Showing posts with label Retail investments. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Retail investments. Show all posts

Friday, 22 August 2014

Four Ideas on Bank Retail Investment Sales

Bank Investment Consultant magazine recently published the results of a bank/credit union investment sales benchmarking report from Kehrer Bielan Research and Consulting. The report, as cited in the article, (via @CUInsight) stated credit union investment revenues equated to $360 per million in share deposits, and that number was 21% greater than in banks, implying bank reps achieve $298 per million in deposits.

So if an investment rep covered $500 million in a credit union, he/she achieved $180,000 in gross production. A bank investment rep would achieve $148,750 for the same coverage. However, the article also stated that credit union reps produce less in gross production than bank reps, implying that bank reps cover more deposits. 

Bank investment sales is treated as an inconsequential line of business in most financial institutions, in my experience. My firm measures line of business and product profitability for dozens of community financial institutions, and hardly any of them make real money in retail investment sales, if they make any money at all. The most profitable program that we measure, on a pre-tax profit as percent of revenue basis, is one that is totally outsourced. The rep is a full-fledged employee of the third party broker-dealer, and the bank incurs little expense from it. It also receives little revenue. But it's profitable! Little is the operative word here.

Why does this line of business languish in our financial institutions? I think the answer comes back to attitude and execution. Because it can't be because our customers don't demand it. At the end of 2013, US registered investment companies managed $17.1 trillion in assets, while bank assets in all FDIC insured financial institutions was $14.7 trillion for the same period.

Here are a few ideas on how to turn this significant opportunity into a meaningful profit contributor to your financial institution:

Grow your own reps. So often we associate success with this LOB by plucking a higher producing rep from a brokerage firm because we want his/her book and to get profitable quickly. Why would a high producing rep join a bank that has limited products and lower payouts? Most won't although bank leads may be enticing. But, let's face it, as a brand for investment sales, most banks don't or can't achieve the panache of having Merrill Lynch on your business card. So grow your own reps. Pluck them from your ranks of junior professionals such as branch managers, credit analysts, marketing analysts, and perhaps, directly out of college.

Build a real program. A rep should be assigned a specific cluster of branches in an area that makes geographic sense. Each branch employee should be treated as a Center of Influence (COI) for that rep to source business. Each rep should develop a regimented calling program that includes internal bank customers, COI's, community outreach, and new relationship development. The Marketing Department should be tasked with assisting the rep along the way by mining data, developing mailing lists, coordinating educational events, etc. As the rep gets more experienced, he/she should expand internal COI's to include commercial lenders, who would tend to have leads to bigger fish with more sophisticated financial needs. As one senior lender once told me, "we're not going to refer our customers to some 25 year old that doesn't know squat and won't be here next year."

Customers are bank customers. Disintermediation was the dirty word that relegated bank investment sales to the bench. Better to let Charles Schwab take our customer money than to let an internal bank employee, right? Because that is what happened. And by the way, Charles Schwab has a $100 billion in assets bank. That's right, you read billion.

Another reason banks are reticent to move this LOB forward is because the business has traditionally been closely tied to the rep. If the rep leaves, then so go the customers. So build a program where multiple employees serve the customer and are part of a well-oiled system that exposes the customer to numerous employees.

Part of such a program should include Personal Financial Management (PFM) tools. I remain confounded why, in such a digital age, I must build my family's balance sheet annually in Excel. There are tools, and many banks have them, that essentially allow customers to view their entire financial picture on one platform... PFM. A successful retail investment sales program would set customers up, and train them, on using a PFM tool that allows them to view their entire financial picture. The more your customers use your PFM tool, the stickier they become to your institution.

Also, create an environment that is collegial and collaborative, making for an overall more pleasant experience for the rep as opposed to the "eat or be eaten" world of brokerage. Why would the right rep want to go to Acme Brokerage to cold call, do their own work, pay for their office, source their own leads, and have a sales manager shout expletives at him/her because he/she didn't meet their monthly production goal? But if they do choose that path, you have built the environment to make it very difficult for customers to want to leave your bank.

Build better reps. The days of graduating college and do no further learning are done. To be a licensed investment representative, you must minimally acquire your continuing education (CE) credits. That will not distinguish your reps from peers, because all must do it. There are professional certifications, such as Certified Financial Planner (CFP), that can distinguish your rep from others.

Sure, a rep can achieve the CFP certification and then bolt to a competitor. But you can protect yourself when making a large investment such as CFP by paying for it in the form of a forgivable loan. If the rep leaves before the forgivable period, then the amount expended immediately becomes a loan to that person.

And don't limit your rep development plan to financial matters. Money is very personal to people, and human skills are essential. Sometimes, the highest producing reps are so focused on driving revenue, they transform into a boiler-room broker. Remember, they are bankers. With that title comes trust, security, and integrity. Don't turn them into Gordon Gekko.



Getting back to profitability... it is reasonable to expect a retail investment sales program to generate $360,000 in revenue for every $1 billion in deposits. Further, based on our experience measuring profitability and the profitability of public retail brokerage firms, that this line of business could achieve pre-tax profit margins of 30%, dropping $108,000 in profits to your FI's bottom line. That is profit that requires little equity, and no balance sheet assets. Calculate that ROA or ROE!

What do you think is lacking in bank / credit union retail investment sales programs?

~ Jeff



Saturday, 6 July 2013

Community Banks and Our Retirement Problem

How can your financial institution stand out in a crowded marketplace? Why don't we play a critical role in solving the nation's retirement problem?

I recently read a report by the US Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions titled The Retirement Crisis and a Plan to Solve It, led by Senator Tom Harkin (D: Iowa). It called for the establishment of USA Retirement Funds to re-establish pension funds as part of the three-legged stool of social security, pension, and personal savings.

Although it calls for USA Retirement Funds to be private, it used the typical keywords of "transparency, accountability, etc." that reads... government controlled or heavily regulated. The current methods proposed to fix social security such as increase retirement ages, change cost of living calculations, make wealthy people subsidize it, should give us pause that putting more resources and control in the hands of government flies in the face of our unique American independent streak. But how do we overcome the retirement problem?

First, I agree we have a problem. If a 35 year old earns the average household income in the country, then they will need over $1 million in savings to maintain their standard of living for a 25 year retirement (see table). This equates to saving $17,000 per year, every year, until this family reaches 67. I think this family needs a trusted advisor to tell them this, and map their path to get to their hoped-for retirement.

So how can this family save $17,000 of a $50,000 annual income? Well, part of it can be accomplished through the now-typical employer 401(k) plan, where the employer matches some form of employee savings. 

Also, Uncle Sam picks up part of the tab. The employee can save all of the needed savings tax deferred. If the family is in the 15% marginal rate, then Uncle Sam picks up the equivalent of 15% of those contributions.

The Harkin's report identified four principles of reform:

1. The Retirement System Should Be Universal and Automatic. I agree it should be automatic. Universal sounds like Big Brother is telling you what to do. This is a continuing theme with the US Government... Americans are too stupid to care for themselves and need us (i.e. the Government). 

2. The Retirement System Should Give People Certainty. I think peace of mind would be better than certainty. Many great US companies went down the tubes as a result of defined benefit pension plans.

3. Retirement is Shared Responsibility. The US Government already shares with Social Security. The only other sharing (i.e. controlling) they should do is enforce laws against the charlatans that plague the investment community.

4. Retirement Assets Should Be Pooled and Professionally Managed. Well, we call that mutual funds, don't we? But I think Harkins' group is suggesting more centralized control in defining "professionally managed".

I don't disagree with the retirement challenge. I also think saving should be automatic. But I disagree with greater control of a national pension system in Washington. Here is where I think community banks, banded together through associations such as the ABA or ICBA, can play a critical role in solving our problem.

There are countless examples of organizations coming together for a cause. The Rotary Foundation strives to eradicate polio. Feed the Children, well, is self explanatory. Why can't community financial institutions band together to help customers prepare for retirement?

I'm not talking about our frequently half-hearted attempt at retail investment sales. I'm talking about a national program, established through our associations, that vets money managers like associations now vet "approved" vendors, and establishes low cost investment option packages that customers can select based on their risk appetite.

They can range in risk from mostly all stock funds, to mostly all bank CDs. The key will be to automatically move the money monthly from customers checking account into a tax advantaged IRA-type account. I'm not suggesting receiving no compensation for it. But keep fees low, such as 25-50 bps. Negotiations with money managers can partially offset these fees, since nationally community banks will be placing large sums of money into these funds. The money will be portable, and owned by customers, and not the federal government. I think we can establish a national program that meets the Senate committee's four principles, without it morphing into another federal bureaucracy to be tinkered with by future elected officials, as is the case with the Social Security system.

Imagine, a middle class family, through their local financial institution, putting away $250/month into such a program, in addition to their 401(k) plans at work. We can play a positive role in helping our customers enjoy their retirement years, and achieve piece of mind.

Should we band together and embrace the retirement cause?

~ Jeff



Saturday, 25 May 2013

Does fee income hedge banks and credit unions from spread swings?

The drum is starting to beat again for fee income in the minds of banking executives and in financial institution strategy sessions. This week I heard "hedge" against interest rate fluctuations, a comment more common in the late 1990's to mid 2000's. So I ran some numbers, and the answer to the post title is: it depends.

Fee income comes in many sources. And for most community banks, which I define as banks with less than $10 billion in assets, fee income comprises 10%-20% of total revenue, on average. See the table for a break down of fee income sources by Call Report category for community banks.


With all the talk about fee income lines of business, much if not most of our fee income comes as additional revenue from traditional spread products, such as deposits or residential mortgages. This makes sense. It is our primary business, and fees improve the profitability of bread and butter banking.

But what about this hedge philosophy? I was skeptical. I know from my company's profitability measurement service that fee income products contributed 1% to profits at the average, and -0.8% at the median of all clients. Admittedly, this includes loss leader products such as safe deposit boxes. But, in the main, fee based products are not dropping much to the bottom line.

However, when I sorted top fee based banks and compared their Return on Average Assets to the industry, it appears as though having significant amounts of fee income does protect the institution from the ski slope decline in financial performance that plagued the industry. In effect, high levels of fee income gave financial institutions a softer landing at the bottom (see chart).


But if financial institutions want more from fee based lines of business than to soften their fall, they must focus on delivering profits. This has been a challenge. When I hear executives clamor over fee income, they more often than not focus on revenue generation, not profits. In my experience, profits have been elusive. 

I hear lots of excuses why fee-based LOBs don't make money: soft insurance market, best efforts execution on mortgages, stock market decline, high pay to keep talent, yadda, yadda, yadda. I once heard a complaint from a head of Trust about having to share the copier expense with another department that used said copier more. 

Bottom Line: Insurance, Trust, Investment Advisory, Mortgage Banking, these are all businesses that are common sense complements to traditional spread banking. Almost all of bank customers demand these services. 

Why can't we deliver them profitably?  

~ Jeff