August 2019

Risk, Risk Profiling and Risk Tolerance.

Blog postsRSS

The Value of Financial Planning

PlanPlus Global - Monday, 29 July 2019

There's a lot more to comprehensive financial planning than just putting together an investment portfolio. However, the performance of a portfolio is often the only benchmark of the 'value' of financial advice. But investment performance does not account for the other benefits which accrue from receiving comprehensive financial advice.
 
Giving someone a comprehensive financial plan significantly improves their emotional and financial well-being. It makes them more likely to achieve their financial goals and gives them greater confidence that their retirement plans are on track.
 
In a three-year survey of 15,000 Canadians those with comprehensive plans scored higher levels of satisfaction and well-being on every positive measure than those who had received only limited advice, or no advice at all. Those with no advice fared significantly worse.
 
Among the comprehensively advised 81% felt their retirement plans were on track, compared with 73% of the limited-advice group and just 44% of the no-advice group. 60% of the comprehensively advised felt they could handle a financial shock, compared with just 28% of the no-advice group.
 
This value is overlooked when the focus is solely on investment returns. Meanwhile, as more people adopt passive investment strategies the investment performance is increasingly in the hands of the market, removed from the adviser's influence. Few advisers today promote themselves on their skills in 'picking' stocks or mutual funds to invest in.
 
The financial advice industry has not yet arrived at a simple, agreed story of the value it brings by giving advice, versus running money in investments. But there are some common themes emerging.
 
The first theme is that the adviser is bringing an expert professional knowledge of the process to follow to arrive at a robust comprehensive financial plan. They know the areas to be considered; the questions to be asked and what to do with the answers. This knowledge is difficult to obtain, requiring the adviser to undertake extensive study.
 
Most people could not begin to do the job of an adviser as well for themselves, as all that expert knowledge is missing. So there is value in bringing that expertise to the table, that clients will pay for.
 
The second theme of discussions is seeing the adviser as a financial coach and, perhaps financial counselor.
 
As a counselor the adviser takes time to really know their client — to understand their goals, circumstances and personality. The creation of the financial plan is a collaborative process as the adviser helps the client explore their objectives and alternatives.
 
Most people remain very tight-lipped about their financial lives, leaving them with few people to talk to about money and financial decisions. The adviser's role as that 'other voice' is of great value for clients, particularly given that it is an expert voice.
 
As a coach, the adviser holds the client to account on their obligations under the financial plan, and helps them map their progress toward their objectives. Along the way, as circumstances change, they can revise the plan to make sure it is still suitable. Again, most people won't have these conversations with friends. They need a professional ear and expertise and there is value in both of these things.
 
Reports by Morningstar and Vanguard suggest the value of advice alone - removed from investment performance - ranges from 1.5% to 3.0% per annum. This value is delivered through strategies including asset allocation, rebalancing, withdrawal sequencing and behavioral coaching.
 
But it is proving challenging to put dollar amounts on the value of expert knowledge on how to proceed, the counselling skills to make it work and the coaching skill to see it happen. For example, 74% of advised clients in the Canadian study felt they could afford an annual holiday, whereas only 44% of the non-advised were confident they'd have an annual vacation — but how is that to be captured in a fee?
 
The advice industry is at a cross-road. Behind it lies a history of charging a fee for delivering investment performance — ahead lies a future of charging for advice. Between those two worlds many advice-firms are, today, built around percentage-of-asset fee models — which look increasingly out of place as the emphasis on investments fades and the 'softer' skills around relationship, understanding and counselling emerge.

Posted: 29/07/2019 12:00:00 AM by PlanPlus Global | with 0 comments


Advisers Can Only Rely on Psychometric Testing

PlanPlus Global - Monday, 29 July 2019

If you've ever been told you are a four-character personality type, such as a ISTJ, INFJ or ESTJ, you've met the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) test. It was most probably while you were dealing with a recruiter or human-resources person, but unfortunately they learned nothing about you from this test — because it does not work.
 
Myers-Briggs is a great example of a 'psychological test' that looks okay on the surface, but is rotten underneath. It has repeatedly failed tests of validity and reliability in academic settings and, as a result, is shunned by serious researchers.
 
But the MBTI test is alive and well out in the business world, where your next career move could end up depending on it! Around 2 million job-seekers a year suffer this questionnaire that could just as easily describe their personality incorrectly as correctly.
 
The problem is that tests like the MBTI are certainly 'psychological' but they are not 'psychometric' and there is a huge difference between the two. Understanding that difference is important for financial advisers, who are relying on the results of risk tolerance tests when giving investment advice. To be reliable, the test must be psychometric.
 
Reliability has a special meaning in psychological testing — it means you'll get much the same result regardless who gives the test or where it is taken. And, critically, if we re-test in the future the new result should be consistent with the old. 
 
Validity is another special-meaning in word in in psychological testing, which means that the test is measuring what it says it measures. For example, a test measuring financial risk tolerance cannot include questions about risk capacity, or driving cars too fast, because these are unrelated to financial risk tolerance. The test stops being 'true to label'.
 
The Myers-Briggs test consistently fails scientific reviews of its reliability and validity. These problems can be traced to the development for the MBTI test, which did not use scientific processes.
 
The MBTI test was developed by Katharine Cook Briggs and her daughter Isabel Briggs Myers, who based their work on the theories of psychiatrist Carl Jung — whose work was observational and deductive. Katharine began developing her personality-types framework in 1917, based on her own reading of literature an introspection.
 
However, her work then languished for more than 20 years. Katharine and her daughter did not create a test until 1944, when it found traction as a tool to help place women into appropriate industrial jobs in America during World War II.    
 
But they had constructed their 16 personality types and test using their own 'best judgment'. They were not experts in psychology and did not seek expert input or review. As so often happens during war-time, it was brought into service in a rush. It is remarkable that it has been able to endure for so long, given its now well-known short-comings.
 
However, many advisers are today using risk tolerance questionnaires that were created in the same way as the discredited Myers-Briggs test — well meaning people, using their non-expert best-judgement. Often these tests are fatally flawed and would fail any scientific review or evaluation. But in a business setting they endure, just like the Myers-Briggs test.
 
The problem is not that these flawed tests will never be right — the problem is we will never know when they are being right or wrong! Because, at times, a 'junk' test will, by chance, give an accurate description of a person's personality trait.
 
But so will astrological star-signs. Scorpio, for example, might perfectly describe someone born between 23 October and 22 November. But there is a bigger chance it won't — Pices or Gemini or one of the nine other 'types' might be the better fit regardless of birthdate.
 
Psychometric testing of personality traits overcomes these problems, because it produces results that are both reliable and valid — and able to be reviewed and audited by academic experts for accuracy and integrity.
 
Psychometrics is an amalgam of psychology and statistics that can quantify and assess psychological traits and constructs. Psychometrics is well-established and accepted science, with validation tools to determine the technical quality of psychological assessment tools such as questionnaires. 
 
The FinaMetrica risk tolerance test is psychometric and was developed using scientific process and review.
 
The development of FinaMetrica took almost four years. There was extensive testing of the test-instrument (the questions) and the ‘proving’ of results for validity and reliability. Anything that did not meet the high-bar set by the rigors of psychometrics was quickly rejected. 
 
More than 100 questions were tested in rigorous academic environments and processes, with most being discarded as they were not dependable in producing valid and reliable results. The final test was reduced to 25 questions, where confidence about validity and reliability was very high.
  
The FinaMetrica psychometric test of financial risk tolerance was a world-first, that continues to be a world-leader with more than 1.3 million investors now tested. Over the past two decades it has been subject to many independent reviews, with data from the test being used in a number of academic research projects where the numbers were crunched to prove they are correct.
 
But, in the meantime, if you are hunting for a job hope you don't run into that Myers-Briggs test — because being incorrectly labeled an Idealist (INFP personality) instead of an Advocate (INFJ personality) could end up costing you a dream job!

Posted: 29/07/2019 12:00:00 AM by PlanPlus Global | with 0 comments