaff says.

Finally, Fidelity will refer advisors to its own growing network of independent trust companies, which include First American Trust, Colonial Trust, Santa Fe Trust, and others.

In any event, the company has ramped up its marketing support for affiliates who want to offer trust to their clients and prospects.

PERSHING

The smallest of the four major custodians, Pershing still shines by pioneering the “trust network” or open architecture approach to trust services.

Like TDA, the company has no true in-house trust company that faces the advisory channel. Instead, affiliates are referred to various directed trust vendors: Advisory Trust, Reliance Trust, Santa Fe Trust and Wilmington.

Between them, they provide all major trust types and will serve a wide variety of accounts.

While the network remains great, Pershing slips down the list this year simply because its competitors have adopted many of its best features.

At this point, open architecture is no longer a differentiator but a de facto industry standard, and we look forward to seeing how the company innovates next year.

SCHWAB

Although Schwab is by far the biggest RIA custodian with 5,500 affiliates and $600 billion on its platform, it is also the only one that has maintained a closed shop where trust assets are concerned.

Rather than give affiliates a choice, the default option is to run trust options through Delaware-based Charles Schwab Bank. (Charles Schwab Trust Company is also available to handle retirement plan accounts.)

Alternative assets remain a sore spot for many Schwab advisors and a potential loophole in this system.

Theoretically, Charles Schwab Bank can handle real estate, limited partnerships and other non-traditional assets that have become popular in personal trust accounts. However, the company’s recent back-and-forth policy on whether it would support these assets on its brokerage platform has shaken RIA confidence in how well they will be able to integrate these trust assets into their overall book of business.

To avoid the angst, advisors may look into setting up trust accounts through Millennium Trust instead. Schwab picked Millennium to provide custody of alternatives “orphaned” by its initial decision to dump these assets, and the platform should still mesh well with Schwab’s system.

Scott Martin, contributing editor, The Trust Advisor Blog. Steven Maimes contributed to the research and reporting.

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Who’s Charging What for Trust Services? Part 2

Our new expanded trust industry survey for the second quarter of 2010 reveals who’s charging what for directed trusts and for investment management. We found some providers offer a better deal for bundled services. Either way, both plans have their advantages.

When wealthy families pick a trust company, pricing is a factor. But there’s still a lot of debate about just how much value vendors should pack into each of those basis points in order to win accounts.

The Trust Advisor’s latest quarterly survey of independent trust company fees shows that the industry is all over the map when it comes to picking a sweet spot between service and profitability.

Some vendors take a full-service approach and charge a bundled fee for giving clients everything they need or want. Others just provide administrative or custodial service at a rock-bottom price and rely on scale or other operating advantages to boost their margins.

Either way, trust officers agree that unless you’re already one of the biggest banks in the business, it’s important to resist the urge to deliver a one-size-fits-all experience.

“From our point of view, this is not a commodity business,” Anthony Guthrie, president of Atlanta-based Reliance Trust, which offers both bundled and unbundled options, told me. “How we differentiate ourselves from the banks is on service, and that’s not something you can reduce to an in-the-box product or price.”

Who’s Charging What for Directed Trust Services

Trust Company

State

Trust account minimum

Minimum annual fee

First $1 million

Next $1 million

“"

DE

$500,000

$3,000

0.50%

0.40%

“"

TX

N/A

$1,100

1.10%

0.75%

“"

DE

$1 million

$6,000

0.60%

0.60%

“"

DE

$1 million

$5,000 (plus add’l fees)

$5k fee to $1.5M

$7.5k fee to $5M

“"

KY

$1 million

N/A

1.00%

1.00%

“"

NH

None

$3,000

0.90%

0.55%

“"

IL & DE

$5 million

$20,000

0.40%

0.40%

“"

GA

None

$3,000

0.60%

0.35%

“"

NM

None

$4,000

0.75%

0.75%

“"

NV

None

$1,000

0.50%

0.50%

“"

NV

$5,000

$100

1.00%

0.80%

“"

VT

Varies

N/A

0.50%

0.30%

“"

SD

None

$4,000

0.50%

0.50%

“"

DE

$1 million

$8,000

0.60%

0.40%

“"

NM

$240,000

$2,400

1.00%

0.75%

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 October 2010 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

Finding your niche

In fact, full-service trust companies find that once they focus on a market segment, clients will pay a premium on top of the roughly $3,000 a bare-bones provider would charge just to open the account. If not, they probably weren’t going to be profitable business anyway.

“Our customers are usually need-specific,” says Teresa DeMenge, senior trust officer at Zia Trust, which works with a lot of employee benefits programs and IRAs.

Prospects who need more than what Zia provides “really do need the bigger banks to ‘jumbo’ their services,” she told me.

While these clients may be looking for a trustee or custodian, they often end up requiring private banking services or other add-on expertise that a pure trust provider can’t really provide as a standalone operation.

Because those really big fish tend to demand big discounts, even the biggest banks may not really want their business, Bernard Garbo, publisher of A.M. Publishing’s Trust Performance Report, told me.

“You see people in the banking industry getting out of the trust business because being a full-service vendor is too expensive,” he says.

“Doing too many things is difficult,” he added. “Institutions that do nothing but personal trusts do not have the support of being inside a bank, but they still make a lot of money.”

The sweet spot

Of course, the big trust banks say they make their money by leveraging the sheer scale of their holdings. But while deciphering the basis points is not an exact science, it seems that you need pretty vast scale to overcome minuscule margins.

Crunching Garbo’s data reveals that some of the biggest players in the industry generated revenue of 0.20% or less on their managed assets and net margins under 0.02%. Based on that math, there are banks out there that squeeze less than $250,000 in profit out of every $1 billion they gather.

The more commoditized a trust company’s business it is, the faster its fees have to race to that 0.20% level in order to remain competitive, and the more efficiently it needs to run in order to break even.

Those 20 basis points are also roughly what it costs large and small trust companies to provide custody service, says Reliance Trust’s Anthony Guthrie, so we are unlikely to see pure custodians drop their prices any time soon.

Added service demands richer fees. However, the exact formula for what to charge for administration or investment management varies widely from vendor to vendor, and is often obscure when they simply quote clients an all-in-one bundled rate.

“I’m actually not sure I’ve ever had a discussion about how you bifurcate a wrap fee,” says Guthrie, who estimates that a discretionary trustee could easily charge 50 basis points for administration and support and another 50 basis points for any in-house wealth management service.

Of course, that isn’t pure profit. Companies like Reliance, for example, assign all clients—large and small—their own relationship managers, rather than make the little accounts go through a call center. Throw in expensive frills like local administration or investment expertise, and those basis points get eaten up pretty fast.

Investment Management Provided by Trust Companies

Trust Company

State

First $1 million

Next $1 million

“"

TX

1.10%

0.75%

“"

DE

1.00%

1.00%

“"

DE

$5k minimum to $1.5M

$7.5k minimum to $5M

“"

KY

1.00%

1.00%

“"

NH

0.90%

0.55%

“"

NV

0.50%

0.50%

“"

NV

0.84%

0.80%

“"

VT

1.00%

0.60%

“"

SD

1.25%

1.00%

NOTE:Accuracy is not guaranteed. Please consult the institution directly to confirm costs. Most institutions require a $1 million minimum trust account and there are can be additional fees for investment services. 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 October 2010 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

Where we go from here

If anything, what’s surprising about independent trust companies’ fee structures is not so much that they are resisting the temptation to race to the bottom, but that prices aren’t on the rise.

According to Guthrie, pricing at Reliance and the rest of the industry hasn’t budged much over the last decade. “There simply hasn’t been much price compression,” he says.

Teresa DeMenge at Zia Trust agrees that pricing at independent trust companies is stable “so far,” but warns that there may be change on the horizon for bank trust departments.

“Large bank fees appear to be rising,” she told me. “Medium-sized banks seem to have a slight increase due to an increase in operation costs.”

If so, this may make the banks even less competitive at a moment when many are already dumping their trust businesses entirely to leave the field to the specialists, Bernard Garbo says.

“It’s an old thing, but it’s as true in the banking business as anywhere else,” he told me. “Doing too many things is difficult.”

, , , , , , , ,

No Comments