This month I received a fax from one of my clients
requesting that I liquidate his IRA so that the funds could be invested in a
guaranteed annuity product. In the letter, the client stated he was aware that
market-driven investments have greater potential for growth but the annuity
would provide him a guaranteed return. He also stated that he didn’t want
further discussion on the matter, that he understood the pros and cons of the
annuity, and that he did not wish to be contacted further. Upon receipt of his instructions, I
immediately liquidated his investments and sent him a brief email stating that
his funds were ready to be transferred.
I was surprised when the client called me shortly after I
sent the email. The client instructed that he did not wish to have his assets
immediately liquidated. This was opposite the instructions I had received via
fax. It also quickly became clear that the client was interested in my opinion of
the annuity he was considering and was anxious to examine any analysis on the
product I could provide. At this point, it became evident that the financial
advisor who was selling the annuity to the client had written the letter I had
received, and that the communication didn’t represent the wishes of the client.
My belief is that the advisor had painted an unrealistically positive analysis
of the product he was recommending and was attempting to ensure the client
didn’t have the opportunity to get an unbiased opinion of the annuity. STRIKE ONE for the advisor.
After my conversation with the client, I typed the name of
the financial advisor promoting the annuity into Google. The first item that
came up was a complaint filed against the advisor by the Utah Insurance
Department. The plaintiff was found to have a recording of the advisor making
statements such as “there is no risk” associated with an investment, which the
State found to be illegal and deceptive. The advisor was also found guilty of
having clients sign various incomplete documents associated with annuity
applications, with blank spaces yet to be completed. As a result, the advisor
was fined, placed on probation for 12 months, and required to take additional
courses on ethics. STRIKE TWO for
the advisor. (I know baseball requires three strikes, but this strike alone
should be enough for investors to look elsewhere for financial advice.)
Ultimately, the client determined it would be in his best
interest to have a three-way conversation between himself, the advisor promoting
the annuity, and me. I agreed that such a meeting would be beneficial and
invited the discussion to take place in my office. However, I stated that I
would need a copy of the annuity contract he was considering beforehand in
order to complete my due diligence. I needed the contract in advance because
annuities are so complicated (purposefully so) that it takes even a
well-trained, fee-only Certified Financial Planner several hours to read and
understand the pertinent information and determine if it may be a good fit for
a client. The client agreed and immediately asked the advisor to fax or email
me the relevant information.
One week later, and the morning of the appointment, I
informed the client that I had never received the information (despite multiple
requests), and that it wouldn’t be beneficial to conduct the meeting until I
had a chance to review the material. The client agreed and the meeting was
cancelled. However, the annuity salesman showed up at my office at the time of
the scheduled appointment informing me that the client was still planning on
attending. I asked why I had not been provided with a copy of the relevant
material in advance; the advisor replied he was out of the office during the
last week. Essentially, the advisor was contending that he never had the
opportunity to fax or email me a simple Microsoft Word document. Yet, the
advisor had conducted multiple conversations with the client during the week.
In today’s era of computers, fax machines, and smart phones, I find it hard to
believe that the advisor (or any of his work associates) never had the
opportunity to send me a simple email during a week when he was in clear
communication with the client. My strong belief is that the advisor simply
didn’t want to allow anyone the opportunity to determine that he had not
adequately represented both the pros and cons of the product. STRIKE THREE for the advisor; he’s out!
However, the saga continues.
As the advisor had arrived at my office before the client, I
suggested I take the contract and read as much as possible before the client
arrived so that we could have a productive conversation. However, the advisor
would not allow me time to read the contract or even permit me to hold the
document despite my multiple requests to do so. STRIKE FOUR.
In an attempt to educate myself as best I could before the
arrival of the client, I agreed to let the advisor “walk me through” the
material he had brought. As a result, the advisor placed the document on my
table, pointed out the guaranteed rate of return and quickly flipped the page.
He then pointed out the bonus return that was applied to new contracts and
again quickly flipped the page. Finally, he pointed out the annuity contract’s
income schedule and quickly turned the page. Clearly, the benefits of the
annuity were being pointed out while the details - or fine print - were being
avoided. STRIKE FIVE.
At this point, I communicated to the advisor that this
exercise was not helping me develop my understanding of the annuity, and that I
needed to read the contract. To this, the advisor stated “I’m the annuity
expert in the room; you should allow me to explain the product to you.” At this
point it became clear that the advisor was not going to allow me an opportunity
to review the product, and as a result, any conversation involving the two of
us and the client would not be an educated discussion about financial planning
and what was best for the client. I refused to continue the conversation and
asked the advisor to leave my office, stating that the client was interested in
my opinion of the annuity and that he should leave the contract with me so I could
inform the client of my opinion and of questions that should be asked. Again,
the advisor refused to let me look at the contract and would not leave it with
me. STRIKE SIX.
The client ultimately required the advisor to return to my
office and leave a copy of the material he had brought to the meeting. After several hours of reviewing the
contract, I discovered the annuity included several major drawbacks that had
not been clearly communicated to the client; as a result, I found it was not a
particularly attractive investment. For
a comparison of how the advisor had presented the annuity with how the annuity
actually functioned, click here.
How can one be confident they can trust their financial
advisor and avoid individuals like this? Unfortunately, the term “financial
advisor” has become vastly overused and is frequently quite misleading. When is
the last time someone introduced themselves to you as an insurance salesman,
annuity salesman, or stock broker? Those terms don’t exist anymore because all
those professions now refer to themselves as “financial advisors.” These
individuals can be wolves in sheep’s clothing. If you meet with an annuity
salesman who calls himself a “financial advisor,” he is going to recommend an
annuity 100% of the time, regardless of what is in your best interest.
The key is to find a fee-only
Certified Financial Planner®
who acts as a fiduciary. Fee-only means the advisor is only paid by the
client, and never collects commissions from selling products. This will ensure
the advisor is recommending a product that is a great fit for you rather than
simply selling a product in order to collect a large commission. A Certified
Financial Planner® (CFP) is an individual who has completed the gold standard of
education in the financial planning industry and is well educated in every
aspect of financial planning, ranging from investments, to retirement planning,
to taxes, to insurance, to estate planning. Finally, a fiduciary is someone who
is legally obligated to act in the client’s best interests, similar to a
doctor, attorney, or accountant.
Surprisingly, most “financial advisors” are not fiduciaries. In fact, there are over one million people in
the US who refer to themselves as “financial advisors.” However, less than 1%
of those million people are fee-only CFPs acting as a fiduciary.¹
When looking for a trustworthy financial advisor, do your
homework. The National Association of Personal Financial Advisors (NAPFA),
located at www.napfa.org, is a
great place to start. NAPFA is the nationwide association for fee-only
financial planners. Further, insert your advisor’s name into Google to ensure
no complaints have been filed against the person. It’s worth the effort - being
sold a product that is not in your best interest will cramp your retirement
efforts for decades.
The advisors at Net Worth Advisory Group are fee-only CFPs® acting
as fiduciaries, and always happy to provide a second, unbiased opinion of any
investment you may be considering.
3 comments:
Everyone has an opinion about money. But with a growing number of investment, insurance, pension and mortgage options sometimes it becomes necessary to have a financial adviser.
Definitely your post provides a great and useful resource every reader must adhere. This is truly a must read and admire. Thanks a lot for sharing!
I agree with this terminology. There are so many people that think it appropriate to call themselves financial advisers, but truthfully they are just glorified salesman. I had my financial adviser try to set me up with life insurance and an annuity. Turns out that what he was looking to set me up for was basically money in his pocket, and I immediately dropped him. And that was a Northwestern representative! One of the supposed best!
Post a Comment