Posts Tagged Smartleaf

Networking and Tech Gadgets Attract Wealth Advisors to Big ABA Trust Convention This Week

American Bankers Association wealth management and trust conference brings cutting-edge technologies together with the industry’s decision makers under the banner of building stronger client relationships and enhancing business.

In a few days, an elite 500 or so bankers and other financial professionals will be in Scottsdale, Arizona hammering out the future of high-net-worth advice, and open architecture investing will be front and center.

The American Bankers Association is the elite trade group representing the industry. Just attending the three-day conference can count as a full year of continuing education credit for certified financial planners.

And on average, the people there manage well over $1 billion apiece.

With that kind of firepower packed into one place, the talking points are likely to set the tone for wealth managers and trust companies over the next year.

The “holistic” era is here

If the list of exhibitors is any guide, this is the year giants and niche players alike aggressively roll out solutions that give advisors a 360-degree view of their clients’ finances while keeping the assets under direct supervision.

“Our goal this year — as always — is to give trust companies the tools they need to be as effective, profitable and client-centered as they can be,” says Jonathan Flitt, director of Citibank’s Investor Services unit. 

Flitt’s team will be coaching the crowd at booth 312 how true front-to-back open architecture solutions are finally available and already transforming the business.

The linchpin here is Citi’s “unified managed household” structure, which aggregates data across all accounts- — trust and brokerage, throughout a client family’s financial life — and then gives the advisor the keys to that fully loaded car.

Naturally, a clearer view of the data means more efficient wealth management practices.

And as these solutions move toward the center of the industry, Flitt says early adoption can get firms ahead of both the learning curve and the earning curve.

“Wealth managers who are already thinking in these terms can definitely grow their assets at the expense of competitors who aren’t,” he says

Once niche products, the unified managed account structures that make those efficiencies possible are already hitting the mainstream — and again, there will be plenty of UMA vendors exhibiting their wares at the ABA conference.

The proposition driving advisors to adopt UMA structures is simple. By importing the best investment ideas the industry has to offer, even a small institution can give its clients best-of-breed portfolio management without breaking the budget.

And unlike conventional “separately” managed accounts that export the assets to the third-party managers to trade, UMAs let a trust company or other fiduciary retain direct custody.

The money doesn’t move. Only the investment models come in to be “overlaid” on your client’s wealth.

One product they’ll be talking about in Scottsdale is Smartleaf’s model distribution service, which promises to streamline both sides of the overlay relationship.

“This will make it much easier for wealth managers to bring in outside models, track the ideas they’re using and automatically receive updated models as they change,” says Jerry Michael, the company’s present.

Once the web-driven version of this product rolls out, you can think of Smartleaf as the “app store” of investment strategies for participating advisors to load with all the third-party models they need.

As the “idea store,” Smartleaf handles the billing and the bookkeeping. And because participation is open to any manager willing to sign up, the architecture is completely open.

Naturally, the relationship can go both ways, Michael tells me.

He has a few customers who push one or two in-house specialty strategies back out for other firms to buy while importing the models that run the other allocations in their clients’ portfolios.

As a result, he says, if the flows work out right, that push/pull approach to overlay management can become both a cost-saving measure and a bona fide profit center — a promise few wealth managers can pass up.

Automating the back office

Smartleaf is also deepening its own “holistic” capabilities to let participating advisors automate basic tax strategies across third-party allocations, ensuring that the right shares are sold to match capital gains to losses.

Automation is also in the air in the trust accounting space.

Infovisa is coming off a record-breaking sales year and is eager to demonstrate its new automated account review and risk management systems at the ABA show.

“Prospective clients who currently use similar products offered by our competitors have also told us it is more functional and user-friendly,” says Mike Dinges, the company’s president.

One edge here is integration. Infovisa runs those risk management tools right in the accounting platform, eliminating the need to run two applications at once and pass data between them.

This, in turn, cuts down on the amount of babysitting that staff have to do and lets the automation actually save labor instead of creating new work.

And as for 2013, Dinges tells me he’s got a true industry smash moving toward the launch pad: mobile applications.

By this point, just about everyone in the business who wants a tablet computer has one — and if not, vendors like Citi are giving iPads away.

But even in high-powered groups like the ABA, mobile interfaces have lagged the hardware. Next year, once the account structures are in place, that may finally change.

Scott Martin, senior editor, The Trust Advisor.

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

, , , , , , , , , , ,

1 Comment

UMA Providers Dazzle Wealth Advisors with New Upgrades that Manage Market Volatility Risk

As global markets buckle on fears of new financial meltdown, managed accounts vendors entered the scene promoting new technology to allow better allocation and diversification of client accounts to minimize damage in worst-case scenarios.

Last week, VIPs from the unified managed accounts industry met in Boston to announce new product offerings and a shift in direction when it comes to advisor support.

The Trust Advisor was there to talk to some of the most influential leaders in this area.

“Keep it simple” was the rallying cry for the managed account industry as platform providers finally see their efforts to liberate model-only investing from a once-impenetrable maze of jargon start paying off. Read the rest of this entry »

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

1 Comment

Confidence in Banks Falls to New Low; Farming Out Investment Decisions to Top Advisory Firms Seen as Best Way to Restore Trust

UMAs offering best of breed managers are now in fashion for bank distribution channels while bank crisis refuses to go away.

According to a new poll by Gallup released last week, 36 percent of Americans now say they have “very little” or “no” confidence in U.S. banks, the highest percentage on record since Gallup first started tracking that data.

Safe to say it’s been a tough year in the banks’ public relations departments. The nation’s five largest mortgage firms — Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup and Ally Financial — have been the focus of a federal investigation into whether they defrauded taxpayers in their handling of foreclosures.

All of this coupled with market turmoil are good reasons for UMAs (unified managed accounts) to restore image and help clients properly diversify, rebalance portfolios and soothe nerves.

Investors scarred by one of the worst decades in market history are still finding plenty of reasons to be a little edgy, and they’re leaning harder than ever on their advisors to ease their nerves.

Read the rest of this entry »

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

No Comments

Top Fund Picks for Trust Portfolios

Unsteady markets and courtroom fights are driving some trustees to “open architecture” approaches. Still, plenty of trust departments are content to push clients into in-house funds.

On the surface, this should be an exciting time to manage trust assets. The universe of available options has expanded well beyond old-fashioned blue-chip companies and Treasury bonds to include hedge funds, private equity, foreign stocks and other once-exotic offerings.

But even with this expanded menu to choose from, today’s portfolio managers just sigh when you ask them where they’re finding sources of income for their trust clients.

“There’s a complete dearth of income on a worldwide basis right now,” says Michael Mullaney, who helps run $8 billion for Boston-based Fiduciary Trust.

“The dividends and the Treasury yields just aren’t there,” he added. “And many of the things that look good on paper are actually value traps.”

Fiduciary Trust addresses the problem by allocating some client funds to alternative products like hedge fund shares, private equity and other limited partnerships that generally provide higher returns than bonds and retail funds.

Unfortunately, trusts are not exempt from the rules restricting these products to “accredited” investors with substantial assets. An irrevocable trust needs over $5 million to buy into a private equity fund, for example.

Smaller trusts can buy shares of publicly traded private equity firms like Blackstone Group, but it isn’t quite the same as getting directly into the funds, Mullaney explains.

Similar building blocks, slightly better returns

Minus the alternative asset classes, modern trust portfolios still look a lot like any other high-net-worth retail account.

Modern portfolio theory rules apply, New York estate planner Martin Shenkman explains.

This means that if beneficiaries or the trust documents need a certain level of income, the manager tinkers with the allocations to provide that steady disbursement at the lowest level of risk. Otherwise, the goal is usually to maximize returns while keeping risk in the beneficiary’s and trustee’s overall comfort zone.

Either way, index funds provide core market exposure, freeing the manager to concentrate on hard-to-cover areas like municipal bonds or small-cap stocks.

Unless a firm can find enough investments in these areas to justify its fees, Mullaney says it makes more sense to just put everything in low-cost funds or ETFs and let the asset allocation do the heavy lifting.

A firm like Pennsylvania-based HBK Sorce, for example, will designate a mix of retail funds from a wide variety of vendors, including Goldman Sachs, Invesco AIM, American Funds and even no-load shops like Vanguard.

The perils of proprietary product

Many trust companies that are affiliated with larger banks or wealth management firms still reach first for in-house products to fill a particular portfolio bucket.

For example, Great Plains Trust, which we profiled a few weeks ago, loads its trust accounts with proprietary Buffalo mutual funds and collective investment trusts built by corporate parent Kornitzer Capital Management.

But other banks, stung by Wall Street scandal, are moving to more open platforms where managers can mix proprietary and third-party products in the same portfolio.

Part of the motive here is defensive. Wells Fargo’s trust department is just one high-profile recipient of a long-running class action suit that argues that filling a trust with in-house product is not only a conflict of interest but self-dealing.

Opening up to other vendors’ best ideas can also give a trust company a competitive edge. This is the logic behind the rise of overlay investment models in today’s cutting-edge wealth management shops.

“We have a client that is actively competing on the fact that it has everyone’s ideas to choose from,” Jerry Michael, CEO of overlay provider Smartleaf, tells me.

“It proves that they’re not just selling product, but choosing the best solutions for their fiduciary clients.”

Allocations remain conservative

Wherever the underlying assets come from, asset allocation is still 90% of the game, Martin Shenkman says.

Although the ideal trust portfolio has evolved beyond the age-old “60% in General Electric and everything else in laddered Treasury paper” split, many managers haven’t moved very far.

It’s true that the Prudent Investor Act altered the playing field by requiring trustees to modernize their portfolio theory and invest more actively to get their clients a higher total return. But core allocations remain highly conservative.

The typical trust account only increased its stock allocation by a whopping 1 to 5 percentage points after the Prudent Investor Act, according to trust industry gurus Robert Sitkoff of Harvard and Max Schanzenbach of Northwestern University. (Read the report here.)

This doesn’t mean that trust companies are just locking in a 63%/37% asset class split for all clients. Every account is different, they stress.

Depending on the trust’s goals, an aggressive total return strategy could result in a 35% large-cap stock allocation, a 20% bond allocation and the other 45% in more speculative asset classes.

While more conservative strategies still hug that 60%/40% line, the current market climate has some managers adding new ultra-conservative options for their trust clients.

“In 2008, even our most conservative portfolios lost 10% to 13%,” says Michael Mullaney of Fiduciary Trust. “So we created an even more heavily risk-tested version that cut volatility in half. Client quite frankly love it.”

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

Rate this story? Click here.

Top Fund Picks for Trust Portfolios on Morningstar.com

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

, , , , , , , , , , ,

No Comments

Why Aren’t Overlay Providers Closing the Sale?

Cerulli survey says wealth managers don’t understand and aren’t buying UMA overlay capabilities. One firm, Smartleaf, bucks the trend and continues to close deal after deal. Here’s why.

When industry research firm Cerulli Associates released its latest benchmarking report on unified managed accounts (UMAs), the headlines screamed that advisors just weren’t buying into these theoretically advisor-friendly investment vehicles.

According to Cerulli analyst Jeff Strange, less than half of the financial advisors he surveyed have ever used unified management accounts and roughly 80% have no plans to rely on UMAs more in the future.

“They still don’t understand why UMA is beneficial to their process,” Strange tells the Trust Advisor. “A big part of that is still just that the providers haven’t taken off the training wheels yet.”

While about $80 billion is now managed on UMA platforms, new flows have been stubborn to capture. Only $1.7 billion in new money came to UMAs in 2008 and while aggregate AUM in these vehicles jumped 70% in 2009, most of that growth was simple appreciation in a bull market year.

Overlay providers fire back

Statistics like that are frustrating for companies that sell UMA software and investment models on the premise that UMAs are better for trust companies, banks and advisors than either traditional mutual funds or separately managed accounts (SMAs).

Both UMAs and SMAs tap the expertise of third-party managers to build a customized investment portfolio. However, while an SMA exports the assets to the outside managers to run, UMA assets never leave the sight of the bank or advisor that landed the client in the first place. Instead, the UMA imports the manager’s expertise and applies it to the assets in what’s called an “overlay.”

Trust officers and other advisors can then tinker with the overlay to improve tax efficiency, balance out clients’ outside holdings or obey restrictions against investing in various types of companies—tobacco, for example.

While the combination of flexibility, best-of-breed investment models and custody of the underlying assets should be a win with advisors, most overlay providers still have well under 100 clients on their platforms.

But those narrow client lists—and the Cerulli data—disguise the fact that while the typical RIA may not be eager to sign up, the institutions that are adopting overlay approaches tend to be banks and other relatively big wealth managers.

While a vendor like Smartleaf may only have about 50 clients running its overlays, those elite four dozen institutions still manage about $31 billion in AUM between them. This effectively makes Smartleaf the leader in the bank UMA marketplace.

Most of our clients are banks now, says Smartleaf president Jerry Michael. And many of those banks are pretty big names like BB&T, BBVA Compass and, most recently, Bank of Hawaii’s $6 billion investment services group.

Scale is a big part of the UMA value proposition. Specialized vendors like Smartleaf (which provides the back office software that supports these accounts) and Placemark (which gathers the proprietary investment models) cater to firms that already have accounting systems, trading systems and the dedicated IT staff to keep them talking to each other.

Resellers like Concord Wealth Management and others, package and resell Smartleaf with enhancements into an integrated solution for smaller players like the archetypal independent broker fresh out of the wirehouse.

If you’ve got 100 clients, you can probably build them customized portfolios yourself. But as Placemark CEO Lee Chertavian tells me, going the overlay route looks a lot more cost-effective if you’re running $5 billion in 13,000 client accounts.

“Overlay management can be as simple as an accounting solution to combine separately managed assets or as complicated as a system that helps an institution make better investment decisions,” he explains. “We’re on the far end.”

The real buyers don’t need to be sold

Banks that have the scale and the sophistication to benefit from true UMA programs rarely need much of a sales pitch, Smartleaf’s Jerry Michael says.

“Often as not, they approach us,” he notes. “Firms with strategic objectives requiring change tend to see it as a must-have product. Firms looking for incremental improvement are more reluctant.”

The ability to bring in outside expertise while retaining ultimate discretion is especially attractive for trust companies and other fiduciaries, Michael says. Farming out the assets in an SMA approach rubbed too many banks—not to mention RIAs reluctant to “share” their hard-won clients—the wrong way.

“SMAs just didn’t work for banks,” he explains. “They like being fiduciaries. They wanted to remain fiduciaries, but they needed to open up their wealth management to outside research. This lets them have their cake and eat it.”

Of course, concentrating on the bank channel contains its own challenges. The only client Smartleaf has lost in its 10-year history was when Regions Financial bought Union Planters and threw out its UMA systems.

That’s true of the advisor channel as well. Jeff Strange at Cerulli acknowledges that much of advisors’ distrust for UMAs comes from the notion that overlays are not portable from one broker-dealer to another, and too complex for the typical independent operator to run on his own.

“You can take the mutual funds and the underlying securities with you, but the tax management and other features are not transferable,” he says. “Same with the specific mix of asset managers you have running the portfolio.”

For Jerry Michael, the important thing is clearing up the vagueness surrounding these accounts and what they do.

“I personally twinge when I hear the word UMA,” he says. “It’s too confusing.”

“There’s one type of UMA that’s really just a souped-up SMA that helps the institution monitor what the outside managers are doing in all the separate accounts. Then there’s what we do, where the outside managers’ brainpower is brought in to sit on that truly unified internal account.”

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

Rate this story, click here.

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

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

2 Comments