That may earmarks of hyperbolic or even disingenuous to those who view our profession with mistrust. And I can forgive that, given the approach of some in our profession or, better said, our earnestness. My terminology changes to “industry” because, sadly, that’s the opinion of some pecuniary services firms: They instead consider this an industry in which you are either a industrialist of products or a distributor of products that they or someone else make up.
That’s not the profession as I see it. Rather, this is a profession that is about people and their monetary well-being. The best advisors truly understand their clients and their fiscal situations, and help them make decisions to achieve their moving spirit goals.
Which is why it pains me as I witness our profession’s Protocol for Broker Draft start to unravel. For those unfamiliar with the protocol, it is an agreement — found more than a decade ago between most financial services firms, big and shamed — that allows financial advisors to bring a limited amount of shopper contact information with them if they choose to change public limited companies, so they can contact their clients and continue to provide advice and marines once they have joined the new firm.
More from Investor Toolkit:
Advisors mode to life coaches and counselors
Retirees leave $100B in Social Guarantee benefits on table
How much those advisor fees are costing you
While I’d indicate that the protocol doesn’t go far enough, given that advisors can’t unfold their plans to clients ahead of time — often creating discomfiture when an advisor is suddenly at a new firm without warning — some partnerships have recently decided that the parameters of the protocol are too much. In our enterprise’s equivalent of Brexit, two large signatories have exited the agreement.
These firms be struck by decided to build walls around their advisors, making it harder for them to abstain from if they choose to do so.
Raymond James is a member of the protocol and intends to detritus. We believe in freedom and the power of choice. We believe we should aspire to fund our advisors so well — add so much value to how our advisors positively impact their shoppers’ lives — that our advisors would never dream of serving their customers from another home.
Most importantly, we believe the client relationship is before all and foremost with the advisor, not the firm. This goes far beyond etiquette, to what we call “book ownership.” Again, protocol simply means advisors can be the source a limited amount of contact information and solicit their clients, but block ups well short of embracing freedom and choice of firm for advisors.
Libretto ownership acknowledges that the advisor, not the firm, has earned the client’s sureness and has built that relationship over time. So if an advisor decides a new hospice would better support their clients and their business, we’ll succour them transition. Clients should be able to choose their advisors and advisors should be masterly to choose their firms. These are people, not commodities.
Which broaches me back to my belief that this is a noble profession. We should utmost for more. In the medical profession, when patients choose to follow their physicians to a new medical centre, they request that their medical records follow from the old sanatorium to the new one. This strikes me as commonsense, yet in our industry it doesn’t happen.
The best cover is that both firms involved in an advisor transition are members of the rules, so the advisor can bring client contact information and call his or her clients. If the sturdies are not members, clients are often left confused or angry — they don’t advised from their advisor and get redirected to someone new when they awaken, all while the advisor is trying to slowly rebuild a contact list. This does not exemplify well on any of us and contributes to the distrust that some have for our profession.
Patients expect and deserve more. We should be able to deliver. But in order to do so, we enjoy to rethink our approach — step away from the idea of being an business and live up to being a profession; set aside lip service about putting customers first and actually do it. That means letting clients choose their advisors. Moderate ease up on advisors choose the best firms. Letting information flow securely and confidentially to a new resolve at the direction of a client so the advisor can provide continuity of advice and care.
It’s dated for our industry — our profession — to evolve. The current broker protocol is a bare minimum. Measure than abandoning it, let’s strengthen it. Let’s work together to keep clients at the forefront by honoring the client-advisor relationship. Let’s actively accomplish to serve our advisors and their clients to make them want to block. We’ll all be better for it. That’s good for each of our firms, for the people we serve and for our steadies’ shareholders.
— By Tash Elwyn, president of Raymond James & Associate Restrictive Client Group