photo credit: abductit

Some of the country’s top financial planners were asked about the toughest questions they got from their clients this past year, and how they answered them.

The panel at Sunday’s Financial Planning Association session in Anaheim included Elissa Buie, Michael Branham, Harold Evensky, Tim Kochis and Ross Levin. Ron Lieber of the New York Times moderated.

The discussion was illuminating enough that I shared it on Twitter and am doing so again here. Below you’ll find my tweets and some comments expanding on important points. Read and learn from some of the best financial planning minds in the country.

Tough question #1: Didn’t you see this coming?

Toughest client ?: Didn’t u see this coming? CFP Buie: This was always in the realm of possibility. Can’t predict timing.

Evensky: It only seems obvious in hindsight. We will not see it next time, either.

Kochis/Levin: Clients feel emotionally planners failed them. Planning is more than technical. Part of job is dealing with pain.

My take: True financial planners (all the above are CFPs) have studied market history and knew big drops were possible–in contrast to investment salespeople who didn’t have such training and were caught flat-footed. True financial planners set up clients’ portfolios with an eye to worst-case scenarios. But planners will still have to help their clients through the emotional shock of losing money, since you don’t really know your risk tolerance until you’ve seen what a loss really feels like.

Tough question #2: Did asset allocation fail?

Did asset allocation fail? Branham: In crisis everything tanks. AA did work in that fixed income provided safety net.

Kochis: AA not designed to work in ST; designed to work over long periods & looks like it will.

Levin: we got this same ? in different context in 1999: shouldn’t you be all in tech stocks?

Evensky: Asset allocation worked very well. We just allo’d in some of the wrong places. Fixed income/LT Treasuries did very well

Evensky: AA does not protect against losses. It’s about better managing risk. One client: I don’t have to be happy but I don’t have 2 worry

Evensky’s comment about allocating in some of the wrong places was actually a laugh line (those are SO hard to communicate in 140 characters), but his serious point was that not everything tanked and that asset allocation doesn’t protect you against all losses anymore than it guarantees you the highest returns. It’s about getting the right mix of risk and return.

Tough question #3: What IS within our control?

wht IS w/in R control? Kochis: spending, major purchases, charity, family wealth trnsfr (silver lining: low values, low int rates)

Kochis: also, risk tolerance/return expectations. Evensky: that, & security selection. You have a great deal of control.

Buie: Ppl control just about everything other than market/economy. Knowing this helped keep some from jumping out window

Buie: Ones who reduced spending felt the most control. The well adjusted recognized the importance of human capital (ability to earn).

Branham: You can control saving rate, media intake, how they react. They can focus on important things in life.

The markets and economy may not be within our control, but our spending and saving levels certainly are. Buie noted that those who controlled their spending had the greatest sense of mastery of all her clients. She added that we also control our human capital–our ability to earn. We can find new ways to make money, start businesses, work longer, etc. Branham noted that a steady diet of “the sky is falling” news reports don’t tend to help us feel calm and in control, but focusing on what’s really important (family, relationships, etc.) does. Kochis pointed out that the market swoon and low interest rates actually gave wealthy families opportunities to transfer assets with less of a tax hit and to make other advantageous estate-planning moves.

Tough question #4: Do I have to change my lifestyle (cut back, retire later, give up the dream)?

Do I have 2 change my lifestyle? Levin: this is a ? abt control. Life happens. If we pretend omniscience, we do a disservice.

Levin: Only way you guarantee lower lifestyle is to give up on stocks.

Branham: 4 most, no. It’s life cycle dependent (harder 4 early/near retirees). Just as important we dn’t get 2 frugal as we dnt ovrspnd

Kochis: Essential not to overreact, do things u can’t reverse. take in stages, don’t assume everything’s changed 4ever

Buie: Ways 2 live a big life: Using home exchanges, hug some1 (prefbly some1 u know), give blood. It’s abt more than $$.

Kochis: some clients convinced it’s different this time. Not so much now, but definitely in March.

Levin: I was afraid in March. Most important is to put [on your own] oxygen mask first. Have to believe what u tell clients

Evensky: there is risk no matter what. We believe the safe thing to do is to stay invested.

Levin was pretty candid about his own emotions as the market plummeted. As I wrote above, knowing this could happen is different from experiencing it yourself. The planners saw some of their colleagues abandon long-held financial planning principles when the fear got to be too much. Levin said it was important to get a handle on his own fears so he could better advise his clients.

Tough question #5: How can I be sure you’re not a crook?

Moderator @ronlieber says his family advisor got arrested 4 theft, so this is top of mind 4 him.

How can I be sure UR not a crook? Evensky: trust but verify. Look @ ur statements. Determine who is holding ur $. Shldnt be advisor.

There is no guarantee from credentials or length of time in biz.

Buie: 3rd party custodian is essential. But statmnts dont protect against forgery. custodians must report more clearly, educate clients

Levin: a lot more $ gets lost thru bad advice than thru crooks. Clients shldn’t be bullied.

Buie: some annuities being sold have high expenses, limited upside. Being sold using fear. Concerns her.

A few scam artists are so sophisticated that their schemes are tough to detect. One big red flag for these planners is when the advisor is the custodian of the funds, rather than a third party. Levin points out that bad advice costs people far more (in high expenses, mediocre returns, etc.) than scam artists do.