In many of the groups that I visit around the world, we find
that they have a portfolio proposition that is either advisory, discretionary,
or perhaps have both. What I find interesting though is why their propositions
are such and whether they are open minded to the alternatives.
In the advisory proposition camp, we often find that the key
drivers on the positive side are that it supports a highly client engaging and
interacting proposition and supports relationships, and in other ways is regarded as often with a lower
business risk as each adjustment to the portfolio is done with the client’s
approval. The downsides of this proposition for the adviser and possible
also the client is that it requires for the adviser to establish contact with the
client, for the client to approve the portfolio adjustments which may have
challenges if the client is not in the same time zone as the adviser, may not be
contactable, or just doesn’t want to think about any portfolio adjustments at
that time.
In the discretionary camp, the clear benefits are that the
adviser or portfolio manager can take advantage of short living market
opportunities, perhaps can get leverage of the whole book size (or many
portfolios at the same time), and reduce or eliminate the workflows for client
communications and confirmations when adjusting portfolios. Also this model is
inherently more scalable as less ‘workflows’ to involve external people (ie
clients) are required. The downside however is that in many countries the
regulatory overheads and approvals to offer a discretionary service to
investors is sometimes quite challenging in terms of license approvals,
education and experience requirements and often firm capital adequacy
requirements.
Picture this:
a)
Each adviser can use portfolio intelligence
capabilities from Financial Simplicity to monitor all their client portfolios
(could be thousands) for required portfolio adjustments. Within seconds they
can identify which client portfolios need adjustment.
b)
Then for those client portfolios that warrant
adjustments, the adviser can use Financial Simplicity’s personalized portfolio
modelling / rebalancing in seconds again to produce personalized portfolio
reviews for such clients. With the automation in Financial Simplicity to
support this, they may do this for dozens of even hundreds of client portfolios
within minutes
c)
Assuming the clients have phones or email. the
adviser can then use their email / CRM / SMS or whatever ways of communication
they desire to communicate with their clients electronically
d)
The clients can read the portfolio review
documents and can then either speak to the adviser or use on-line methods to
approve the portfolio adjustments for the adviser
e)
The adviser then implements the portfolio adjustments
according to their workflows and methods which could involve methods to
efficiently make trades for clients en-masse
In the same way that discretionary managers may only make
smaller adjustments to portfolios in a day, should the above process be sufficiently
efficient, then it may be that each client portfolio review will just be
smaller adjustments, requiring less contemplation or time to consider by each
client, improving overall end to end efficiency.
i)
What is the client engagement model that
each client prefers, to ensure to deliver a service to their requirements ?
ii)
What the different economics of the different
operating models ? Are now the costs of monitoring , reviewing / rebalancing
portfolios and communicating with clients now down to a cost level that makes
it more appealing than a discretionary offer (with associated regulatory
overheads perhaps) ?
iii)
What are the set up and establishment costs (ie
licensing, capital adequacy, resourcing, compliance etc) for the
different proposition types ?
iv)
Where are the technology trends likely to move
in the future ?
v)
What pricing levels, premiums or discounts
can the firm provide for each type of proposition compared to the other – which
is cheaper or more expensive to operate ? what is the relative value in the
eyes of the different client types ?
vi)
Now do I segment my clients more around how they
want to be engaged rather than how much monies they have for investing ?