A Driver of Referrals That May Surprise You

A Driver of Referrals That May Surprise You

I love it when data surprises me and that’s exactly what happened this week.

As you may know, I’ve spent more than a few years researching the drivers of referrals, translating that into a referral model and sharing that information through this blog and the presentations I deliver.

For the most part, the focus has been on the stunning missed referral opportunity that exists simply because:

  • we don’t meet most of the people whom our clients believe they have referred,
  • clients don’t know who to refer, and
  • we don’t do a great job of helping clients refer.
     

For what it’s worth, I believe that there’s still a massive untapped opportunity to increase referrals and it’s supported by our latest research. More to come on that in future posts.

A New Referral Connection
 

Today I wanted to put the spotlight on a different referral driver and it’s one that I haven’t examined in the past.

Based on our most recent investor research (barely out of field and still being analyzed) we can see a clear connection between how knowledgeable a client feels about investments and his or her propensity to refer.

The more comfortable and confident clients are in understanding their investments, the more likely they are to refer you to others.

It’s also the case that there’s a connection (although not quite as strong) between knowledge and satisfaction. I think these are two sides of the same coin.

The Research
 

Before I jump in on the findings, I want to tell you a little more about who we talked to for this study. If you’ve followed our investor research in the past, the sample is a little different, which will impact the findings. The data I’m going to share today focuses on 575 higher net worth clients in the United States, all of whom work with a financial advisor. Thirty-six percent have household assets between $500k – $999k, 47 percent between $1m – $4.9m and 17 percent have $5m plus.

Does Understanding Breed Referrals?
 

Here’s what we know about these clients, based on their self-reported level of investment knowledge.

  • Forty-four percent of clients who referred their advisor in the last year, reported very high investment knowledge.  That dropped to 14 percent for those who did not refer.
  • Thirty-six percent of clients who provided a satisfaction rating of 5 out of 5, reported very high investment knowledge. That dropped to 13 percent for all others.
     

My metric of choice is engagement, which combines referrals and satisfaction into a single metric. Using that measure, you can see quite a startling connection between engagement and self-reported knowledge.

Q: How would you rate your current level of knowledge with respect to investing? 

Referrals and Knowledge_Absolute Engagement

Note that clients rated themselves on a scale from 1 (not at all knowledgeable) to 5 (very knowledgeable). The first category is a 1-3 rating, the second is a 4 out of 5 and the last is a 5 out of 5.

So the connections are strong, but we don’t know why (at least not yet).

Does the connection exist because those who consider themselves more knowledgeable:

  • talk about investments more (and to anyone who will listen) and that happens to lead to referrals?
  • are more likely to value advice?
  • work with an advisor who has invested more time in helping them understand their finances, creating a deeper connection?
     

Discuss.

Related: How to Turn Referrals Into Introductions

It’s one thing to understand investments. However, another signal of deeper knowledge, for clients, is understanding how much they pay for the services provided by an advisor. I’ve long been perplexed that such a high percentage of investors report not knowing what they pay (and that many of the others are, quite frankly, wrong).

Among this sample of high net worth investors, here’s what we know:

  • Nine percent of clients who referred their advisor in the last year, said they didn’t know how much they paid their advisor, increasing to 33 percent for those who did not refer.
  • Twenty percent of clients who provided a satisfaction rating of 5 out of 5, said they didn’t know how much they paid their advisor, increasing to 28 percent for all others.
     

Clearly there’s a tighter connection between knowing what you paid and referrals than there is between knowing what you paid and satisfaction. If we bring those two things together and focus on engagement, here’s what we see.

Q: How much did you pay your primary financial advisor in fees, commissions or other forms of compensation in the last 12 months? Shows percentage of clients responding ‘I don’t know’.

Referrals and understanding fees_Absolute Engagement

What Does This All Mean?
 

While this topic likely demands some additional research, the data is very clear. There’s a connection between self-reported investment knowledge and both referral activity and engagement. It’s dangerous to assume, however, how you should help clients improve their knowledge levels.

For now, I think the data should lead us to asking more and better questions of our clients regarding their knowledge gaps. To that end, here is a set of questions you may want to ask of your clients, either in the form of a poll or as a follow-up to your next review meeting.

  • How would you rate your level of understanding of investments/ finances/financial planning?
  • How comfortable are you with your current level of understanding of investments/finances/financial planning?
  • Which of the following topics would you be interested in learning more about? Create your own list, but here are some examples:
    • Maintaining sufficient assets to meet lifetime income needs
    • Dealing with the rising costs of health/long-term care
    • Leaving a financial legacy for my children
    • Leaving a financial legacy for a charity
    • Coping with a significant market downturn
    • Ensuring my partner/spouse is taken care of should I pass away first
    • Helping my children make financially sound decisions
  • How do you prefer to receive education?
    • I prefer live events (e.g. group seminar or webinar)
    • I prefer one-on-one discussions (e.g., during a review meeting)
    • I like to read (e.g., articles)
    • I like to listen (e.g., podcasts)
       

Sometimes data gives us all the information we need and other times it simply raises more questions, but more pointed questions. It’s a start and it’s valuable.

Julie Littlechild
Client Experience
Twitter Email

Julie Littlechild is a speaker, author, researcher, and founder of AbsoluteEngagement.com. She helps successful professionals and entrepreneurs design businesses that support ... Click for full bio

ETFs: The Importance of “Looking Under the Hood"

ETFs: The Importance of “Looking Under the Hood"

Written by: Doug Sandler, CFA, Global Strategist at Riverfront Investment Group

The growth of the ETF industry has been a boon to investors, providing access to new asset classes and time-tested investment strategies at a competitive cost.  However, the industry’s rapid growth has also brought its own set of challenges with one of the biggest being how to ‘make sense of it all’. 

With thousands of ETFs in existence and new offerings becoming available every day (see chart below), it has become increasingly important to thoroughly research an ETF before buying it.  Most ETFs are not as alike as their naming conventions or category classification might imply. Only by ‘looking under the hood’ can an investor truly assess the unique features and risks that ultimately impact the performance of an ETF in varying economic environments. 

Many of the investment professionals at Riverfront have been building ETF portfolios for nearly 15 years and we are fortunate to have a number of proprietary and third-party tools that enable us to easily identify and quantify the risks in every ETF we invest in.  However, since these tools can be expensive and difficult to develop, we often see investors relying on simple points of comparison like expense ratios or size/trading volume when choosing between several ETFs. 

This lack of in-depth analysis means that investors can be unknowingly comparing ‘apples’ to ‘oranges’ and making a purchase decision based upon which is cheapest or which is most popular.  In this article, we share a framework to help compare ETFs and properly assess their key features and risks. 

We believe that the three most important characteristics to consider when comparing ETFs are: 1. Universe Definition, 2. Selection Criteria and 3. Weighting Methodology.


1. Universe Definition:  


Every ETF is built from a defined universe of stocks.  A universe can be defined broadly, like all companies in the Wilshire 5000, or narrowly, like all biotechnology companies in the S&P 500.  What a universe includes or excludes can have meaningful performance implications, and thus should be an important consideration when comparing ETFs.  Below are a few examples of universe differences that are often overlooked by investors.

A. Europe Example:  What one index provider defines as European companies may differ from the definition used by another provider.  One important distinction is whether they are including companies that are members of the European Union (EU), or members of the European Monetary Union (EMU).  The EU is comprised of 28 countries that have agreed to principals governing interactions including trade and immigration.  The EMU, on the other hand, is made up of only the 11 countries that utilize the Euro as their common currency.  A number of countries like Germany and France are members of both the EU and EMU; however there are a number of countries like the UK, Switzerland, and Norway that are members of the EU and not the EMU.  The countries in the EU but not in the EMU represent nearly 50% of the EU index and their exclusion can be expected to impact an ETF’s performance.  This difference may become increasingly relevant as the UK faces its own unique challenges navigating its exit from the EU (Brexit).

B. Emerging Market example: The two largest emerging market (EM) ETFs have one key difference, the inclusion of South Korea.  South Korea is the 2nd largest country weighting in the emerging market index as defined by MSCI, currently representing roughly 15% of the index.  The FTSE emerging market index, which is the index behind the largest EM ETF in the marketplace, does not consider S. Korea as an emerging market country and thus does not include it in its index.  The dissimilar treatment of S. Korea can have material performance implications on the two ETFs, as it has so far in 2017, with S. Korea significantly outperforming other emerging market countries.  Investors worried about escalating tensions with North Korea, or believe that these fears are overblown, need to consider these differences when choosing their EM ETF.

C. Technology Example: Some indexes define technology more broadly than others.  A key area of differentiation is with regard to how they define Internet Retail.  Some index providers classify these companies within the technology sector, while others view them as members of the consumer discretionary sector.  Similar varied treatment can be found with regard to the media and the electric vehicle industries.  With Internet retail, media and electric vehicles comprising a significant portion of some technology indexes, the performance implications can be profound.  Those that believe companies in these industries represent the future of technology should consider an ETF that is built on a more inclusive index.   

2. Selection Criteria: 


The next characteristic to consider, in our view, is the ETF’s selection methodology. ETFs with a selection methodology based on criteria (i.e., ‘factors’) other than ‘market capitalization’ are often referred to as ‘Smart-Beta’.  A factor is a characteristic like ‘share-price volatility’ or ‘dividend yield’ that is used to screen or rank securities within a defined universe.   With over 2,000 listed ETFs, there is likely an ETF to satisfy the needs of even the most discerning ‘stock-picker’.  An ETF’s selection criteria can be simple, utilizing just a few static factors, or sophisticated like those that employ dozens of variable factors. 

A. Number of Criteria (Factors): Every selection methodology has the potential to introduce biases into an ETF that may not be entirely transparent or intentional.  For example, an ETF that selects its constituents using a factor like ‘value’ will also likely impart significant sector overweights and underweights into the fund.  Many “value”-based indexes, for example, are currently overweight financials and underweight technology and healthcare. Investors who are bullish on technology and bearish on financials should steer clear of value ETFs with these structural biases. A general rule of thumb is that ETFs that employ a small number of factors (four or less) tend to have more biases than those that have more complex factor selection methodologies.  While there is nothing inherently wrong with a bias if it’s what an investor intended, it is important that those biases are known ahead of time and not a ‘surprise’ later.  We like to say: ‘Every ETF has a bias, never make a purchase decision before you find it.”

B. Factor Definition: Selection methodologies can also vary in the way they define a factor.  For example, the ‘value’ factor can be defined differently by different index compilers.  One might use a company’s price/book ratio while another uses price/earnings or price/sales.  To complicate things further, one provider may only include the constituents with the most extreme ‘value’ rankings and another might include a broader group of companies with attractive ‘value’ rankings.  This can lead to significant cap, sector and industry weighting differences between two similar sounding ‘value’ ETFs.  For example, as of 11/30/17, the two largest value ETFs as determined by ETFdb vary in their small and mid-cap exposure by ten percentage points.  Just like you should not judge a book by its cover, it can be dangerous to judge an ETF by its name alone.

C. Static or Variable (Active): Active ETFs differ from traditional ETFs in an important way.  Active ETFs do not follow an index and as a result have the flexibility to adjust their selection criteria, as opposed to traditional ETFs that follow indexes whose selection methodology is set at the time of the index’s inception.  There are pros and cons to each methodology.  One advantage of active ETFs is that they have the ability to evolve and adapt to a changing investment climate.  Some might view this advantage as a disadvantage, since the ETF’s biases will be dynamic and less predictable. For example, an active US equity ETF that falls under a mid-cap classification one day, may become more large-cap focused three months later.    

Related: Ready to Dive Into ETFs? Read This Q&A Before Taking the Leap

3. Construction/Weighting Methodology:


The third important differentiating characteristic, in our view, is the ETF’s weighting methodology.  The weighting methodology not only has the potential to introduce additional biases, but can also dilute or amplify the selection methodology.

A. Capitalization Weighting vs Non-Capitalization Weighting: 

  • Size Bias: ETFs that utilize a market capitalization weighting scheme will tend to contain a size bias that favors large-caps, while a non-cap weighted methodology will tend to have greater exposure to mid and small-caps.  This can be particularly important at various market stages.  For example, it is not unusual for small and mid-caps to outperform in the early stage of a bull market due to their greater leverage to improving business conditions, while large-caps often outperform in a bear market when investors demand stronger balance sheets.
  • Concentration Bias: Market-cap weighting methodologies can also introduce concentration risk to a portfolio, where a handful of securities comprise a significant portion of the ETF.  A popular South Korean index, for example, is cap-weighted and dominated by a single company that comprises more than 23% of the index. Concentration issues can undermine an objective to diversify risk, particularly in higher risk areas like biotechnology or emerging markets.   Ultimately, an unintended concentration bias can turn the ‘right’ idea into the ‘wrong’ outcome if not monitored closely. 
     

B. Factor-Weighted:  Factor-weighting methodologies assign the greatest weights to the stocks that have the highest factor scores.  For example, the largest constituents in a factor-weighted momentum ETF will be the stocks displaying the strongest momentum.  A factor-weighted ETF can be expected to perform differently than one that simply identifies the 100 strongest momentum stocks and weights them equally. Factor-weighting methodologies have the potential to amplify returns positively or negatively.

Bottom Line

One could argue that buying an ETF is similar to buying an automobile.  A car buyer rarely makes their purchase decision based solely on price.  Instead they consider the vehicle’s design, drivetrain and safety features to determine if it meets their unique needs.  In most cases, the decision to purchase an ETF should also not be made solely on the fund’s expense ratio, since there are likely other distinguishing features that will be more impactful to the fund’s performance.  By understanding the construction and drivers of performance in an exchange-traded product, investors can minimize the potential for surprises down the road.
 

Important Disclosure Information:

The comments above refer to generally to financial markets and not RiverFront portfolios or any related performance.

Past results are no guarantee of future results and no representation is made that a client will or is likely to achieve positive returns, avoid losses, or experience returns similar to those shown or experienced in the past.

Information or data shown or used in this material was received from sources believed to be reliable, but accuracy is not guaranteed.

Exchange-traded funds (ETFs) are sold by prospectus. Please consider the investment objectives, risk, charges and expenses carefully before investing. The prospectus and summary prospectus, which contains this and other information, can be obtained by calling your financial advisor. Read it carefully before you invest. As a portfolio manager and a fiduciary for our clients, RiverFront will consider the investment objectives, risks, charges and expenses of a fund carefully before investing our clients’ assets. 

ETFs are subject to substantially the same risks as those associated with the direct ownership of the underlying securities owned by the ETF.  Additionally, the value of the investment will fluctuate in response to the performance of the underlying index or securities. ETFs typically charge and/or incur fees in addition to those fees charged by RiverFront. Therefore, investments in ETFs will result in the layering of expenses.

Actively managed funds are subject to management risk.  In managing a fund’s investment portfolio, the sub-advisor will apply investment techniques and risk analysis that may not have the desired result.

Diversification does not ensure a profit or protect against a loss.

Technology and Internet-related stocks, especially of smaller, less-seasoned companies, tend to be more volatile than the overall market.

Small-, mid- and micro-cap companies may be hindered as a result of limited resources or less diverse products or services and have therefore historically been more volatile than the stocks of larger, more established companies.

Investments in international and emerging markets securities include exposure to risks such as currency fluctuations, foreign taxes and regulations, and the potential for illiquid markets and political instability.

Beta measures volatility relative to a benchmark. A result greater than 1.0 implies that a security is more volatile than the benchmark; a result less than 1.0 suggests that the security is less volatile than the benchmark. Betas may change over time.

RiverFront Investment Group, LLC, is an investment adviser registered with the Securities Exchange Commission under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940. The company manages a variety of portfolios utilizing stocks, bonds, and exchange-traded funds (ETFs). RiverFront also serves as sub-advisor to a series of mutual funds and ETFs. Opinions expressed are current as of the date shown and are subject to change. They are not intended as investment recommendations.

RiverFront is owned primarily by its employees through RiverFront Investment Holding Group, LLC, the holding company for RiverFront. Baird Financial Corporation (BFC) is a minority owner of RiverFront Investment Holding Group, LLC and therefore an indirect owner of RiverFront. BFC is the parent company of Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated (“Baird”), a registered broker/dealer and investment adviser.

These materials include general information and have not been tailored for any specific recipient or recipients.  Accordingly, these materials are not intended to cause RiverFront Investment Group, LLC or an affiliate to become a fiduciary within the meaning of Section 3(21)(A)(ii) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended or Section 4975(e)(3)(B) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.

Index Definitions (You cannot invest directly in an index):

The Wilshire 5000 Total Market Index, or more simply the Wilshire 5000, is a market-capitalization-weighted index of the market value of all stocks actively traded in the United States.

The MSCI Emerging Markets Index captures large and mid cap representation across 24 Emerging Markets (EM) countries*. With 838 constituents, the index covers approximately 85% of the free float-adjusted market capitalization in each country.

The FTSE Emerging Index is a free-float, market-capitalization weighted index representing the performance of around 850 large and mid cap companies in 22 emerging markets. The index is derived from the FTSE Global Equity Index Series.

The MSCI Europe Index represents the performance of large and mid-cap equities across 15 developed countries in Europe. The Index has a number of sub-Indexes which cover various sub-regions  market segments/sizes, sectors and covers approximately 85% of the free float-adjusted market capitalization in each country.

The S&P 500® is widely regarded as the best single gauge of large-cap U.S. equities. There is over USD 7.8 trillion benchmarked to the index, with index assets comprising approximately USD 2.2 trillion of this total. The index includes 500 leading companies and captures approximately 80% coverage of available market capitalization.

Copyright ©2017 RiverFront Investment Group. All rights reserved. 2017.298

This document is a general communication being provided for informational purposes only. It is educational in nature and not designed to be a recommendation for any specific investment product, strategy, plan feature or other purpose. Any examples used are generic, hypothetical and for illustration purposes only. Prior to making any investment or financial decisions, an investor should seek individualized advice from personal financial, legal, tax and other professional advisors that take into account all of the particular facts and circumstances of an investor’s own situation.

J.P. Morgan Asset Management is the marketing name for the asset management business of JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its affiliates worldwide.

J.P. Morgan Asset Management and JPMDS are not affiliated with RiverFront Investment Group.
J.P. Morgan Asset Management
Empowering Better Decisions
Twitter Email

See how ETFs differ from other investment vehicles, learn how to evaluate them, and discover how ETFs can be used effectively to achieve a diversity of investment strategies. ... Click for full bio