Author: yfpadmin

DIY, Robo or Hire a Planner?

On episode 75 of the Your Financial Pharmacist podcast, Tim Ulbrich, found of YFP, and Tim Baker, YFP team member and owner of Script Financial, continue YFP’s month-long series on investing by talking about the pros and cons of a DIY approach to investing compared to utilizing a robo advisor or hiring a financial planner.

Summary

On this episode, Tim Ulbrich and Tim Baker dive into a discussion of three strategies of investing: DIY, robo and hiring a financial planner. The DIY (do it yourself) route of investing means that you, instead of your employer or planner, will be in charge of all aspects of your retirement or investment. You’ll determine how much to defer into retirement accounts, what to invest in, make adjustments, and figure out to how to distribute funds at retirement, among other tasks. This route is becoming more popular most likely due to the fact that there are resources available and many advisors require their clients to have a lot of money to work with them. Pros of the DIY strategy are that there is a potential savings (if you are doing it well, etc.) and a feeling of empowerment. Cons are that there is a lack of accountability, that someone isn’t there checking or bringing awareness to potential financial behavioral biases you may have, and if you aren’t well-versed in the information, you could end up paying more.

Using an advisor is a strategy that lies between the DIY and financial planner routes. With this strategy, technology is used which allows you to simply click a link, answer a few questions, and fund taxable accounts. The pros of this strategy are that you don’t have to go through thousands of funds, the funds are automatically rebalanced over time, and the cost lands between .25-.5% on what’s invested. Cons are that there is no human interaction and that this only focuses on one part of your financial plan.

Hiring a planner means working with someone to act as the middle point between you and your investments. Pros to this strategy are the human aspect, the potential of having a comprehensive financial plan, the ability to create a diversified portfolio, and having someone act as a safeguard between you and your investments. Cons of hiring a financial planner are that the industry is structured so many planners are incentivized to grow your assets, may have a conflict of interest due to making more money off of your investments, and that a planner may not help you with credit card or student loan debt.

Mentioned on the Show

• Script Financial
• YFP Episode 015: Financial Planning Series Interview with Tim Baker (Part 1)
• YFP Episode 016: Financial Planning Series Benefits of a Financial Planner (Part 2)
• YFP Episode 017: Financial Planning Series Questions to Ask – Hiring a Planner (Part 3)
• YFP Episode 054: Why Fee-Only Financial Planning Matters
• YFP Episode 055: Why You Should Care How a Financial Planner Charges
• YFP Facebook Group
• Seven Figure Pharmacist by Tim Church and Tim Ulbrich
• NerdWallet
• Investopedia
• Simple Wealth, Inevitable Wealth: How You and Your Financial Advisor Can Grow Your Fortune in Stock Mutual Funds by Nick Murray
• YFP Blog: Are You Making This $1 Million Mistake
• NerdWallet: Best Robo-Advisors: 2018 Top Picks
• YFP Episode 032: Find Your Why (Part 1) – 3 Life Planning Questions
• YFP Episode 033: Find Your Why (Part 2) – The Path To Success
• Hire A Planner
• XY Planning Network
• Unshakeable: Your Guide to Financial Freedom by Tony Robbins

Episode Transcript

Tim Ulbrich: Hey, what’s up, everybody? Welcome to Episode 075, excited to be here alongside Tim Baker as we continue our month-long series on investing. We’re nearing the end. We’ve got next week coming up, we’re going to do an investing Q&A. But first and foremost, happy Thanksgiving, Tim Baker, to you and to the YFP community. So excited to be here.

Tim Baker: Yeah, happy Thanksgiving, Tim, to you and yours. And excited to get this episode going.

Tim Ulbrich: Yeah, we hope everyone’s having a great day, enjoying with family. We hope that you’re not nerding out on personal finance podcasts while you should be spending quality time with family. But if you are listening, please know that we appreciate it and that we’re certainly grateful for the community that has developed here over the past year. So we’ve been going along this month on investing. We’ve covered a lot of different topics and information, everything from behavioral aspects to investing, prioritization of investing, what to look for in your different investment accounts, the fees and so forth. And next week, we’re going to wrap it up with an investing Q&A. But here, we’re talking about the strategy of investing. Is this something you do yourself? Is this something you look at engaging with a robo advisor? We’ll talk about what that means. Or is this something you look at hiring a financial planner? Maybe for many people listening, there may be a different answer depending on the status of what you’re working on and what your preference is. So we’re going to reference some previous episodes throughout this episode, so let me throw them out here in advance. Episodes 015, 016 and 017, we talked at length, Tim Baker and I did, about what to look for in a financial planner, the benefits, different types of planners that are out there. In 054, we talked about why fee-only financial planning matters. And in 055, we talked about why you should care about how a financial planner charges. All of that feeds into the conversation here about DIY, robo or hiring a financial planner. So in terms of the structure and format of what we’re going to do, with each of these three buckets, we’re going to talk about what we’re referring to in a DIY approach, in a robo approach, in a financial planner approach. We’ll talk about the pros and potential pitfalls of each of those approaches. So Tim Baker, DIY. When we say DIY as it relates to investing, what exactly are we talking about? Whether listeners are thinking about maybe their 401k or maybe their 403b at their work environment, in the TSP, or they’re thinking about an IRA that’s outside of their work?

Tim Baker: Yeah, so the DIY, the Do It Yourself approach when it comes to investing, when we’re discussing things like the 401k, the 403b, the TSP, this is a little bit set up on a T-ball stand for you because the employer is essentially putting it in front of you and saying, hey, now that you work for us, we have contracted through an organization like a Vanguard or a Fidelity to basically have this investment account for you. So we’re going to cut you a deal, as long as you put money into it, we’ll match it. And we’re going to help you grow your retirement. So you can DIY that. And essentially, it’s a sandbox approach because you’re going to put in front of you a series of 10, 15, 20 — depending on the plan — investments that say, hey, for large cap, for U.S. large cap, you’re going to have four or five funds to pick from. From international, you might have two or three funds to pick from. From a bond, you might have some, it could be target funds. And if you’re hearing me talk about this and you’re saying, ‘What the heck is this guy talking about?’ then maybe having some help and not DIY-ing that — won’t be for you. Because the plan is defined, you’ll have basically a sandbox to work in. And essentially, what you’ll do is you’ll determine how much to defer into your retirement accounts. We’re talking your 401k, your Roth 401k, your 403b, what to actually invest it in — so a lot of people sometimes, they miss that step. So they think that once they put the money in there, it’s automatically invested. And some plans will be like that. But some plans won’t.

Tim Ulbrich: And they find out it’s just sitting there in a market fund.

Tim Baker: Right. I’ve seen that happen quite a bit. So you basically figure out how much you want to defer, what you’re going to invest it in, and over time, you have to kind of make those adjustments and do the rebalancing and things like that. And then when you go to retire, then you basically say, ‘Self, how do I distribute this in the most tax-efficient manner as possible?’ Whereas Tim, I don’t know about your dad, but my dad — well, my parents, really, they worked for the same company for 40 years, and the companies did that for them. And the pension manager would do that for them, basically would manage all those steps. So now, it’s kind of on us to figure that out. So that’s kind of the retirement side. If we’re talking outside the retirement, and we’re looking at IRAs, Individual Retirement Accounts, could be 529s, could be taxable accounts, that’s really where we’re going out into the market, essentially, and we’re looking at TD America, Vanguard, Fidelity, we’re going onto their website because we’ve heard of these companies, and we’re saying, ‘I want to open up an account on my own and basically do some investing on my own.’ So this is where you would open up a taxable account, open up a Roth IRA, and then the process is very similar except it’s just outside of the realm of what your employer is. So you’re opening up that account, you’re funding money from your paycheck. In then in that world, you’re essentially looking at a vast ocean, thousands and thousands of stocks and bonds and mutual funds and exchange traded funds, all the different things that could fit in these accounts. And you’re doing it in a way that hopefully is consistent with your beliefs about investing, if you have any, your risk tolerance, how you want to maximize or minimize, really, expenses and that type of thing. So I can tell from personal experience just the first time I ever opened up a Roth, I was at West Point. And I wanted to just dip my toe in the market. And I wanted to feel the feeling of basically buying a stock in a company.

Tim Ulbrich: Been there.

Tim Baker: And I think I bought like one share of Johnson & Johnson, and like after the transaction grew — and it’s kind of not very exciting — it was kind of exciting to see it, but I bought one share, which is the most inefficient way to do it because one share at that time was probably like $45. But then I paid like $10 —

Tim Ulbrich: The fee, yeah.

Tim Baker: Just to do the trade-in. But it was cool because at that time, I was like, well, technically, I’m part owner of this company, a .0 — add so many zeroes — 1% of Johnson & Johnson, so I would get documents that say, ‘Hey, these are when the board meetings are,’ but I really didn’t know what I was doing. And quite frankly — I know, Tim, we talked about this before — I probably had no business doing that, opening up an account like that because I didn’t really have a proper emergency fund. In the Army, a student is a little bit different, but there were so many other things that foundationally, I should have done before I even got to that point, but that’s kind of in a nutshell what the DIY approach is.

Tim Ulbrich: Yeah, and I think it’s — for many of our listeners, they’re probably thinking about, OK, most of my investing — maybe not all — but most of my investing’s happening with my employer-sponsored plan, so 401k, 403b. Of course that’s not everyone listening, many people have Roth IRAs or have taxable accounts that are out there, but what I’ve seen, Tim, is depending on the employer, how complex that is or is not can be all over the place. So for example, I work for the state. And they intentionally simplify options, you know, you’ve got two options in large cap, two options in international, they’re all index funds. Fees are pretty low. And I think they’re really trying to minimize some of the behavioral components that are there. But it’s still up to me, if I were doing a DIY approach and saying, OK, this is my asset allocation, this much stock, this much bonds, this much cash or cash equivalent or REETs or whatever. And then within there, what types of stocks I want to be investing in and then am I going to rebalance or not. Now, for other people — like a target fund I’m thinking of specifically — if somebody were to choose a target fund to say, OK, I’m going to retired in the year 2075, and that’s going to then set my asset allocation. The rebalancing is kind of happening along the way.

Tim Baker: It’s automatic.

Tim Ulbrich: Yeah.

Tim Baker: I would say from a target fund perspective, if you literally listen to what I just said about different types of funds like bond and international, emerging markets, small cap, large cap, and you’re like, ‘I have no idea,’ then go target fund. You probably will pay some type of premium for that service of it being rebalanced and becoming basically more aggressive to more conservative over time. But more often than not, I would rather you just pay the premium than have it sit in cash or be way too aggressive than you need be, depending on where you’re at in your life. But oftentimes, when I work with clients — and this is the opposite end of the spectrum, which is not DIY, it’s working with an advisor — I crack that nut, and I say, “Hey, client, you have 15-20 different options out there. And you’re in a target fund right now by default. I think we can do a little bit better given your situation and save on expense and things and break it out that way.” I think one of the things that you talk about (inaudible) and I’ve read a few books about the more choice that we are given, the more it causes that paralysis by analysis. And they say even like things like auto-enrolls. So we’ve talked about auto-enroll. There’s a lot of people that before auto-enroll really became a thing would work for a company for five, six, seven years, a decade, and never opt into their benefit of a 401k and the match there. Now, and this could be something the Obama administration put in, is that they’re incentivizing companies to basically auto-enroll employees. And then you essentially opt out of it if you want. And they’ve done a lot of studies in this with like Sweden and Finland, you have to opt out to not be an organ donor. And two countries that are very similar in a lot of ways, the opt-in, the percentage of people that were actually donating their organs was very low versus the opt-out. So a lot of this plays in. And we could do a whole topic, a whole episode, on behavioral finance and all the different biases that are out there. And I think that’s one of the things that maybe working with an advisor does. But it can be really confusing when you do it on DIY. It’s not impossible, obviously. But I think ultimately, my opinion — again, I’m biased because I do this for a living — is that I think it’s always good to have an objective look at your finances and say, hey, does this make sense? Is what I’m doing OK because I heard Uncle Tommy say this or my neighbor down the street said that, and I really want to know like sanity check this.

Tim Ulbrich: So obviously, as we think about the DIY approach, I think it’s fair to say that it’s becoming more popular — maybe not more popular but why is it popular in some regards. Accessing information is more readily available than it’s ever been before.

Tim Baker: Right.

Tim Ulbrich: Resources are out there. Just today, we had somebody ask in the YFP Facebook group, you know, I’ve heard of back door Roth IRAs, but what do I actually do mechanically. And we were able to quickly reference an article, get her a stepwise approach. So that information is there, readily available. I think that’s one of the reasons that it’s quite popular. What else do you think in terms of why people are going kind of that route of more of a DIY?

Tim Baker: I think it’s a little bit of an indictment of kind of my professional brethren. You know, there’s a lot of advisors out there that will say, “Hey, love to help you. But you have to have a half a million dollars before I can actually do work with you.” And the reason they do that is because they’ll charge based on assets, investable assets, which basically mean the assets they control directly, not what’s in your retirement account. So they say, “Hey, love to help you, but I can’t because I won’t essentially be paid enough.” So you have those minimum assets under management, AUM, requirements that basically for a lot of young population, just excludes them in general. I think one of the things that — and I was a little naive, no, I was a lot of naive to that is when I was looking at the profession of personal finance, kind of the whole 1% Occupy Wall Street was going on. So I think there is a distrust of large banking institutions and really financial advisors in general. And I think in a lot of ways, it’s well deserved. What a lot of people don’t know is that the majority, the overwhelming majority of financial advisors can legally put their own interests ahead of their clients, which when I kind of figured that out — and I was in that model when I discovered that the fee-based where you can earn commission fees, that blew me away. And it shouldn’t be that way. And I’m not saying that means 95% of the professionals out there are corrupted. But to me, is it should always be about the client, always be about what is in the best interests of the client, not necessarily mine. So I think that that perception is prevailing in a lot of ways. And that’s why I’m kind of fortunate when you talk about the work that we’re doing with you and Jess, it legitimizes, I think, what I’m trying to do. And I think what the fee-only world is trying to do is really say, there are services for young people that you’re not excluded. And by the way, I want to be on your team. And I want to get you to those goals that we talked about that whether it’s orca whales (?) or being able to retire at a certain time or whatever that is, that stuff jacks me up. And really, it’s the mechanisms of what the investments are and are properly insured that are just that supporting detail that I more or less have a playbook in my mind, and we just kind of plug and play depending on your situation.

Tim Ulbrich: Yeah, and I think I can say as somebody who went the DIY route for 10 years, you know, after graduation and obviously in working with you and Jess and I, I think too it’s fair to say for many listening, there’s just that overwhelming transition that happens where you’ve got new career, you’ve got tons of student loan debt, you feel like you’re trying to develop budgets and take care of all these other things. And part of it I think is just that feeling of being overwhelmed and my budget’s tight, I’m trying to figure out these things, and I may see additional fees or things and not necessarily be able to articulate the benefits associated with those.

Tim Baker: Right.

Tim Ulbrich: And I think it’s important that we just claim right off the bat what you just articulated nicely. Anytime we’re talking here about working with a planner versus not, you have to look at that under the assumption that it’s somebody who is good, who is acting ethically, who is acting, in our opinion, within a fiduciary standard because at the end of the day — we’ll get to some of the pros and cons of working with a planner — if you’re paying to work with a planner and you’re getting crappy advice, and you’re paying more in fees and things, now we’ve just put ourself up a creek and you might as well have gone the DIY route.

Tim Baker: Yeah, and I would say this — and I usually say this when I speak is I think one of the differences between financial planning, financial advisors and the profession of pharmacy is that the profession of pharmacy is actually a profession. You can take a test and be a financial advisor and give advice. You can do exactly what I do. The barrier to entry is very, very low, which means that you have — and you can see this maybe in other professions, not to call any out, but maybe like real estate and things like that where you take a test and you can sell houses.

Tim Ulbrich: Yeah.

Tim Baker: Sorry to all the real estate agents out there. But when you have such low barriers of entry, that basically muddies the water for a lot of hopefully professionals. And what I point to is someone that has the CFP mark, the Certified Financial Planning marks, and that are kind of following standards of ethics and all that kind of stuff. So I think that’s another reason why there’s lots of advisors out there that don’t necessarily know either what they’re doing or the other thing could be ignorance. So again, like when I was in the broker dealer world, I just didn’t know what I didn’t know. I thought I was awesome because I wasn’t selling proprietary products for maybe some of the bigger banks. So I’m like, oh, we can pick whatever products that we want from anywhere, whatever best suits you. But then I found out that there are other advisors out there that they’re not compensated based on product sales. It’s basically — the product and the advice is separated. And you know this in pharmacy, like anytime you mix the sale of product with advice, there’s conflict of interest. And you might see it with doctors and how they prescribe medications, those types of things. So to me, the model is broken from Jump Street that really, the consumer or client needs to be put first and everything else will fall into place. But I think that would, again, lead to why DIY is a popular — you know, just the savings cost and really, there are people that are thirsty. We’ve seen that from YFP. There’s people that are thirsty to learn. And it’s just something that is a huge void in our education system. We teach how to bake cakes and make ash trays in school, but we don’t teach them how to balance a checkbook or what credit card debt looks like or what student debt looks like.

Tim Ulbrich: Absolutely.

Tim Baker: So there’s a big void there, and I think people are — sometimes, we learn through pain and what we’ve gone through. And I think we can fill up a whole book of what we’ve personally done. And sometimes, it’s wisdom where we’re actually sitting down, writing through, reading “Seven Figure Pharmacist,” looking at all of the stuff that we have. You could learn a wealth of stuff on NerdWallet and Investopedia. So really, I think that’s a play as well.

Tim Ulrich: You know, one of the things I think is interesting as you were talking is — without getting too political here — when all the movement was going toward the fiduciary standard, I think it brought the public awareness and attention up a little bit that there’s not — most advisors are not acting in a fiduciary standard. And now that that really hasn’t moved forward, that may even, in some regards, lead people to think, well, now I know more about what fiduciary means, and I see that a majority of people aren’t that. That standard’s not progressing, so maybe a DIY route is where I’m going to go.

Tim Baker: Yeah, and really what Tim’s talking about here is in the last administration, basically the Department of Labor was essentially trying to push forward this standard, this fiduciary standard that said that basically the only accounts that they could touch under the Department of Labor were those basically issued by the employers. So they were saying any retirement account, 401k’s, 403b’s, and even I think IRAs, in this sense, have to be basically managed by fiduciaries that have the client’s best interests in mind. When the new administration came in, that legislation that was kind of being pushed through was squashed. So it did bring up I think some awareness that what is a fiduciary? And why aren’t all advisors fiduciaries? And there was a big push from the broker dealer world that says, hey, if we put this standard in place, then it’s going to shut out a lot of advice to kind of middle market and smaller — it’s going to shut out advice from that, which is categorically false. But it’s really around the protection of the income streams that insurance and other commissionable products generate. So I think we’ll eventually get there. It’s funny because we — I’m at different conferences, and Australia, you know, I’ve talked to advisors there that are like way ahead of us. They can’t believe that we don’t have a fiduciary standard across the board. Even their insurance products are similar. So I think we’ll eventually get there, but it could be a generation away just because of the lobbying.

Tim Ulbrich: So I think the pros of the DIY approach are obvious: potential cost savings with an asterisk — we’ll come back to that. Of course, it’s assuming that you’re doing it well and you’re controlling fees and you’re making the right decisions and so forth, you’re not being overtaken by some of the behavioral problems that can come up. Obviously, I think there’s a pro of empowerment and learning and being involved when you’ve got to figure it out, what does rebalancing mean? What does asset allocation mean? What do these funds and accounts means? So there’s a forced hand in learning. In terms of potential pitfalls, let me read you a quote from one of my favorite books, “Simple Wealth, Inevitable Wealth” by Nick Murray and get your reaction on this. He says that, “The twin premises of all do-it-yourself appeals are that most investors are smart enough, rational enough and disciplined enough always to select and maintain portfolios that are best suited to their long-term goals and that most advisors are venal and are stupid or at the very least, cost much more than they’re worth. The former premise is a fundamental misreading of basic human nature. The latter is just a self-serving mean-spirited lie.” Strong language, right? I mean, what are your thoughts?

Tim Baker: Strong language in a lot of ways. First, I had to actually look at what venal meant. So which, for you advisors out there, because I use the word fungible and gotten called on that. So venal means “showing or motivated by susceptibility to bribery.” So I think basically to summarize the quote, it’s we are perfect investors all the time. We know exactly what we need to do. We’re not emotional when it comes to this. And that advisors are stupid and basically fickle to wherever the money flows. I think that there’s probably truth and lies in both parts of that. What behavioral finance tells us and what’s becoming more and more is that a lot of our thoughts about finance is that people will — and it’s based on conventional economics — is that people will behave rationally, predictably and that emotions don’t influence people when they’re making economic choices, which is completely false.

Tim Ulbrich: We all know that. We’ve been thinking about it, right?

Tim Baker: We can outline a variety of biases, whether it’s anchoring or mental accounting or overconfidence, gambler’s fallacy, and we could maybe do a whole episode just on that. But frankly, as humans — and I do this for a living — and even sometimes for me, and especially when I’m looking at my own, we suck at it. Right now, we’re kind of in a market downturn. And I preach the long-term, I preach that over the course of the long haul, the market will take care of you. And that is a certainty. And I always joke outside of the zombie apocalypse or the Poles switching, the market will return 7-10%. It’s done it for 100 years. There’s bumps and bruises along the way, but when you’re in that moment, what I say in investing is that you should do the opposite of how you feel. So when 2008-2009 came around and we kind of are feeling a little bit of that now, you want to take your proverbial investment ball and go home. You want to get out of the market, you want to sit on the sidelines and stay in cash.

Tim Ulbrich: It should be game on, right?

Tim Baker: Right. And really, it should be opposite. If you are sitting on cash and the market is down, you should be chucking cash into your investments because essentially, it’s the one area of our financial life where we’re like, ah, I can’t believe that things are on sale and I want to get out of it. And then we kind of talked a little bit about the second part about advisors being venal and stupid. And again, I think part of that is earned in a lot of ways. But I would say by and large, I definitely operate that I think people are inherently good. But that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re good at their jobs or that they’re going to guide you the right way with regard to investing. And that’s why I think questions about that when you are potentially talking to a financial advisor is important, you know? And I think if people — one of the questions I ask prospective clients is if you had to make a list of all the things that you want your financial planner to have, what would that be? And the first one’s like, I want them to be trustworthy and I want them to communicate and I have access. But part of it is it could be an investment philosophy. If they tell me, I want someone to pick me the hot stocks, disqualified. I’m not your guy. I never will be your guy because I think the smartest thing I’ve ever said about investing in the stock market is that I don’t know where the stock market’s going to go. Nobody does. So again, I think that you shouldn’t be hiring a financial advisor to try to beat the market. By and large, they can’t do it. It should really be about managing the expectation, the behaviors, and specifically around this topic of investing.

Tim Ulbrich: I think one of the biggest pitfalls I see here — potential pitfalls — of the DIY approach is that lack of accountability, that risk of operating on an island. I know as I look back now on doing it myself, you may not feel it in the moment, but when there’s not somebody there to keep you in check and to call out the behavioral biases that we all are prone to, one I know for me and I’ve referred to before on the podcast is I knew that I shouldn’t be rebalancing more than I need to. I knew that once I set up my asset allocation based on risk tolerance, I should hold true. But you know, you log into your account, you see what’s going on, you start looking at things, and you say, well, maybe not so much of this or that, and you start messing around. And that’s why you hear the different studies saying the average return of the market is this, but the average person gets x, which is much less, because of our tendency to make those tweaks along the way. So I think accountability. I think the other thing too is that if you don’t have the right knowledge and so forth that you may end up paying more than the fees that are associated with a robo-planner, right? So we’ll link in the show notes, we wrote an article on the impact of fees and how fees can be a $1 million+ mistake alone if you’re not accounting for fees. And I know you helped me with a 403b account. I mean, we discovered fees north of — what? 1.5% I think?

Tim Baker: Yeah. And to kind of break this down, like one of the main suspects here is what’s called the expense ratio. So the funds that you are invested in, you know, mutual funds, exchange traded funds — not necessarily stocks — but the funds, there’s a manager that sits on top of that account and basically is buying and trading. And they pay themselves and they pay for office space and analysts and information. So basically, expense ratio is siphoning off money to keep the business profitable, in a sense. And if you have $100,000 in an investment and you have a 1% expense ratio, essentially you have $1,000 that is just evaporating every year from — and it’s not a line item anywhere, it’s just basically accounted for in the performance. And it doesn’t have to be that way because you can build a very investment portfolio for a tenth or even a twentieth of that. And my mantra’s always been, if I’m not getting the performance or it’s not safer for the same amount of performance, why am I paying 10 times, 20 times more? And that’s why we’re big proponents of some of the funds out there like Vanguard and Fidelity, they just rolled out a 0% expense ratio, and State Street and some of these ones that are very efficient for clients because again, you know, I think we’ve talked about this in a past episode is that the best indicator of performance is not star system ratings for Morningstar, it’s how you can drive expense down and keep as many hands in your investment — as many hands out of your investment pockets as — there’s platform fees and trading costs and expense ratios. Those are all things that — I mean, we have enough problems with the taxes and inflation that we need to be really protecting our gains, and a lot of that’s really keeping our expenses low when it comes to the investing part of the financial plan.

Tim Ulbrich: Yeah, if we’re going to hustle to put away money each and every month, like we’ve got to most out of it, right? And I think I love that’s what your mantra is keep those fees low. Obviously looking for performance as well, but I think of the statements I receive, and it has the tendency to say, well, I’m going to look at the one-year, three-year, five-year, 10-year performance. But I’m not really going to calculate what’s this 1% in total fees cost me? Or this 2%.

Tim Baker: Yeah. Well even that, like even advisors fall into this. They’ll say, hey, like I want to put my clients in 4- or 5-rated, and I only look at that. But that’s not the way to do it because typically, it’s a reversion to the mean. So what were high performing in 5-star systems, usually the script is flipped — pun intended — and those high performing, we’re buying them high and then they basically go low in terms of performance. So again, it’s just one that’s kind of the availability bias or what’s recently happened is we play on that. And it typically is the wrong move.

Tim Ulbrich: So that’s the DIY bucket. Let’s jump into the robo bucket. And you know, obvious pros and potential pitfalls. But here, we’re talking about somebody that maybe just heard this whole conversation about asset allocation and rebalancing and choosing investments and so forth and says, it would be nice to have a little bit of help around this investing piece there. And that’s really where robos come in. And obviously, there’s been I think — not a resurgence, a surgence of robo-advising, obviously, as they become more popular. I think they’ve been marketed a lot more than they were worth three or five years ago. So just briefly, what is a robo-advisor? Before we talk about the pros and cons.

Tim Baker: Yeah, so I would categorize a robo-advisor would basically sit in between DIY approach and working with a financial advisor. So typically, when you go the DIY route — and maybe we’ll put this link in the show notes, but NerdWallet has an article that says, “Best Robo-Advisors 2018 topics.” And the typical players in this are WealthFront, Betterment and those types. And essentially, what they do is they’re market disruptors in a sense that — and I remember working at my last firm, it took 38 pages to open up a Roth IRA. And essentially, what they do is you go to their website and you say, hey, if you want to open up — these are typically the kind of self-directed accounts. They’d be IRAs, Roth IRAs, taxable accounts. If you want to open up one of these, click this link, answer a few questions, and they automatically slot — and then fund it, so connect to your bank account or fund it from a different source. And you’re in a model.

Tim Ulbrich: Automatic selection there.

Tim Baker: Yeah, everything. So it’s really a method to bring technology and efficiency in a profession that needs it. So if you’re thinking, hey, I don’t want to wade through thousands and thousands of stocks and bonds and mutual funds and ETFs, and I want something that if I ask a few questions, they’ll automatically slot and rebalance over time — some of these rebalance. They’re robo, so they look at algorithms and they could rebalance daily, weekly, and you really just want to leave it alone. Then this would be typically something that you would do. Now, again, it’s going to cost you a fee to do that. So the typical ones, you’re looking anywhere from 25-50 basis points, so .25% on what you have invested to .5%. If we measure that against most advisors are probably 1%, north of 1%, just to kind of give you some perspective. But typically, you don’t have any type of human interaction. It’s go through this questionnaire, fund it, and then those dollars are invested on your behalf per an algorithm that is rebalancing over time. So again, like I’ve said this before is — and you kind of see this sometimes in pharmacy too where you’ll say, hey, I’ll never be replaced. The technology will never replace me. But robots are actually more efficient basically rebalancing than I would ever be because I’m not sitting by my computer every day. Just like you could make a case that robots are probably going to be more efficient filling scripts because of just the advances in technology. I think what robots will never be better at than me is that kind of one-on-one personal looking at the breadth of the financial picture. And I think the same is true when we’re talking about adherence and working with patients and all that kind of stuff. So they’re very synonymous in a lot of ways. But yeah, so I think the robo, I think it’s a good thing in terms of moving the needle in the market.

Tim Ulbrich: So you obviously mentioned the pro of convenience and access disrupted what was a very cumbersome, comprehensive process. I mean now, if you log onto one of those platforms you mentioned, it’s quick, it’s easy, asks you some question, you fund the account that you’re working on, and it sets up the asset allocation for you. And boom, you’re ready to go. So lower fees than a planner. So you mentioned, obviously, we’re assuming 0 or 1%ish. So here, we’re maybe .25-.5% so you can get a feel for that. I think the con you mentioned is a really good one. The lack of human element, engagement. And I think along that line, the thing I think about as the central pitfall here is that it’s focused on one part of the financial plan. You’ve been preaching since Day 1, and many of the financial planners that are out there are focused on one part of a financial plan. But what we’ve been preaching, especially for most of our audience, is that a financial plan runs all the way from debt to death. So we’re thinking about student loans, we’re thinking about budgeting and goal-setting and the right insurance. We’re thinking about end-of-life planning and home buying and kids’ college, all of these things. And when you’re looking at your month-to-month budget and your goals and what you’re trying to do, investing is one part, albeit a very important part, but it’s one part of your financial plan. And Betterment isn’t going to jump out and say, “Hey, by the way, are you thinking about your student loans and this or that?”

Tim Baker: Right.

Tim Ulbrich: And I was thinking back to just our relationship over the last year of you working with Jess and I, we’re a year in. And we’ve done very little discussion yet — we’re going to get there more — but very little discussions on investing because we’ve been spending all this time on for us figuring out what’s our why and what’s our purpose, which we published in episodes 031 and 032, maybe 032 and 033. We’ll get that right in the show notes. We’ve been talking about goal-setting, we’ve set up sinking funds and budgets and making sure we have a good foundation and insurance. And now, we’re working on end-of-life estate planning. And so I think the biggest risk I see here is that — are you filling in all the holes? And are you prioritizing goals the right way if you’re only focused on that one part of the plan?

Tim Baker: Yeah, and this is something — full disclosure — that we have been offering, Script Financial, that we’re testing out. And essentially what I want to do is be able to for someone that doesn’t want to work with me directly, they can tap into a lot of the models and portfolios that I use for clients and it’s just a little bit of less service but less cost as well. And I think if you’re not in that, then you’re going to become extinct. So I think — and we’ll put a link to that in the show notes as well. If you are wanting to do more in the investment world, open an IRA or a taxable account, make sure you’re doing all the other things we’re preaching about and have those in place in terms of foundational. But then, you know, if you’re looking at just the wealth of funds out there and you have no idea where to start, we can definitely do that as well.

Tim Ulbrich: So two out of three buckets we’ve covered. We talked DIY, we talked robo, and now let’s move into hiring a financial planner. And as I mentioned in the beginning of the show, we have previous content on this that we’re going to talk about and build on a little bit. But make sure you check out episodes 015-017 that we talk through, episode 054 about what it means to be fee-only and episode 055 about why you should care how a planner charges. And before we get into the details here, I want to reference our site, YourFinancialPharmacist.com/financial-planner. Again, YourFinancialPharmacist.com/financial-planner. We’ve got lots of content in there, we’ve got a free guide about what we think you should look for in a financial planner, who may benefit most from one. And then we’ve got an extensive list of questions that we think you should be asking to make sure you’ve got somebody who’s really acting in your best interest as you’re going along the way. So whether that’s with us or somebody else, we want you to make sure that you have the right person that’s in your corner. So Tim Baker, as I was looking at some data on this, there’s a 2016 Northwestern Mutual study that only 21% of Americans hire a financial planner to assist them, despite more than 70% — and that 70% number coming from a Harris poll — indicating that they’re interested in receiving guidance. So we have a majority that says, I want it and I want guidance, but only about a fifth that are actually engaging with a planner. I mean, maybe we’ve already hit on some of this already earlier in the show, but what’s behind that?

Tim Baker: Yeah, I mean, and it could be a lot of the things that we’re talking about is sometimes I hear a lot with prospective clients is I didn’t even really know that there were people out there that focus more on younger professionals because they look at their parents’ planner and it’s kind of where their planner is patting them on the head and saying, hey, when you have some money, sonny, I’ll help you. Or I hear like a lot of these paternalistic, where it’s like “Do as I say,” you know, it’s not necessarily collaborative, which I like. But yeah, that’s shocking is that again, I think there was people, young Americans that want it but that it’s not hitting. And I think, again, I think that’s why — you know, I’m a member of the XY Planning Network, and I think when I joined the network — so it’s a group of fee-only fiduciaries, CFPs, that really want to bring financial planning to Gen X, Gen Y demographic that’s been by and large ignored. And I joined at the end of 2015, there was 200 members maybe. And there’s 700 with us now. I mean, that’s unbelievable growth. So I think it’s just there’s a void that I think is starting to be filled. And I’m encouraged by I think what I’m seeing in the industry. But I’m also discouraged by the fact that there are a lot of people out there that need help and have no idea where to go, whether it’s account minimums or — and sometimes, it’s like well my parents never had an advisor. Sometimes with money, we kind of repeat — you know, I have a lot of pharmacists say, “I’m the first person to go to college. Further, I’m the first person to get an advanced degree. The amount of money I’m making now is more than both of my parents combined.” And what often happens is that a lot of what they’ve learned about money comes from parents, and I’ve said that time and time again is what my parents taught me about money, essentially don’t have credit card debt, buy a house. And beyond that, it was wing it. Figure it out. And I think in that regard, we just don’t have good mechanisms in place. And I think I’ll call out some of the pharmacy schools and associations, I want more education around that because when you’re walking out with a potential mortgage-worth of debt, we better be damn sure that we kind of know how to approach that. And right now, I think we miss that. So when I asked a question, $160,000 of debt at a 6.5% interest rate, what’s that monthly payment? And then there’s crickets. And then they found out the payment is $1,800+, it’s like gees, that’s a lot of money.

Tim Ulbrich: I couldn’t agree more. And I think as Tim Baker gets fired up about needing more in the PharmD, I think we’re going to have to put the explicit rating on this episode. The little “E” next to the I.

Tim Baker: Yeah, oh man, I think we’re going to lose our family-friendly status.

Tim Ulbrich: So the obvious pros — we’re not going to rehash these because we’ve talked through these in the DIY and the robo is that of course, you’ve got the human aspect. You’ve got the scope of if done well, it’s comprehensive, right? So I used the example of the debt to death. You’re looking at all aspects. It’s not limited on one aspect like investing. You’re looking at your whole plan. One of the things I think is interesting, though, Tim, is there’s this continued myth that if I hire a financial planner, my outcome is going to be better because they’re going to help me choose the right stocks. And therefore, I’m going to outperform the market. And we, I think from our perspective, debunk that myth. And when we were working on the book, we were looking at research published that shows between about 1.8% and 3% better returns on average per year for those that are hiring a planner versus those that don’t. Now, I think people look at those numbers and think, oh, that’s because of them helping me choose the right investment. I think what we’re trying to make a case of, though, is if you’re saying no, it’s not because of that, then where is that positive return coming from?
Tim Baker: I think it’s really a matter of — and this could even be by accident in some ways, even in my past life in the broker dealer world is — you sit in between, from an investment perspective, you sit in between your client and their money. Most investment accounts, when the advisor is managing that for their client, there’s not two sets of hands in that. The client basically says, hey, I want you, the advisor to do that. So when the sky is falling, and the client calls — and I’ve had this here recently where the client says, hey, I really think that we should sell, typically, I do a timeout and let’s talk about it. Let’s revisit what we talked about in the investment. And although like I have the butterflies in my stomach too because my portfolio is affected, and I’m invested the same exact way that my clients are. I have to remind myself just like I have to remind the client that again, over the course of time, we adhere to, stick to our guns and adhere to the investment policy statement, the allocation that we put forth that is very diversified and low cost. It will take care of us. So I think because we don’t have the ability to get in and trade and that we’re kind of standing in between, it’s almost like a safeguard on hasty behavior. It’s kind of like what I tell clients that are just having a really bad time, just spending money on impulse or not being able to save money is anything that’s over $100, you have to have a 24-48 hour cooling off period. And if you are thinking about it in 24 or 48 hours, then maybe buy it. If you’re not, then that’s a good choice. So in the same way is this too shall pass when it comes to investments, there are brighter days ahead. And we’ve enjoyed a great, bold market, a great, hot market, and we’re going to have corrections. But by and large, sometimes it’s just the investor standing in between them and their accounts.

Tim Ulbrich: And I think you use the example of the advisor there sitting in between the investor and their accounts, I think it also goes beyond just the investment component. So as you’re working with clients and you’re asking them things about what are your hopes, dreams and goals, obviously one of those, you’re going to increase your net worth, you’re going to retire successfully, all of those things. But also if someone were to say, I really want to take some time off, 10 years into my career and do this. Or I want to make sure I’m spending more time with my family or at some point, I want to go part-time, I want to start my own business, or I want to get into real estate. Somebody who is really walking that path with you can turn back to you and say, hey, remember when we talked about this? Are we working towards doing that?

Tim Baker: Right.

Tim Ulbrich: And I think that gets to some of the cons because when you look at the industry, as you mentioned earlier, a lot of the industry is still structured in a way that incentivizes only the growth of the assets because if you’re being paid in an Assets Under Management model, you’re not incentivized to look at me in the face and say, hey, Tim, remember when you and Jess talked about Sam going to see the orca whales. Like you’d be better off saying, Tim, go open up the IRA so I can get my 1%.

Tim Baker: Right, or even more quantifiable than just saying orca whales, which is very important, is credit card debt.

Tim Ulbrich: Yeah.

Tim Baker: Or even student loan debt. I remember that question, and we answered that — I don’t know what episode it was, in one of the Ask Tim & Tim’s, and the advisor was basically saying to prolong the debt payments for the house and invest the difference. And to me, I look at that as like that is the advisor putting their interests ahead of their own. But like again, I’m seeing this more and more with new graduates, and this is something that I’m trying to crack the nut on with the offering that we have with students and residents in terms of financial planning is I’m seeing a lot of credit card debt. So if I walk into a financial advisor, typically because there’s an assumption of wealth and typically because they charge based on Assets Under Management, they don’t care to even know how to advise you on cash flowing, budgeting, debt management.

Tim Ulbrich: Do you have a will?

Tim Baker: Yeah, do you have a will? Those types of things.

Tim Ulbrich: Yeah.

Tim Baker: And I think maybe even the will is a little bit more because they want to protect the assets from the estate.

Tim Ulbrich: Yeah, that’s true.

Tim Baker: So we’re talking about the next generation of wealth transfer and the next few years is going to be incredible, but if I’m an advisor, then I’m paid more money if you put money into an IRA versus paying down credit card debt. And again, I think again, the planners, they want to be able to help their clients I think by and large. But they’re just not incentivized to do so. And I think that’s a problem.

Tim Ulbrich: And so as we talk about the cons here, I think they’re obvious. And we’ve highlighted some of them so far is that we’ve made a point of emphasis saying if you’re going to be working with a financial planner, there’s a lot of work that needs to be done to make sure that you’re working with the right planner that has your interests in mind, you’re asking the right questions about how they’re charging, fiduciary standards, do they have the right credentials? And it’s not any one of the answers to those questions is going to give you the obvious yes, this person is the person I want to be looking to work with. And one of the resources I would point our listeners to is one of my favorite books I read, “Unshakeable,” by Tony Robbins or maybe Tony Robbins’ ghostwriting team, you know, I’m not sure. But either way, he does a great job of outlining what we’ve been talking about here of the — I think he quoted maybe somewhere around 2-3% actually remain in that fiduciary category. But when you look at the wide variety of planners that are out there, the credentials that it takes to become a planner, the scope of services, how they charge, all the things that we talk about on our financial planner page at YFP, I think it can become very overwhelming to think, why am I paying for what I’m paying with these services, right? And what’s the value that I’m going to be getting from these services.

Tim Baker: Yeah, I think one thing to mention is I hear some prospective clients say, yeah, I heard you on the podcast, I’m thinking about working with you, but I’m also thinking about working with my parents’ financial planner. And one of the questions that I implore them to ask is what do they think about student loans? Because if student loans are a huge thing, again, 95% of advisors have no idea —

Tim Ulbrich: And they weren’t a big things for our parents, probably.

Tim Baker: Right, exactly. And they haven’t been trained up. So like they’ll say, oh, they just amortize our retirement. Or I heard one prospective client said that their advisor said, oh, these are no big deal. And you know, it makes my blood boil, in a sense, that we can do so much better. And the market is changing with how our economy is changing and what our financial picture is looking like. Like again, a lot of the stuff that we spend money on and that debts that our parents didn’t have, so we have to adapt accordingly, and it can be about training advisors on stock options and all that stuff that it’s still in the curriculum, but it doesn’t fit at all.

Tim Ulbrich: So just like pretty much anything else, all three of these buckets have pros and cons, right?

Tim Baker: Sure.

Tim Ulbrich: And we have people I know who have just commented in the Facebook group and reached out to us via email, we have people that are in all three of these buckets and are dominating. So I think the take-home point here is really, do a self-evaluation of where are you at and as you’re looking at investing as one part of the financial plan, which of these do you feel like really resonates most with you? Now, for those of you that are in interested in, hey, I really think I would benefit from a financial planner, I want to work with YFP and this, again, YourFinancialPharmacist.com/financial-planner. From there, you can get lots of information on what to look for, you can schedule a call with Tim Baker, learn more about him, see if that’s a good fit or not. And so I’d encourage you to check that out, YourFinancialPharmacist.com/financial-planner. Tim Baker, it’s been fun.

Tim Baker: Yeah, good stuff.

Tim Ulbrich: Look forward to wrapping this up next week. We’re going to do the Investing Q&A month of December. And again, to our community, happy Thanksgiving. We’re certainly grateful and thankful for you and the support that you’re provided. Have a great holiday and a great rest of your week.

Recent Posts

[pt_view id=”f651872qnv”]

Join the YFP Community! I Want In!