Does Your Value Proposition Resonate?

A gap exists between what financial advisers say during early-stage client meetings and what truly resonates with prospects, according to a new survey form Pershing.

The research suggests an effective value proposition can strengthen new client connections and foster practice growth, yet few advisers seek out or receive objective guidance in formulating such statements. Above all, Pershing says advisers should view the value proposition stage as the time to differentiate their services from the competition.

Survey results suggest an effective value proposition answers the critical client question, “Why should I choose your firm over the competition?” Yet according to the survey, 60% of clients polled said they hear prospecting advisers from competing firms make similar or identical service-related promises. Pershing says this makes it difficult for many clients to distinguish between advisory firms and make a truly informed decision about which firm may best serve their needs.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

The strongest value propositions, according to Pershing, incorporate the unique attributes of the advisory practice being discussed; a rational explanation of how the firm’s attributes will benefit the client; and language that evokes emotion, especially optimism.

“Developing an effective value proposition can have larger implications on an adviser’s overall business than they may realize,” says Kim Dellarocca, managing director at Pershing. “In many instances, the value proposition is the first impression potential clients experience and can be the catalyst for a future relationship.”

Dellarocca says the value proposition is also an opportunity for advisers to promote sustainable business growth by identifying and targeting their ideal client base. The adviser should understand how the attributes and features of his practice could appeal to specific demographic groups or client segments. Such insights should be constantly updated and worked into the value proposition, Pershing says. 

“Of course, the real test is delivering on what you promise,” Dellarocca adds.

Based on a systematic look at the value propositions used by the fastest-growing advisory practices, as well as investor reactions to these and other value propositions, Pershing has identified key takeaways for advisers to consider when creating a value proposition of their own. 

First, advisers must include core promises in their value proposition that will serve as the foundation for the client relationship. Pershing’s poll found that investors respond well to promises to build tailored investment solutions that can meet specific goals. While clarity is king, don't oversell simplicity, Pershing warns. Many advisory firm websites promise to simplify investing and relieve clients of the burden of managing wealth, but according to Pershing's study, most investors accept the need to take an active role in managing their own finances.

Additionally, two topics that investors care about most—finding defensive investment approaches that retain growth potential and finding trusted sources of advice and guidance—are under-represented in most value propositions.

Prospective clients also seek assurances that the adviser will work in their best interest, and that the adviser will work with skilled and experienced investment managers. Pershing warns that such points may seem obvious, but advisers who do not specifically mention these points in their value propositions risk being excluded from consideration by potential clients.

Successful advisers also need to include “something extra to differentiate themselves,” Pershing says, such as the delivery of unusual client benefits, like building a family legacy or understanding clients' personal aspirations. If the client is a retirement plan sponsor, language around participant financial wellness and boosting retirement outcomes is important, as is discussion of fiduciary accountability.

Advisers must also watch their language, especially early in the prospecting phase. Pershing’s poll shows potential clients dislike jargon and favor words with emotional connotations—meaning how the value proposition is formulated is just as important as the message it is trying to portray. For example, when judging between near-synonyms, investors prefer words with an emotional punch, such as “unwavering” and “passionate” rather than “committed” and “dedicated.” In addition, Pershing's survey found that investors prefer value statements that incorporate terms like “comprehensive” over “holistic” by a ratio of seven to one.

Trust remains a much bigger concern for investors than the financial industry realizes, Pershing says. Advisers, therefore, must ensure their value propositions include a message about why investors should trust them. This can be accomplished through language around track-record and credentials, as well as more general themes of accountability, integrity and fiduciary responsibility.

Finally, Pershing reminds advisers that different market segments place higher emphasis on different adviser attributes. Advisers should identify their ideal client base and what is most important to them in an adviser—and make sure their value propositions exhibit those points. For instance, investors younger than 40 place higher importance on advisers who will provide guidance through life's major events and relieve the burden of managing finances.

Pershing's “What Do Top Advisors Say and What Do Investors Really Think?” survey report is available at www.pershing.com/valueproposition.

Pershing, a BNY Mellon company, provides investing and business solutions for financial organizations, broker/dealers, registered investment advisory firms, fund managers and asset managers.

Target-Date Funds Decoded

Target-date funds (TDFs) have been the fastest growing area of the mutual fund industry over the last decade.

They are a special category of balanced or asset allocation mutual funds in which the asset mix in a fund’s portfolio is automatically adjusted according to a specific time frame—from a position of higher risk to one of lower risk as the participant ages or nears retirement.

TDFs (also known as lifecycle, age-based, asset allocation, or target-maturity funds) have higher equity allocations for younger clients, with the equity allocation declining as the participant nears retirement. This is based on the need to grow assets until retirement and then increase current income post retirement. The allocation to stocks versus bonds, referred to as the “glide path”, adjusts automatically over time. The ratio of the two asset classes at retirement is referred to as the “landing point.”

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

Ken Hoffman byline TDF equity allocation

TDFs satisfy so many needs within retirement plans that they have become exceedingly popular investment structures for numerous reasons:

  • They are simple.  If, for example, you are 39 years old and plan to retire at age 65, you have 26 years to retirement. It is easy to choose the 2040 target date fund series and have the fund manager adjust the asset allocation over time.
  • Their structure is convenient.  Broad data indicates that participants rarely examine their asset allocations or spend the time to fully understand the rationale of how to set their own allocation. A target-date fund does it for them. This investment structure diversifies the participant’s assets with one click of a mouse.
  • The participant receives professional management not only within the fund but also in the asset allocation decisions within the specific target-date series.
  • Generally, there are no additional fees for the asset allocation overlay.
  • TDFs have become the most widely used solution to having a QDIA (qualified default investment alternative) within a plan. Having a QDIA with a target-date series satisfies the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulation, effective December 24, 2007, for a safe-harbor plan under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) sections 404(c)(5) and 514(e)(3).

 

On the other hand, there are many drawbacks that must be taken into consideration when investing in target-date funds:

  • The concept of “set and forget” is naive and can mislead investors.
  • This investment structure does not guarantee that a defined contribution (DC) plan participant will achieve certain asset levels for retirement.
  • Depending on factors such as asset allocation, age and financial markets the participant may never accumulate enough money to fund their retirement.
  • Proprietary funds under the guidance of the TDF manager can pose a conflict. Generally, most fund families offer only their own funds in their target-date series, but this is beginning to change.

All TDFs are not created the same way. Each has its own guidelines, and it takes work to understand the nuances between target-date fund families. Retirement plan advisers and sponsors should understand that there can be enormous structural differences between them. Major differences between various target-date series can include:

  • The number of mutual funds within the TDF series;
  • How often funds are changed;
  • The timing of fund changes;
  • The investment strategy, style and approach of the fund managers;
  • The combination of active and passive (index) funds;
  • The managers’ differing views about risk tolerances for retirees;
  • The asset allocation over the life of the TDF; and
  • The equity allocation at the landing point.

 

The variations between target-date fund families in how they manage the funds’ glide paths as well as the points raised above can be significant. 

The glide paths for 13 different fund families, including seven of the largest TDF series, are depicted in the graph below. The data is graphed with the number of years to retirement (or post-retirement) along the X (horizontal) axis and the percentage allocated to equities along the Y (vertical) axis. 

As retirement approaches, the allocation to equities declines for each fund family. However, the initial allocations are different, the changes in allocations are different and the ending equity allocation is different for almost every fund series.

Ken Hoffman byline TDF equity glide path comparison

NOTE: This feature is to provide general information only, does not constitute legal advice, and cannot be used or substituted for legal or tax advice.  

Any opinions of the author(s) do not necessarily reflect the stance of Asset International or its affiliates.

«