the ICI survey
I was looking on the Investment Company Institute (the trade organization for the fund management industry) website for aggregate data on the size of tax losses held inside mutual funds and ETFs–the topic of Sunday’s post–when I found a report on a survey of mutual fund investors and their investment advisors. This was supplemented by a later survey that elaborates on the types of financial advisors used. I thought the information was interesting, and certainly not what I had expected even though I marketed my products to financial advisors for twenty years. Here are the survey results:
The survey was done by phone in 2006, before the financial meltdown. 1003 households were interviewed by a third-party professional surveying company. The report didn’t contain either the survey questionnaire or the raw survey data.
Two characteristics of phone surveys to keep in mind:
–they almost never use cellphone numbers because laws in most states prevent machine dialing of cells, so surveys that include them are more expensive. This distorts the twenty-something demographic, which probably isn’t so important in this case.
–phone respondents tend to portray themselves in what they consider a more favorable, or more conventionally acceptable, light than they would in an internet survey.
The survey wanted to find out about financial assets held outside workplace retirement plans.
The survey defined a financial advisor as “someone who makes a living by providing investment advice and services.” This includes not just traditional “full service” brokers, but also independent financial planners, bank and financial institution investment representatives, insurance agents and accountants.
the customer base
1. Almost all the respondents (82%) had access to professional financial advice.
–Almost half (49%) bought mutual funds exclusively through financial advisors.
–A third bought both through advisors and on their own (through discount brokers or directly from fund companies). No explanation for this behavior, although I think many customers try to control the fees they pay to financial professionals by maintaining two accounts. One will be wrap-fee account with a financial advisor; the second will be a no-fee discount broker “clone” of the first.
–14% bought exclusively on their own.
–4% had no clue where the funds came from.
A total of 60% of the assets were held through financial advisors.
why customers seek advice
For most customers, there’s an event that triggers the search for a financial advisor.
For people in their twenties or fifty-plus, the event is usually receipt of a large lump sum, either an inheritance or payout of a work-related investment account.
For thirty- or forty-somethings, the event is lifestyle-related, usually marriage or the birth of a child.
what they need
The top four things customers want from a financial advisor are:
1. help with asset allocation
2. an explanation of the characteristics of the financial instruments they can buy
3. help in understanding their overall financial situation
4. assurance that they’re saving enough to meet their financial goals
Although a large minority(about 40%) of respondents seem to want to turn their money over to an advisor and forget about it, most regard their advisor (correctly, I think) as a consultant rather than a money manager and want to play an active part in making the decisions that define their portfolios.
demographics of advice seekers
The predominant characteristic of people with ongoing relationships with financial advisors is that they don’t use the internet to get financial information. This group is twice as likely to have a financial advisor as those who do use the internet for financial data. Here the survey really seems to break down, because it doesn’t say whether these customers don’t use the internet to get any information (my guess) or whether it’s just financial information they get elsewhere–if they get any at all.
What’s also interesting is that this (Luddite) behavior is not characteristic of mutual fund holders as a whole. Other ICI research from around the same time shows that mutual fund owners tend to be intensive users of the internet, with financial information a particular area of interest. Apparently, this latter–probably younger and more affluent–group doesn’t use financial advisors.
The other ICI research also suggests that the third of respondents who had some advisor-related funds and some not were predominantly in the latter camp. The fact that 60% of the assets were bought through financial advisors suggests that the non-internet users are substantially wealthier, and probably older, than internet savvy respondents to the financial advisor survey.
Female decision maker households are 50% more likely than average to have an ongoing financial advisory relationship, as are families with over $250,000 in household assets (remember, this is pre-crisis).
The fourth defining characteristic is age. Respondents who were 55+ were 40% more likely than average to have a financial advisor.
who doesn’t want a financial advisor?
This group, a small minority according to the survey, has three defining attributes:
–they want control of their own investments, a desire that increases in intensity with age
—they (think they)know enough and have access to all the resources they need to make intelligent decisions on their own. Sixty-somethings and older hold this conviction the most strongly, followed by the under 45 set. Those in the 45-59 bracket think so too, but have more doubts.
—they don’t like advisors. They think they’re too expensive and that they put their own interests ahead of their clients’.
One in seven respondents, under 45 more often than not, said that they don’t need professional advice because they get it for free from a friend or family member. Other than my children–who get excellent, if aggressive, investment advice, this group seems to be one fated to live on public assistance later in life.
I wonder if a survey conducted today would get the same results?
Despite long-term planning and all that, many individual investors seem to have sold their equities at the bottom and put the money into bonds, missing the subsequent equity rebound. According to ICI data, they continue to allocate assets away from stocks and into bonds, despite the fact that bonds haven’t been so expensive vs. stocks in almost sixty years. Is this conservative move spurred on by financial advisors? Probably not.
I remember a story that ran in the Wall Street Journal just after the stock market collapse of 1987. It was about a prescient retail broker in Connecticut who called up all his clients in late summer of 1987, just before the crash, and convinced them to sell all their stocks–which they did. He called them back in November, at the market bottom, to advise them to buy again. No one returned his calls. He packed up and left for Oregon to try to rebuild his business there.
Maybe the same has been happening today.
Another aspect to 1987. I think the market decline marked a paradigm shift by individual investors. Prior to that, people typically bought individual stocks through full-service brokers. Post-crash, I think that many individuals, like those Connecticut customers, lost faith in brokers and turned to independent financial advisors and mutual funds.
Does the financial crisis mark another structural turning point? Maybe. If so, it’s probably away from mutual funds to ETFs and away from using financial advisors as consultants with specialized financial expertise to self-reliance.