In our support of institutional marketing organizations around the industry, we see numerous pitch books used during introductory conversations between the asset manager and the institutional investor.
There’s no single format, length, or organization that works across firms. But there is one recommendation we’d make for most managers regardless of firm size, region, and institutional investor segment.
Last week I read a Tweet attributing the following to the head of a large mutual fund company:
Compensation structures have to change.
I also recently read a trade journal article about the challenges associated with sales compensation. It covered the usual bases:
Here’s how I see it:
Why? Because of how little the comp conversation has changed over the years. For all the supposed “strategic” conversation around paying salespeople, the last decade has shown comp to simply be an operational tool requiring ongoing tactical adjustments.
The quotes above mirror discussions dating back more than ten years. A quick search on Ignites yielded the following:
I’m not saying that pay isn’t important – it certainly gets a huge amount of airtime and consideration at our clients. But for now it is not an area that is ripe for innovation. Instead, firms will continue the cycle of making moderate modifications to try and find the right incentives, the right level of complexity, and the right targets.
Earlier this week, I read more about private-label ETFs in Registered Rep. What are the primary attractions for independent advisors to present investors with customized ETFs? After all, there are more than 1,100 ETFs available (as of January) and perhaps as many as 1,400.
Here are three ways I can see how advisors may benefit from customized ETFs.
I disagree strongly with one reason for launching customized ETFs. The article quotes a few advisors as they discuss reaching new clientele. That seems improbable. An investor seeking out new investment vehicles will probably be dubious (to downright dismissive) of new ETFs from advisor firms, considering the thousand-plus options already available.
What do you think? Send us a message here.
I met with the founder of a successful RIA practice last week. His business is over 20 years old with about 1% client attrition (stunningly good to me). As we spoke about how his business arrived here today and what may help grow the practice, he had three reasons for his continued success.
It’s always great to re-learn those lessons. They apply pretty closely to product manufacturers as well.
Last week we presented at the MFEA Council meetings in Chicago. The topic: mobile strategies.
We covered a lot of ground in our presentation – device and mobile Web usage trends, sites vs. apps, client-facing tools, mobile efforts to support field personnel – which we’re more than happy to share if you drop us a line.
The subsequent roundtable conversation covered a lot of ground as well. To my surprise, though, one topic got very little airtime as firms shared strategies with one another: mobile Web sites.
A fund profile on American Century's mobile site.
Back in 2010, Dalbar noted that 24% of asset managers have a mobile Web site. Current estimates lie in the 25-35% range, so there hasn’t been a big move. Why the lack of interest? I see three themes:
But each of these lines of thinking is flawed. While less sexy than apps, mobile sites currently have the greater potential to reach clients and prospects (no buying a tablet and then searching the app store). The mobile share of Web traffic is only going to increase. And the hoped-for convergence of operating systems and devices is not going to come nearly fast enough.
Bottom line: more firms are simply going to have to bite the bullet here and implement an effective mobile site.