Quanto pago per la mia consulenza finanziaria?

La delicatezza dell'argomento costi, per chiunque produca e metta in vendita un servizio professionale, è evidente. Il costo è uno dei fattori determinanti della scelta: anche se, va precisato, Recce'd non si è mai presentata sul mercato puntando sui "costi più bassi di tutti", perché noi di Recce'd siamo certi che quello è un argomento che non regge. Se spendi poco di commissioni, ma poi i risultati sono deludenti ed i rischi sono eccessivi, NON avrai fatto un buon affare. Quelli che hanno speso poco ma che negli ultimi tre anni hanno visto i loro risultati ridotti a zero "perché è scesa la Borsa" dovrebbero fermarsi e riflettere. E cambiare subito.

Un articolo pubblicato proprio ieri sul Wall Street Journal ci aiuta a fare il punto, e a presentare, su questo argomento, alcuni punti fermi, oggettivi.

Rileggiamolo insieme tutto.

Deciding what kind of financial advice to pay for, and which fee structure is right for you, can be daunting. The advice market is evolving rapidly, and investors today have more choices than ever before — from expensive, highly tailored advice to more impersonal services that cost next to nothing.

Financial experts say investors should shop carefully, while considering these questions: Do you have a complex financial life, where paying a premium for advice could produce lasting benefits? Or are your needs more basic — such as crafting a starter financial plan — where fees could be much lower?

Questo primo punto è il medesimo che noi abbiamo sollevato sopra, nell'apertura.

Prima domanda WSJ: How do investors pay for advice today?

Terrance Odean: Traditionally you paid a broker commissions for buying and selling stocks. Many people now use fee-only advisers, who charge a percentage of assets under management, often with a scale. It may be 1.25% a year on a portfolio with less than $1 million and lower if you have more assets than that.

Micah Hauptman: Investors also can pay by the hour, or by engagement—where an adviser provides a complete financial plan for a fixed fee. Or people may pay a monthly retainer.

Il nostro Cliente può fare qui un utile confronto.

Seconda domanda: Is it always clear at the outset which fee model you are getting?

Hauptman: Many financial professionals market themselves as advisers, using titles like financial adviser or financial consultant. They may be dually registered as broker-dealers and investment advisers. If you don’t know which you want, you might be directed toward their brokerage platform, in which case you would be paying for the transaction, not the advice.

Mutual funds and ETFs contain embedded financial advice, though it isn’t tailored to the individual.

Antoinette Schoar: Funds in a sense do contain a form of advice in that they provide portfolios that have been preselected. But in itself, that is only a small step toward getting good advice. Many individuals use index funds as passive investment strategies and pay advisers separately for add-on services such as tax advice and estate planning.

Odean: With mutual funds, there’s sometimes a compensation structure where a fund company gives money to a broker. This can create a significant conflict of interest, because a fund might be charging a high management fee and paying a significant commission back to the adviser or broker who sold the fund.

Qui l'articolo ricorda l'importanza fondamentale del conflitto di interesse: quali sono le motivazioni che guidano le scelte che il consulente ti propone di fare? Che ruolo giocano i Fondi Comuni di Investimento?

Terza domanda: Is any one fee structure clearly in an investor’s best interests?

Hauptman: Every model can have conflicts of interest. Transaction-based professionals may provide quality advice, but their firms may set sales quotas or offer bonuses or other rewards that encourage them to put their own self-interest ahead of the client’s.

Odean: The commission structure creates this incentive where brokers would like to see their clients trade more often. But one advantage is that if you are a buy-and-hold investor, you don’t incur the commissions very often.

Qui l'articolo ricorda che anche le piattaforme di trading-on-line soffrono di un conflitto di interesse.

Quarta domanda: What’s the concern with paying a flat percentage of assets under management?

Hauptman: The fee-only adviser has an interest in capturing assets. They might recommend rolling 401(K) assets into an IRA that they would manage. Doing that may not be in the investor’s best interest. And many advisers require a relatively high minimum level of assets.

For those who can’t afford premium advice, why not opt for a one-time, fixed fee for such things as a financial plan?

Schoar: The biggest potential worry is that the adviser doesn’t have as much at stake in the future performance of that portfolio. Advisers [working on commission or annual fees] know implicitly that if the customer is happy, there will be a long-term relationship and a continued mutual benefit from it.

Qui l'articolo del WSJ esamina i pro ed i contro delle commissioni a percentuale fissa

Quinta domanda: Hourly fees are very flexible. An investor gets the initial services and ongoing help, as needed.

Odean: Some client situations are more complex than others. In the first year that an adviser works with an account, he or she probably puts a lot of hours in because there’s a lot to do, and that can mean a big upfront investment. After that, unless the client’s circumstances change, it is coasting to a large extent.

Hauptman: The hourly planners I’ve seen charge in the $200- to $400-an-hour range. If an adviser puts in a lot of hours, your bill could grow considerably. It is important for investors to ask how much work is going to go into the process if they are going to engage hourly.

La soluzione delle commissioni a tariffa oraria (pochissimo diffusa in Italia per ora) appare più flessibili ma potrebbe risultare in costi molto più elevati.

Sesta domanda: Do investors sometimes pay too much for advice?

Odean: I think there is a need for fees to come down. If the market were to return 5% and you were paying an adviser 1% [of assets under management] a year, that’s like giving the adviser 20% of your returns. When you invest in the market, you are taking on a lot of risk, while the adviser gets paid for sure.

Schoar: With competition and greater financial literacy, fees have come down. The question is whether investors are paying fees for services that are provided in the market more cheaply. Some companies charge you a lot for very simple transactions, such as putting you in an index fund.

I costi sono troppo alti? Il WSJ risponde: tutto dipende dalla comparazione, ovvero se sul mercato sono disponibili servizi con il medesimo contenuto a prezzi più alti. In aggiunta, qui risulta evidente l'importanza di una componente delle commissioni ancorata al risultato della gestione.

Settima domanda: The robo trend. More people are using largely automated services—so-called robo advisers—where the only cost may be the management fees for the funds they use.

Schoar: For very standardized investment decisions, robo advisers can be beneficial. On average, younger people are much more comfortable with this kind of advice. But when things get tough, investors, even millennials, usually want to talk with someone.

Many people think the market is moving toward a blended model, robo advice combined with personal advice.

Odean: Robo investing is helping to bring fees down. But it can amplify one of the really serious problems that people have with getting advice in general: If you don’t know enough to be able to evaluate whether advice is good, how do you figure out from whom to get advice?

Qui il WSJ affronta il tema dei ROBO advisors, e di tutti i modellini matematici di costruzione del portafoglio che oggi sul mercato italiano vengono spinti sia da operatori indipendenti sia da alcune banche tradizionali. Sono quei modellini che prima misurano una cosa che chiamano "profilo di rischio" e poi ci spalmano sopra la solita asset allocation, ovvero un tanto azioni e un tanto obbligazioni, e avanti così per dieci anni (magari con tanti Fondi Comuni dentro). Il WSJ qui pone in modo chiarissimo la questione centrale: ovvero che il Cliente investitore non è in grado di comprendere perché proprio quel modellino dovrebbe essere quello che risolve i (tanti) problemi della gestione di un portafoglio. Che senso ha chiedere ad un semplice modellino matematico di risolvere, ad esempio, i tanti dubbi sul Trump Rally? E perché, se quel modellino era così solido ed affidabile, non è stato adottato venti oppure trenta anni fa, dai professionisti gestori nell'industria dei Fondi Comuni? Il modellino esisteva già, allora: ma fu rifiutato perché non funzionava, così come oggi non funziona, ovvero replica il mercato, e fine della storia. Non vi serve un gestore, per quello.

Settima domanda: Are people justified in questioning the level of fees they are paying?

Hauptman: In the majority of cases, fees are negotiable. It is worth asking whether an adviser can do better, considering that there are competitive alternatives.

Michael Pollock is a writer based in Ridgewood, N.J. He can be reached at reports@wsj.com.