理想的財務顧問

誰可稱為理財顧問？

目前美國對「理財顧問」、「財務規劃家」或「財務專家」之類的名稱，沒有立例管制，即任何人都可公開地自稱為「財務顧問」，甚至執業，為公眾提供理財服務。其中有些是股票經紀(Stockbroker)，有些是保險從業員，加上近年來律師和會計師都可為客戶提供財務規劃，以致社會上稱為財務顧問者，計有數十萬人。

目前，唯一較有公信力、需具備一定專業經驗並通過相當嚴謹考試、符合「繼續教育」要求而獲得的資格，是「注冊理財計劃師(Certified Financial Planner)」，簡稱為CFP。事實上，只有部分「理財顧問」，具有這個名銜。

理財服務範疇

所謂「理財規劃」，是指按投資者整體情況和需要，訂立一個適合個人的全面財務計劃，通過不同的投資工具，達到長期財務目標。理財規劃，應該以客戶本身的需要和利益作出發點，並考慮到保險、稅務、遺產規劃、子女教育、退休安排等因素。理想的財務顧問，應與客戶沒有任何「利益衝突(conflict of interest)」。當然，財務顧問本身的經驗與誠信，亦極其重要。

避免利益衝突

有些「理財顧問」，因本身職業為保險或股票經紀，即使經驗豐富和誠實，也未必是最理想的「財務顧問」，因其不一定能夠完全避免「利益衝突」。有些所謂「投資顧問」向您推介投資產品(例如共同基金、年金、投資人壽保險等)，只告訴您這些產品的好處，但沒有清楚地告訴您其風險或短處，更不提他在這項交易中可賺取多少佣金。有人認為，只要您買到滿意產品，推銷員賺多少佣金與您何關？這種錯誤講法忽略了「羊毛出自羊身上」，推銷員的利益絕對有可能與投資者的利益有衝突。

華人往往不想付理財諮詢費，故特別熱衷於用不收任何費用的財務顧問，卻忘了「羊毛出在羊身上」和「沒有免費的午餐」的道理。「免費」的理財服務，其財務顧問很可能推介某類型投資產品，佣金可能較高，亦可能有很長的「鎖定罰款期」，長期來說對您未必有利。

消費者和投資者不能依靠政府法例的保障，必須奉行「買者醒覺」(Caveat Emptor)，亦即是要「自保」。但普通消費者和投資者若沒有足夠的知識，要「自保」談何容易！唯有不斷增加自己財務方面的知識，不懂時先問問可信任的朋友才作決定；不要輕信對方甜言蜜語推銷言詞，要記得口才好不一定心中誠實；對方施加壓力時，不要怕說﹕「不」或「等一等」；也不要怕問對方「這單交易您可以賺取多少佣金」。不要忘記﹕防人之心不可無。

收費顧問

其實，需要理財服務的讀者，可考慮雇用「按時收費(Fee-Only)」的顧問。我認為，具有CFP資格的「按時收費」理財顧問，是比較理想的選擇。在選擇顧問時，應先了解其專業經驗和背景，服務範圍與收費標準。此外，由於您將與顧問建立長期與密切的關係，故應留意其投資方式和性格是否與您彼此配合。

這類顧問單純為您分析財務狀況，訂立短期和長期規劃，並客觀地建議不同的投資工具。您完全不必通過顧問作任何投資，而是透過自己本身的財務帳戶作投資。此後，您定期約見財務顧問，為投資情況作檢查。這一做法，可避免受到顧問推銷投資產品的壓力，亦可解除利益衝突的疑慮，更可減少整體投資費用。

當然，這種做法需要您自行負擔部分投資責任，但資金既是自身努力儲蓄下來的成果，管理它就不應該完全假手他人。

不假手他人

其實，投資理財並不困難，由財務顧問從旁輔導，自己逐步增加理財知識和經驗，不久即可學會。我見過不少長者，本身不懂英語，卻憑著自己努力學習理財，結果成為出色的理財者。因此，許多朋友應該嘗試自己管理投資，透過折扣經紀行進行投資，定時自己檢討投資情況，看看是否需要改變策略。假如自己未夠信心完全不假手他人，都可以每年聘用上述「按時收費」顧問檢查投資，並給予意見。

以下這篇文章原載在華爾街日報

Financial Plans: Selling For In-House Gains?

By RUTH SIMON
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

John Haritos Jr. was looking to cut his tax bills and save for retirement when he agreed to a free financial consultation with American Express Financial Advisors. Told his finances wouldn’t allow him to meet his retirement goals, Mr. Haritos, 37 years old, paid $500 in July 2000 for a financial plan. Recalls Mr. Haritos: “I figured I was paying for … unbiased advice."

He now says he figured wrong.

What did Mr. Haritos get? A laundry list of American Express products he should buy. So he moved $26,000 from a money-market fund into a brokerage account that charged a flat 1.5% a year and invested largely in high-fee mutual funds. He also transferred his $4,000 individual retirement account to American Express and rolled a life-insurance policy into an annuity run by IDS, also a unit of American Express Co. Nearly all of the investments, which generated high fees for AmEx and its advisers, fared poorly.

Mr. Haritos soon cashed out and sued the firm. American Express is contesting the charges, saying in filings with a federal court in Arizona that the written disclosures to clients “are more than enough to constitute ‘storm warnings’ that the Financial Plans may not be as ‘objective’ or ‘unbiased’ as supposedly represented."

Financial plans have exploded in popularity in recent years as brokers, insurance agents and other financial advisers have touted their benefits. Roughly 9.5 million households obtained a financial plan from mid-2000 to mid-2002, up from 6.6 million in a 1998 survey, according to SRI Consulting Business Intelligence, a research and consulting firm based in Menlo Park, Calif. Another 6.6 million received a retirement plan, the survey found.

Investors who sign up for financial plans believe they are getting independent advice tailored to their own needs. But in one of several “open secrets" that have been hazards for investors in this era, these plans often are little more than sales tools that stand a better chance of making money for advisers and their firm than their clients.

Critics say advisers rarely disclose that they get big bucks for directing investors to insurance products and mutual funds that provide the highest payouts, rather than offering investments that may pay the adviser less but are better-suited to the client’s needs. Any information about potential conflicts is often vague at best and tucked into documents provided to investors when they are already well into the planning process.

A good financial plan can be useful to chart an investor’s future, of course. But “for a number of advisers it is a marketing hook," says Matthew McGinness, an associate director with Cerulli Associates, a market-research firm.

Many financial firms that provide such plans also offer proprietary, or in-house, financial products. The potential for conflicts at American Express is intense because of its large stable of in-house mutual funds and insurance products. Proprietary products account for roughly 65% of adviser sales at AmEx, a regulatory filing says.

Many AmEx funds have been poor performers. Over the past three and five years, AmEx funds have, on average, ranked in the bottom third of all fund families, according to fund-tracker Morningstar, Inc. And AmEx receives special revenue-sharing payments from 11 outside fund families — including AIM, Putnam, Strong and Van Kampen.

An American Express spokesman says the company has been overhauling its fund operation in the past two years in an effort to boost returns. “We are absolutely committed to improving our performance," he says. Though fund performance has improved, AmEx funds still ranked in the bottom half of all fund families in the past 12 months, according to Morningstar.

American Express Financial Advisors carries a lower profile than the firm’s credit-card business, yet it accounted for roughly 24% of American Express’s $26 billion in revenue and 22% of its net income last year. Fees from financial plans and other advice services accounted for just $121 million of the unit’s $6.2 billion in revenue last year, according to regulatory filings. But the importance of planning to AmEx and the firm’s more than 12,000 advisers is far greater: Three-quarters of total sales were generated by financial plans and advice services.

Financial advisers use the planning process to draw clients in, but they depend on product sales for their livelihood, current and former advisers say. “The financial plan is their big claim to fame. But if that’s all you did, you’d starve to death," says Judy Reed, an adviser who left American Express in early 2002 after more than a decade with the company. Other former AmEx advisers say that when they presented a financial plan, they dubbed it “The Close," because of its usefulness in selling high-fee products, including proprietary funds and insurance that paid more to the salesmen — and to the firm.

An AmEx spokesman says “financial planning is at the core of what we do" and is “the best way to serve the needs of our clients," adding that the firm’s approach to financial planning is “comprehensive." While many clients buy financial plans from AmEx and then use the firm to follow its recommendations, others pay for plans and implement the suggestions elsewhere or simply buy products from the firm, the spokesman says. “It’s not one size fits all."

In some cases, the pressure to sell in-house products is overt. Peggy Bigelow, a financial adviser who left American Express in 2001 after a year with the firm, says she was repeatedly criticized for recommending that her clients invest in outside mutual funds. Other former advisers say the training they received focused largely on sales techniques and the company’s proprietary insurance products.

Mr. Haritos, a medical-equipment salesman in Mesa, Ariz., says he learned this lesson the hard way. When he discovered in 2001 that the investments recommended by his adviser were faring poorly, he closed the brokerage account, at a loss of roughly $14,000, or about 35% of his total investment, and moved his IRA to Charles Schwab Corp. He’s still holding the annuity, however, because he doesn’t want to pay a costly surrender charge.

His suit, filed in October seeking class-action status, requests the refund of all financial-planning fees plus interest, according to Jon E. Drucker, Mr. Haritos’s lawyer. Mr. Haritos says his AmEx adviser, Michael Vukonich, never told him he had financial incentives for recommending AmEx proprietary products, rather than outside investments offered by other companies. Mr. Vukonich declined to comment.

Other investors say they were directed to the firm’s in-house mutual funds and other proprietary investments. Pierre Gangloff, a software engineer in Boston, says he was looking for tax and investment advice when he paid $600 for a financial consultation in 2002. Mr. Gangloff says his adviser persuaded him to invest a total of more than $17,000 in a dozen different AmEx mutual funds. Mr. Gangloff also invested $500 a month in an IDS variable universal life policy and moved $8,000 from a money-market account to a less-liquid AmEx Market Strategy Certificate — a certificate of deposit tied to the Standard & Poor’s 500. “I had the impression I would be … hiring some professional … who would work for me to figure out the best alternatives," he says. “But they were really pushing the American Express brand."

Some AmEx customers say they didn’t learn about the potential conflicts until they were well into the planning process. Douglas Parker, a computer programmer in Baltimore, paid AmEx $450 for a financial plan in 2001. Mr. Parker says his AmEx adviser then sold him disability insurance, term insurance and two variable universal life-insurance policies run by IDS. Mr. Parker also rolled over $34,000 from three retirement accounts at Charles Schwab, T. Rowe Price Group Inc. and TIAA-CREF into AmEx annuities and an AmEx brokerage account that included investments in proprietary mutual funds. Mr. Parker says he didn’t receive any papers indicating that the adviser might have a conflict until after he had signed the planning agreement and rollover papers.

Says Mr. Parker: “They manage to get control of your funds before you know it."

經常有人問我如何去選擇財務顧問，以下擇錄自我一些電子郵件答覆﹕

(1)

Different financial planner charges different fees. Some tells you there is no charge, but then they push you to buy expensive financial products through them. Some of them are actually insurance salesmen or stockbrokers. It appears the certified financial planner you used is a real planner. Charging a flat fee is better than paying on the basis of the amount of investments, or the no-fee arrangement I mentioned above. 1% of income is actually quite reasonable, although I am more familiar with “fee-only" planners who charge by the hour (typically $150-$200 each hour). If you are comfortable with this CFP, then you can continue with him since his fees seem to be reasonable.

Avoid planner who do not charge fee. Someone has to pay. You will end up paying a lot more. But that is not the worst part. The worst part is they will steer you into products their companies sell, and some of the products generate more fee income for the salesmen than for you.

(2)

There are many “financial planners" or “financial advisors" running around since there is no restriction on who can call himself a financial advisor. But unfortunately many of them are actually insurance salesmen or stockbrokers. They may give you “free" consultation, but invariably they will try their best to steer you into products that would earn them commissions. While there is nothing wrong with earning a commission for works performed. But the potential conflict of interest is alarming. If the advisor is actually an insurance salesmen, you can bet that he is going to get you to invest via insurance products, many of which carry heavy sales commission, charges, fees, and long surrender charge periods. The advisors will not tell you other investment tools because there will be no commission in it for him. I think this is a lousy way to get financial advice, and I have seen many sad cases (I meet with about 15 families a week and I have seen enough problems).

The only kind of financial advisor I would recommend is “fee-only" advisors who would charge you by the hour. You are paying him on an hourly basis for his help and for his expertise. You are under no obligation to buy any financial product through him, and this is clear from the get go. So the advisor will help you review your portfolio, make asset allocation suggestions, and make investment suggestions. You would then take his advice and implement it yourself. This is the most objective and low-cost way of getting financial advice. Each year you would go back for a “check-up".  

(3)

A good friend of mine (a CFP) do it this way: he provides tax preparation, financial planning (mainly “fee-only"), insurance and mortgage loan products and services so he is not restricted to just financial planning. As an independent he is doing quite well, but he needs to diversify into different areas in order to have multiple sources of income. Another CFP friend of mine was affiliated with an insurance company group for the past ten years and personally I do not think this is a good way to go because he has been pushing insurance products all these years (variable annuity, VUL, etc.) . I like the former approach better.

(4)

When seeking a financial planner, it is important to get one that will only provide your with advice for a fee, and not one who would try to sell you products so he can make commissions from you. Many financial planners or financial advisors are actually insurance salesmen or stockbrokers in disguise. They may tell you they can do your financial planning for you at no cost. But invariably they will try to steer you towards products which are loaded with sales charges and fees so they can get their commissions. Everyone needs to make a living, so I don’t blame them for wanting to make some money from you after giving you service. But what I worry about is the potential conflict of interest.

So the only kind of financial planner I would recommend is what is called “FEE ONLY", which means they provide you financial planning service at an hourly rate. You only hire them to give you advice. You do not need to go through them to buy any products (unless you really want to).

Another suggestion for you is to do as much homework and thinking yourselves before you meet with him. If you want to, you can run these issues by me on e-mail so we can have some discussions before you actually sit down with Danny. The idea here is even though you hire a financial planner, it is still your personal finances so you need to know as much as you can about how to handle your finances.