#PAICR2011: Being the best we can be

The Professional Association for Investment Communications Resources (PAICR) opened today in New York with a 'can do' Englishman exhorting his mostly US audience to stay positive.

What is the new normal? Whatever we think it is, claims Andrew O'Donoghue, the opening speaker.

His bottom line for those in asset management communication is this: look at things differently. Just because we feel we've seen it all before doesn't mean this time IS the same. If our perceptions shape our reality then we'd better take extreme care to get perspective.

Perspective that might enable us to yet again do more, with increasingly less.

Sound familiar?

If current market instability is leading to yet more resourcing cuts, then perhaps it's time to radically rethink how we do what we do.

Certainly the conversations I've had in Sydney, London and New York in the last week strongly suggest global asset managers are shaping up for more cuts - as global markets smash the value of funds under management, revenue also drops. And with revenue under pressure, expenses have to come down.

So yet again those of us in financial services have to do more, with less.

Crushing for some, and not exciting for most. But there's a perception-altering mind game O'Donaghue suggests we play with ourselves.

It's simply to be kind to ourselves. To stay positive. To rise above self-limiting beliefs we've been conditioned to hold - whether through family influence, media, peers or government.

To aim, each day, to be the best we can be.

Not perfect, mind you. Just our best.

What does that feel like?

Motivated. Happy. Confident. Organized. Resilient. Unstoppable. Calm. Enthusiastic. 

So get there, says O'Donaghue. And stay that way.

Because what we do matters immensely to the people who rely on us - our teams, our clients and more importantly our families, our friends and ourselves.

Yes, we are all faced with challenge - personal and professional. But we all have a choice about the attitude we bring to those challenges.

We can choose to be negative, to make excuses, to blame. To see what can't be done. To impose limits.

Or we can choose to be positive. To take responsibility. To challenge our existing beliefs - to ask 'how can I?' and to believe that perhaps more can be achieved.

Our beliefs about our life, regardless of whether they are right or not, will determine our reality.

So give it your best shot, says O'Donaghue. Doing less is simply letting ourselves, and others, down.

BlueChip Communication, Australia's leading financial services communication firm, is attending the PAICR conference in New York for the fourth year.

FSC Wrap Up

The 2011 FSC conference closed today with a Q&A session with former PM John Howard. Here is how BlueChipper Paul Cheal saw it.

Q. What's the outlook for the Australian economy?

A. Everything is relative...certainly Australia is looking good compared to many other economies. That said, our optimism, so important for all businesses, is starting to fray.

Q. Why is optimism fading?

Three reasons (not given as partisan comments but an observation):

1. We've been living off the 'fat' of past reforms (from both sides of politics) and past successes which has now seemingly stalled
2. The current political situation (a hung parliament) is unprecedented
3. The state of the world economy and the feeling that the worse of the North Atlantic Financial Crisis (it wasn't a global financial crisis) may not be behind us. While Howard is optimistic we won't dip into a second crisis, that optimism is not shared by all. 

Q. So should we be pessimistic?

Howard believes the fundamentals of the Australian economy are still sound. His reasoning? We came through the downturn better than most and we did that by going into the blast furnace with a thick coating, thanks to economic reforms.

Q. And on China?

Our best customer. Two very different cultures that have been thrown together by the forces of supply and demand. However two elephants are in the room:

• China will grow old before it grows rich. It is an ageing society and in the not too distant future the population will peak, then decline and age. 
• And there will be a time as the Chinese people enjoy economic freedom, they will want similar political freedoms. 

Q. What of the Carbon Tax?

As a self confessed unreliable witness John Howard also says he is agnostic on climate change. While accepting that four years ago when he lost the election to Kevin07 he acknowledges that there was a sense Australians were open to a climate solution.

Q. Finally, this one from the floor: does the tea party make you look like a radical left winger?

Flattery will get you everywhere said Howard.

And that's a wrap from the FSC conference. Now back to navigating the changes ahead.

The price is right

With the background of a 4% fall on Wall Street and a falling local share market as he kicks off the last day of the FSC Conference, US author of 'Myth of a Rational Market' Justin Fox picked a timely day to discuss whether the markets are driven by rational investors or panicked decisions of a few.

To answer the question Justin takes us on a (not so random) walk through the history of financial thought from Irving Fisher (who in 1928 tipped the market would keep rising - oops) to Harry Markowitz (variance and correlation in asset allocation) and Bill Sharpe (coined the concept of beta).

Eugene Farma wrapped up much of the thinking of the time with the efficient market hypothesis stating that the market did a pretty good job given that even smart, professional money managers, with access to alot of information, fail to beat the market.

The explanation - it's hard for these professional managers to beat the market as they are usually managing other people's money and it is usually the moment that there is an opportunity in the market that is the hardest time to get others to invest.

Does the efficient market hypothesis hold up? Yes it is still very hard to beat the market but not necessarily because the market is rational or right but for a host of reasons.

So what financial markets theories didn't hold up?

• The price is right - we don't know!
• We can value risk
• Financial markets are stable
• Corporations should do what markets say - share price should drive decisions. 

What next for global markets? In the words of J.P. Morgan (the man not the company) - it will fluctuate!

Now back to the "carnage" of todays market - rational or not? 


Guest blogger Paul Cheal is attending the Financial Services Council annual conference on the Gold Coast, along with BlueChip Communication's Carden Calder and Bruce Madden 

Myth of a rational market: Day Three at the FSC

A walk through investing history with Justin Fox (Harvard Business Review Editorial Director) wound up with this: it's really hard to beat the markets.

The index managers may well have been cheering as Fox took delegates through generations of investment thinking.

On the way from Markowitz to Sharpe HBR's Fox says some ideas have stood the test of time, while others have proven to be myths - and less than helpful to investment performance.

So which ideas stand up, post GFC?

1. There is a trade off between risk and return
2. There is merit in diversifying
3. Black Scholes (looking at volatility) works

The myths are these:

1. The price is right
2. Risk can always be quantified
3. Risk is equivalent to historical volatility
4. Financial markets are inherently stable
5. Corporations should do what what markets say they should

Fox defends the value of thinking for ourselves. Many a listed company CEO will be glad to hear it - setting a course they judge to be the right one, rather than leading by the judgement of analysts.

FSC Day Three: Talking Heads

Today's breakfast was well attended - no doubt thanks to the Financial Services Council's sensibly late 9am start. Even the majority of last night's hard partying delegates fronted up for the FSC's Talking Heads session with the ABC's Leigh Sales, MP David Bradbury and Senator David Bushby.

Employer default funds, My Super and more were on the menu.

Why, asked Leigh Sales, is My Super going through Parliament before the Productivity Commission has done it's job? Because we can't wait forever, was the response from David Bradbury. And besides, the Productivity Commission's "to do" list is long enough already.

Does the super industry have blood on it's hands given older investors lost so much of the value of their investments during the GFC, asked Leigh Sales, paraphrasing the Future Fund's Paul Costello.

Those investors who did do well said Senator David Bushby may well have been lucky, rather than clever.

Questions from the floor canvassed whether new, regulated, remuneration arrangements might create new forms of conflicted remuneration, and addressed the role of financial planners in addressing financial literacy.

In response to the latter, said Senator Bushby, not everybody will end up with the expertise needed to make fully informed financial decisions - so the role of planners may become more important than ever.

David Bradbury cited school programs and the governments' Money Smart website, as well as the opportunity to seek advice when it's needed.

Could the government spend part of the Financial Literacy budget advocating people seek financial advice asked the FSC's Brogden? Probably not, or at least not yet responded Bradbury. Basic budgeting is a far higher priority for now.

E is for Advice

E was the letter of the day in this session discussing advice as a profession, which was defined by three e's: education, experience and ethics (which probably should be first).

Industry or profession; a quick straw poll showed that all in the room think financial planning should be a profession, but the FPA's Mark Rantall states you can't just call yourself a profession without backing it up, and with 50% free-riders enjoying the benefits of a professional body without signing up.

Mark says he sees financial planning as the second most important profession behind medicine - health first and finances a close and important second. But Brian Bissaker points out though that this is not necessarily recognized by the wider community.

What is the framework that we need to be a profession? It's threefold:

• Professional membership 
• Professional conduct 
• Professional accountability

Greg Medcraft agreed that in developing this (e)Framework we need to strike a balance between self regulation and legislation.

However, the scale of legislative change facing planners is enormous: banning commissions, banning volume rebates, increased education standards and stronger super among others, and while Bissaker believes this legislation will push us (as an industry) toward professionalism, the risk is that the scope and cost involved of all these reforms will make advice more expensive, and put it out of reach for everyday Australians.

Simply put it's all about doing the right thing - that is the hallmark of a profession.

And the goal of all this: give all Australians access to high quality advice.

It's as simple as eee.

For up to the minute news from FSC sessions follow us on Twitter: @carden, @p_cheal, @BlueChip_Comm

BlueChip Communication's Bruce Madden, Carden Calder and Paul Cheal are attending the Financial Services Council annual conference on the Gold Coast. 

Who thinks financial planning should be an industry? Or a profession?

The Financial Planning Association's (FPA) Mark Rantall kicked of his remarks with this question in an afternoon session at this week's Financial Services Council Conference.

Session attendees unanimously agreed it's a profession we're after, not a "financial planning industry".

Second only to medicine, said Rantall, is the importance of a strong financial planning profession. If you have your health, and your finances in order, you're in good shape he reasoned.

Key elements of a profession, says Rantall, include professional membership, rules around conduct, and accountability. On that note, from 2013 entry standards to the FPA will step up another notch.

Proof points supporting higher standards in these areas include the fact that recent research showed higher ethical reasoning among CFPs than other advisers.

Build it and they will come? Having built the framework for a profession, Rantall believes they (being planners) will come.

Rantall was clear on this: the FPA is, and will remain, the central professional body for financial advisers.

Colonial First State CEO Brian Bissaker focused on policy settings. The key reforms he reminded attendees of included:

- Increased fiduciary duty

- Ban on commissions and volume rebates

- Ban on soft dollar remuneration

- Increased training and minimum standards

- Increased ethical requirements

- Scaled advice changes

- Stronger Super

- New accountants licensing regime

A long and hard road but a journey worth taking, says Bissaker. In the heat of the debates Bissaker is concerned the totality of change might be missed. In particular he called out opt-in as being potentially a bridge too far at a time of great overall change in financial services.

Bissaker railed against government setting pricing mechanisms for planning, or any other professional service.

Community standards are increasing said Bissaker, and the risk of reputational damage looms large as a result.

Adviser versus adviser columns in media are not helpful he says. A more professional tone would be appropriate - suggesting advisers think about the greater good (overall reputation) and leave adversarial approaches in media at the door.

The end of the journey, according to Bissaker, will be when all universities offer financial planning degrees as part of their commerce faculty.

For up to the minute news from FSC sessions follow us on twitter: @carden @p_cheal @BlueChip_Comm

BlueChip Communication Group's Paul Cheal, Bruce Madden and Carden Calder are attending the Financial Services Council annual conference on the Gold Coast