“Serving Men,” Kipling Tells Us How to Handle Junk

CINCINNATI BUSINESS COURIER
June 13 – 19, 1988

INVESTMENTS
by Charles D. Vaughan

“Serving Men,” Rudyard Kipling Tells Us How to Handle Junk

“I’VE JUST READ that I am dead. Don’t forget to delete me from your list of subscribers.” That is supposedly the text of a note written by Rudyard Kipling to the editor of a publication which had just reported his death.

In today’s deluge of junk mail and unsolicited publications, that approach might well be the only way to get off most of the lists. The great barrage of junk mail and junk phone calls continues for only one reason  it works. So many businesses operate on the “numbers game” principle. That is, if you send out enough mail or make enough calls the small percentage that responds will develop into a volume of business sufficient to turn a profit.

Nowhere, it seems, is this more evident than in the financial services arena. As the markets begin to show measurable signs of recovering from the debacle of 1987, perhaps more and more investors will again begin to respond to such appeals. If so, the pace is likely to accelerate. Fortunately, our late friend Mr. Kipling left us with a bit of wisdom along with his wit:

I keep six honest serving men
(They taught me all I knew);
Their names are What and Why and When
And How and Where and Who.
Just So Stories (1902)
“The Elephant’s Child”

We are told that there are really only two great motivators for investors:  greed and fear. Prior to the October Crash, greed was obviously in control. Since then, fear has been dominant. Whether this is completely true or not, there is some validity to the point that investors tend to get caught up in a form of mass psychology. To protect ourselves from ourselves and others who seek to profit from our instincts, it might be worthwhile to enlist the aid of Mr. Kipling’s “serving men” who are available to us all. When we are considering any major changes in our financial program it is worthwhile to call these fellows in turn to help in the evaluation.

What should ask the nature of the proposition being considered. Is it consistent with our long range goals? Is it a radical departure from existing or familiar investments? What is the economic basis for the enterprise and what is the source of the expected profit? What is the downside?

Why should ask the reason behind the recommended strategy. Does it serve to reduce or increase risk? Is the projected reward substantial enough to justify such risk? What is the motivation of the person making the suggestions?

When should next ask the timing of the decision. If it has to be done immediately, what is the rush? If I miss this one, won’t there be another along soon enough? Can I make the commitment in stages or is this an all or nothing deal?

How should in turn get an explanation of the steps required to complete the contemplated transaction. Is it something that is likely to happen smoothly or does it require special handling? Does it involve anything that is potentially contrary to public or taxation policy? And most importantly, how do I get out and at what cost?

Where next should raise two questions. Where will the transaction be done and what legal jurisdiction will it be under? Where will my assets be kept and how safe a place is that?

Who finally should address the credibility of those making such recommendations. On what authority is the adviser making them? Who is actually going to execute the transaction and who is going to monitor it in the future? What is the total cost involved and who is getting paid what?

Admittedly, calling all these guys into action takes a lot of time and effort and sort of spoils the fun of impulse buying, but good information is probably the only real defense the investor has. It is much easier to obtain before the transaction than afterward and may save a lot of grief later.

After all, the real hustler and numbers game player does not want to waste time on those who have a lot of questions; it slows down the number crunching too much.

Besides, it’s a much more pleasant way to get your name taken off a list than Kipling’s.

Posted in Financial Planning, General Financial Articles, Proven Retirement Solutions, Wealth Management | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on “Serving Men,” Kipling Tells Us How to Handle Junk

Choosing A Financial Planner, Eenie, Meenie…

CINCINNATI BUSINESS COURIER
June 6-12 1988

INVESTMENTS
Charles D. Vaughan

Choosing A Financial Planner, Eenie, Meenie, Minie, Moe…

For many people that is the ultimate selection method for choosing a financial planner.

Since anyone can presently declare himself to be a “financial planner,” this method is fraught with hazards, but some help is on the way. The Securities and Exchange Commission has continued to broaden the definition of those who must register under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (as amended). Now anyone who receives compensation for giving investment advice or holds themselves out to be a financial planner must become a “Registered Investment Adviser.” This has recently been held to include some who were previously exempt such as accountants, lawyers and stockbrokers.

The greatest advantage this has to the consumer is that such registration requires that the financial planner provide certain specific information on background, education, tees and possible conflicts of interest. Since financial planning can have different meanings for each consumer, this makes it possible for the selection process to include finding those with the specific skills needed for the specific plan.

There are three basic compensation arrangements under which financial planners work: commission only, fee only and fee based.

The commission only planner is in reality a stockbroker or insurance agent who prepares plans and relies solely upon the client’s willingness to execute those plans for an income. The question always looms of whether or not unbiased recommendations can be made under these circumstances and if only “proprietary” investment products will be recommended.

The more idealistic believe that only the fee only planner can be truly objective and they have a valid argument. Since they charge an hourly rate or fixed fee for services they can be 100 percent objective. However, some argue that the cost of such plans is more than people want to pay. A more important issue for most is that of execution and followup of recommendations. No matter how well designed a financial plan might be, it is worthless without proper execution. A plan that is costing a client hundreds or even thousands of dollars still leaves him or her with the problem of how to make it work. Without a connection inside the brokerage business most planners do not have an awareness of all the currently available products. Even when they do, the client still has to select a broker who can understand the plan and still has to pay commissions to that person.

The majority of the financial planners in the country are fee based. For a modest fee most provide a service that covers all or any part of the six basic areas of financial planning: savings, protection, retirement plan, investments, tax plan and estate plan. Since they receive a fee, the plan is as objective as the planner is objective. The client is then free to go anywhere to execute the plan.

If the client needs further assistance in selection of investments and implementation of the plan, he or she can choose to utilize the planner’s services as a broker or agent. Since the law requires full disclosure, any possible conflicts and all commission compensation must be fully disclosed to the client. If the client chooses to try to do better elsewhere, he or she is free to do so. This does not resolve every issue, but seems to offer the best balance between affordable counseling and objectivity for most people.

A dishonest planner can pad fees as easily as another can charge excessive commissions. The real key is not how compensation is levied, but whether the planner performs the desired services for the benefit of the client.

Each financial planner brings his or her own background and biases along. CPAs tend toward emphasis on taxation, attorneys toward estate planning and brokers and insurance agents their obvious areas of expertise. Good planners recognize that they cannot do it all alone. So, an important selection criterion is the planner’s willingness to work with other experts to meet the client’s need.

Most professional financial planners belong to one or more organizations, which require subscribing to a Code of Ethics and some minimum degree of continuing education. In selecting a financial planner it is worth asking about such memberships.

The government has said that if someone claims to be a financial planner they must be registered and must provide a disclosure statement. Your best defense against borderline or inappropriate service is to ask to see such documents.

Or you could try one potato, two potato, three potato, four. . .

Posted in Financial News & Education, Financial Planning, Wealth Management | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment