Putting a spotlight on client fees

Cynthia Kett, a principal at Toronto-based Stewart and Kett Advisors Inc., told the audience during a panel discussion entitled “Compensation: the elephant in the room” that the fees for her “advice-only” or fee-for-service practice are published on her firm’s website. These include fees for services such as retirement income projections, estate planning and tax return preparation.

“We’re proud of the fees we charge. We think we provide value and there’s no reason you shouldn’t be paid if you’re giving good advice,” Kett said.

An additional way to justify a fee-for-service or an asset-based business model is to understand exactly what clients expect from their advisor in exchange for those fees, suggested David Christianson, a senior investment advisor with Christianson Wealth Advisors in Winnipeg, which operates under Montreal-based National Bank Financial Ltd.’s umbrella.

Christianson, who runs an asset-based practice, told the crowd he is “obsessed with being a good employee” to clients.

“I’m obsessed with finding out what my job description is so I can ask clients questions such as, ‘What do you want to be saying about me 12 months from now? What will have to happen in your life personally and financially for you to be fully satisfied with your progress?'” he explained.

A business that avoids commissions-style pricing can distinguish advisors who go the extra mile, suggested Shawn Brayman, president and CEO at PlanPlus Inc. in Lindsay, Ont.

When compensation is embedded into a product, that means the advisor who spends time at the golf course is being paid the same as the advisor who provides additional planning — and that is a problem, Brayman said.

Although “sticker shock” can be an issue for some clients, advisors should try to quantify exactly how the client will be helped through the advisor’s services. If an advisor can tell a client that he or she can save that client a few thousand dollars through a service that costs a few hundred dollars, the client will see the value, Brayman said.

Clients may not be as fearful of fees as the industry may think, he suggested, referring to the experience of advisors and clients in the U.K. following the implementation of the mandated Retail Distribution Review (RDR) in 2012.

This move eliminated the use of commissions that product manufacturers used to pay advisors, but clients in the U.K. are reporting higher satisfaction with their financial advisors, said Brayman.

“They’re paying higher fees to advisors and lower [fees] to the product manufacturers, but it’s the trust and transparency that has really changed [clients’] opinions,” he continued. “I think all people really want to know is, ‘I worked hard to get this money, can I trust you with it to look after my interests?'”

Brayman also spoke about the effects of regulatory changes in the U.K. during another presentation on Thursday. He told the audience it was believed that U.K. advisors’ compensation would be affected negatively by RDR changes because clients would not want to pay for advice. However, advisors’ income has remained stable or increased while product manufacturers’ profits have fallen.

“The reality is that once the planners started working for the clients and were compensated by the clients instead of by the manufacturers, they started looking for more cost-effective products,” he explained on Thursday. “[Advisors] became more competitive, the clients are getting a better deal and the advisors are making what they made or more. It’s the product side that took the hit.”