Does Barron's really have a bead on the best financial advisors in America?
The famed Top Advisor Rankings by State is an established and influential ranking but its criteria are murky and therefore misleading, according to this veteran who also vets RIAs
Brooke’s note: This RIABiz column is riddled with potential conflict. First of all, RIABiz is at least obliquely in competition with Barron’s so any criticism of them that we publish needs to be looked at with some suspicion. Not only do both our publications have some overlap in covering advisors but we both publish lists that include advisors. See: 10 most influential RIA figures going into 2013 and how they’re reshaping the industry, Part 1. And, who knows, some day we, like Barron’s may even have a conference based on one of our lists. The author of this column, Jack Waymire, also has a potential conflict in the sense that his company earns revenues based, like Barron’s, on identifying top financial advisors. Even realizing all that, we are inclined to run this column and take our lumps. As the dispenser of the advisory version of papal blessings, Barron’s authority in saying who is best among advisors is all but free of critical observation. See: The top 10 things you need to know about the new Barron’s Top 100 List. Anybody on the list will tell you that they simply can’t afford to get booted by sounding off. Anybody not on the list doesn’t want to hazard not getting on the list by sounding off. Many providers will tell you the can’t criticize Barron’s because they want to be invited to the big RIA parties in Florida and gain access to such a concentration of top-notch prospects. So who is left to say something is a publication like ours and a Jack Waymire who operates in behind the curtain of advisor-rating operations. When we reached out to Barron’s, spokesman Matthew Barthell e-mailed back: “You have all the information we publicly disclose about our methodology and processes, and we don’t have any comment beyond that.” He went on to say: “Barron’s and Waymire’s company endeavor to identify good advisors—in that sense, we occupy the same competitive space, though we clearly go about it differently.”
Waymire explained the differences between Barron’s “Top Advisor” and his company’s advisor-rating activities this way: Paladin advisor research vets advisors for Worth magazine’s leading wealth advisors program that includes investment, legal and insurance advisors. Worth does not claim these advisors are the best in America. See: Worth magazine’s new owner rights ship by charging wealth managers for write-ups. It does disclose that Paladin vetted the advisors and the advisors pay Worth a fee to participate in the program.
Paladin’s registry service profiles advisors who scored in the 90th percentile or higher when paladin vetted the advisor’s credentials, ethics, business practices and services. advisors who score in the top 10% are eligible to be listed in paladin’s registry and directory. There is a very explicit diclosure on the Paladin site that a 5-star rating does not mean the advisor produced superior results in the past or in the future.
If a $5-million client informed you he was moving his assets to another advisor, your first two questions would probably be why. And to which advisor?
And what if your client responded he is moving his assets to an advisor on the Barron’s Top 1,000 U. S. Financial Advisors? Barron’s is a weekly newspaper that is owned by Dow Jones. Its focus is financial information, market developments, and publishing Best in America lists.
At that point it might be too late, but perhaps you would like some facts about the methodology used to build the Barron’s list. See: The top 10 things you need to know about the new Barron’s Top 1,000 List.
Barron’s has been producing Best Financial Advisors in America lists for 10 years. The advisors that fall under Barron’s “best” umbrella include stockbrokers, registered reps, RIAs and hybrids (RIAs or IARs who hold active securities licenses). Barron’s would like investors to believe it conducts comprehensive due diligence to arrive at its conclusions, the same as other publications that claim they have a unique methodology that identifies the best mutual funds, hedge funds, separately managed accounts, and securities. See: The SEC needs to clean up its semantics before accusing RIAs of inflating AUM.
Although Barron’s gives a broad outline of the criteria it uses (see below for Barron’s explanation), it is mysterious about its methods, saying that they are proprietary. So investors will never know exactly how Barron’s determined who ranked first, second, third, and so on. The only obvious measurement is the amount of assets that are controlled by the first, second, and third advisors on the Top 1,000 list.
Barron’s claims it validates the accuracy of advisor data by comparing them with information in regulatory databases, and through cross-checks with securities firms and conversations with individual advisors. See: Barron’s offers insight but declines interview about Top 100 study.
Barron’s website says the source of the data that it relies on for vetting is the financial advisors on its list. That makes sense, because there are no public databases that provide all of the necessary data for a comprehensive vetting process. The information has to come from advisors.
Barron’s does have a questionnaire with 102 questions they send to advisors. Most of the questions relate to clients, assets, and revenues. A few questions deal with compliance records and certifications, which reflect the ethics and competence of advisors.
In my opinion, Barron’s due-diligence claims are designed to sound comprehensive, but they are not close to being a complete vetting process. Here’s why:
• Regulatory databases, such as those of FINRA and the SEC, contain about 25% of the information you need to effectively vet a financial advisor.
• What is a cross-check with a securities firm? This deliberately vague term makes it sound as if the 1,000 Best Advisors are stockbrokers. What if the advisor is an RIA and there is no securities firm? And what data are being cross-checked?
• “Conversations with advisors” is also vague. Are the conversations with the advisor on the Barron’s list? Or, if it is with third party advisors, how did Barron’s get their names and what questions did it ask them?
Overseen, not heard
Barron’s states that the advisor ranking reflects the volume of assets overseen by the advisors and their teams, revenue generated for the firms, and the quality of the advisors’ practices.
Investors are supposed to believe that the advisors who manage the largest amounts of assets that produce the greatest amounts of revenue are the Best Advisors in America.
But since assets produce revenue, this is really one measurement. Second, assets and revenue may have nothing to do with the quality of the advisors’ services. More often than not, it means that the advisors are really good at marketing. However, many of the best financial advisors are not good at marketing. They are intellectual, analytical professionals who do a great job for their clients, but spend as little time and money as possible on marketing activities. And, how does Barron’s determine the quality of advisors’ practices when its questionnaire does not require that information? Does it conduct onsite visitations?
Barron’s use of the word “overseen” is also very telling. This Barron’s term is not used by the regulatory agencies, and it appears that advisors can include any type of asset in their AUM numbers: Discretionary, non-discretionary, managed, mutual fund assets, variable annuity assets, and assets in trading accounts. See: Which type of AUM is worth more to a buyer?.
Barron’s says: “Investment returns are not a component of rankings because an advisor’s returns are dictated largely by the risk tolerance of clients.”
This statement is largely correct, unless the advisor provides one money management service to multiple clients. This is why money managers have track records and financial advisors do not. See: 6 reasons why RIAS can’t — or don’t want to — have track records.
It is possible to create track records if advisors subdivide clients into categories — for example, younger clients with higher risk tolerances and retired clients with lower risk tolerances are in different categories. However, producing audited track records compliant with global investment performance standards would be very expensive.
The bottom line: There is no way to know if these advisors produce the best results or even if they produce competitive results. But, investors are supposed to believe they produce superior results because they are on Barron’s list and they are responsible for large amounts of assets. Even more alarming, there is no disclosure that says a listing does not guarantee superior results in the future.
I also could not find any professional profiles for the Best Advisors in America on the Barron’s website. The only information that is published by Barron’s are client and asset data. Critical information that describes education, certifications, experience, registrations, fiduciary status and method of compensation is nowhere to be found. See: Advisor spotlight: Haverford’s president hits the Barron’s list with the 'most unloved’ strategy.
Barron’s also does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest. For example, do the Best Advisors buy research and other services from Barron’s and Dow Jones? Whether they do or not, any potential conflicts of interest should be disclosed to investors who are relying on Barron’s objectivity to help them identify and select the best advisors in America.
Are the lists published to increase Barron’s circulation, create a market for Barron’s and Dow Jones research products, sell advertising, or provide an objective, sophisticated service investors can depend on when they select financial advisors? These objectives are not necessarily in conflict with each other, but investors deserve real due diligence and full transparency when they depend on Barron’s and the quality of its services. See: How exactly RIAs can leverage the new transparency as a marketing tool.
Final note: Here is Barron’s description of its methodology as stated on its 2013 Top Advisor Rankings by State web page: “The rankings are based on data provided by over 4,000 of the nation’s most productive advisors. Factors included in the rankings: assets under management, revenue produced for the firm, regulatory record, quality of practice, and philanthropic work. Investment performance isn’t an explicit component because not all advisors have audited results and because performance figures often are influenced more by clients’ risk tolerance than by an advisor’s investment-picking abilities. A ranking of 'N’ denotes “not ranked that year.”
Jack Waymire spent 28 years in the financial services industry. For 21 years he was president of an RIA that provided wealth management services to more than 50,000 individual and institutional investors. He is the author of “Who’s Watching Your Money?” and the founder of Paladin Registry, a website that provides free advisor research, ratings and reports to investors. He is a columnist for Worth magazine, a contributor to major financial websites, and is frequently quoted by the media.
Morgan Stanley wants more Barron's Top Advisors so it poached Barron's 'Top Advisor' insiders, which says as much about the wirehouse as the publishing house
The wirehouse knows that no big firm owner puts phone calls from Sterling Shea or Alison Rooney on hold, and it's willing to hire and train them to fit new jobs
January 5, 2021 – 4:06 AM
Paladin Digital Marketing
Consulting Firm, Marketing & Public Relations, Investor Referrals
Top Executive: Jack Waymire
Years ago we recognized the top industry advisors as the Whose Who of Investment Management Consulting later the Society of Senior Consultants which had an institutional bias. 270 members $1.2 trillion in assets, averaging over $4 billion, so the institutional bias was clear.
All these guys had achieved scale and were innovators, with the largest having long given up their brokerage liscenses to avoid the appearance of conflicts. The smaller advisors were brokers with aspirations of becomming advisors. They are now the top innovators in the business.
Perhaps it is time for RIABIZ to create its own top 100 who actually provide advisory services and act in a fiducuary capacity. It would be a very impressive list and a great source of inspiration and emulation for the advisory services community.
So Ric, please tell me how you are a better advisor than #2 on the list. Or #3, or #1000 for that matter. If the criteria is so clear, than you should be able to reply to my post and tell me exactly how you are a better ADVISOR. Having more AUM doesn’t make you better, having a larger average account size doesn’t either, since there are others on the list that have higher amounts than you. What, exactly, makes you better? And please quote the criteria from the Dow Jones publication that you are referring to, since you obviously own a copy and this should make it easy for you to give supporting details.
Oh, and by the way, the Barron’s methodology sounds very much like the Five Star Wealth Manager Award that just got its behind handed to it by the State of Washington. I hope that you’re disclosing all of this “completely clear methodology” when you advertise the fact that you’ve “won” the Barron’s award.
Thanks, looking forward to your reply.
You have missed my point completely, unless you are stating that Ric is the only fiduciary on the list and that is why he is ranked first.
Rather, my point is that Barron’s does not provide transparency and thus there is no way to understand the differentiation between #1 and #2 on the list, #2 and #3, and so on. Please re-read my earlier post and reply on point. What exactly is the criteria that Ric met to end up higher than #2 on the list?
AMEN.. the past few years I’ve searched for advisers Return on Investments. I wanna know how much Freaken RETURN they had on their invested assets.
All I could find was BARRONS .. “ Top “ Whatever.. all they showed me is what their Assets was one year and what their Assets was the NEXT YEAR.. Like their increase in customer balances helps me any. Then their article tells me the Return on Investments wasn’t what counted.. it was how everything was ~ Diversified ~
—- Like Diversification will help me any if their ROI is 2% —
I learned my lesson when I tested a WF adviser with my $30,000 Roth IRA. $1,300 increase, $700+ Fees,
Net ROI=Sucks —
Years ago we could find a GREAT list of Advisers Returns.. Anyone have a suggestion on where I can find this info?
They can even be crucial. When searching with regard to such a product or service, individuals aspects are what girls seem with regard to possibly one of the most. You will see several varieties of celebrity attire relating to this form of product or service. The primary cleavage traces are V-neck, high-neck also to square-neck. It’s very scarce in path of look for a type of products which has a round neck. The v-cleavage traces are considered in path of turn out to be more tasteful tan the relief. If that is obtainable while in the direction of straps also to masturbator sleeves, a lot of these kind of attire are bustier. There movie star dresses are even so people which might be sleeveless, lengthy sleeved also to shorter sleeved.
What is so interesting about this thread is professional (fidicuary) standing is never the criteria used to establish recognition. Assets under advisement without any accountability or ongoing responsibility seems to be the focus. The factual practical criteria which informs us of our fiduciary duties are ignored. There no concern for the fiduciary responsibility for managing cost or a broad range of investmeent and administrative values required by statute, no concern for the absence of the processeses, technology, work flow management essential for the transparency and continuous comprehensive counsel required for fiduciary standing and the well being of the investing public. Thus, recognizing top advisors who have contributed to the professional standing of the industry need to be recognized and honored as they universally have had to swim against the tide of brokerage culture which thwarts advisory services innovation.
The acknowledgment of top advisors based on the nature of their advice establishing professional standing would be a catalyst for excellance in the emergence of advisory services in the best sense of the investing public as the alternative to commisdsion sales.
I greatly encourage Brooke to pursue such a meaninful endeavor as the impact of such recognition would be profound. Brokerage interests would finally understand the highest level of counsel need not be complex, nor expensive, nor limited to those with large assets to invest, but is safe, scalable, easy to execute and manage at a far lower cost than a packaged investment product which can never be personalized.
How can Wall Street sell junk to investors if stockbrokers are held to fiduciary standards? Wall Street firms spend millions of dollars per year on lobbyists who fight mandatory disclosure and fiduciary standards. The good guys (RIAs, IARs, fiduciaries) support full transparency and fiduciary standards because they have nothing to hide. The other guys fight transparency and higher ethical standards because they have a lot to hide.
Ric Edelman is not only at the top of the Baroron’s List but should be at the top of the Advisor list which is rare and even more distinctive. He has scale and is at the point of the spear in innovation.
Very few of the Barron’s Top 100 Advisors are in fact advisors, just ask their employing broker/dealer. None will acknowledge the fiduciary standing of their brokers nor that they render advice nor that they are accountable for and have ongoing responsilbilty for their recommendations.
This is why brokers can not be counselors or even use the word counsel.
This is also why the word “advisor” literally entails the rendering of advice which is a fiduciary duty that the SEC, FINRA and the SIFMA should acknowledge and recognize to eliminate the confusion illustrated by the common misuse of the word. If counsel or counselor can not be used by brokers because it implies advice is rendered, then advisor should be treated as the same.
Your unique position in the industry is your constituency of RIAs.
If professional standing and statutory imperative are at odds with conventional commission sales, no one says a thing. Yet you hear the clarity of Ric Edelman’s voice when he speaks the truth about financial planning for the good of the industry—the problem is there is no one on the otherside of the arguement that can or will do anything about it. Our largest institutions are the last to innovate, because as structured today brokers are not accountable for their recommendations nor have any ongoing fiduciary reasponsibility.
In the RIA space there is a need to create a critical mass of like minded people who can be the point of the spear in innovation. The trade associations can not do it because thay have to be so inclusive that anyone can join without any exclusionary qualitative assessment. Thus, the brokerage industry has not been compelled to innovate, not because fiduciary liability, but because professional standing can be achieved without fiduciary standing.
If RiaBiz were to have a simple set of criteria for professional standing requiring an (a) expert authenticated prudent investment process (asset/liability study, investment policy, portfolio construction, monitoring and management required by statue) which makes advice safe to acknowledge, (b) advanced technolgy which supports (i) transparency, (ii) more modern approach to portfolio construction, (iii) continuous comprehensive counsel, all required for fiduciary standing, (d) work flow management tied to a functional division of labor (advisor, CAO, CIO) which makes advice scalable, easy to execute and manage as a high margin business at the advisor level, and (e) the management of conflicts of interest—the resulting criotical mass of advisors would transform the industry overnight. It would facilitate an unprecedented level of investment and administrative counsel at a cost lower than a packaged product, support exeprt standing, achieve three times the earnings multiple than commission sales and unleash transformational free market forces without the conflicts of todays commission sales distribution model.
Today modernity is held capitve by industry self interest that thwart the best intereasts of the investing public.
This critical mass of advisors would be profound. It is an important and necessary step in aligning the best interest of the investing public with a financial services industry that presently is insular to anyadvisory services innovation even those required by Congress.I am glad help. Brent Boardeski and his Zero Alpha Group colleagues, Fielding Miller at CapTrust, Dick Smith at the CAP Group, Jim Pupillio, Bob Rowe and many, many more would be glad to foster such innovation and the professional standing of the advisor in ways not possible in abroker/dealer.
You ought to do it !!!
I believe the use of the word “Best” is misleading for investors. Barron’s uses the word to describe advisors who control the most assets and produce the most revenue. Its list is the top 1000 out of approximately 4000 who completed its questionnaire.
Paladin Registry does not use the word “Best”. It was told by the SEC that it could not use the word because it had not evaluated all of the RIAs and IARs in the industry. Paladin has only evaluated the advisors who have voluntarily submitted data to it (same as Barron’s). Consequently, Paladin’s 5 star quality rating is based on a score that is produced by advisors’ credentials, ethics, business practices, and wealth management services. For example, advisors with more experience score higher than advisors with less experience. CFAs, CIMAs, CFPs, and CPA/PFS’ score higher than advisors who do not hold these certifications or designations.
The reality is no one knows who is best. Financial advisors do not have audited, GIPS compliant track records. Therefore, Barron’s and Paladin came up with alternative criteria for determining who is best or who qualifies for a 5 star quality rating. This should be fully disclosed to investors in bold print so they know “Best” or “5 Stars” does not mean the advisor has produced superior results in the past or will produce superior results in the future.
Re the story: Brooke did a marvelous job at fully disclosing up-front the conflicts of interest involved, to help frame the story for the reader. In my mind, Brooke and RIZBiz suffer no conflicts here, but Jack certainly does.
So allow me to state my own conflicts before I go any further. I am ranked #1 on Barron’s Indy list and #1 in Virginia (on the Barron’s state-by-state list) and I’ve been honored to be ranked #1 on both lists for several years. With that disclosure in place, here are my comments.
The column is absurd. Jack calls Barron’s methodology “mysterious” simply because Barron’s doesn’t provide the elaboration that Jack – a competitor – wishes he had. (Jack, if you want the information, go buy the publication from Dow Jones; that way, you’d get all the information you want.)
The column’s use of such phrases as “claims to” and “says”, and the posing of questions without providing the answers, are the tactics that some might label muckraking. A more balanced, informative article would be more appropriate than a column that some might suggest emanates from a dose of sour grapes.
In fact, Barron’s methodology is clearly stated publicly, and readers are free to conclude whether they believe that methodology warrants their attention and approval, or not.
Finally, I flatly dispute the allegation that there is a pay-to-play involved with the Barron’s rankings, and the suggestion that advisors buy research or other services in order to be ranked is insulting. I find the question astonishing since the Worth ranking requires advisors to pay a fee in order to be included (one of several reasons I chose not to participate in that ranking).
Jack, you might have thought you were taking a stab at a prestigious publication, but you actually attacked the 1,000 advisors ranked annually by Barron’s, the firms that employ them, and the many thousands of other advisors who either seek to make the lists or wish they could.
Barron’s is performing a truly valuable – and unequaled – service, not only for advisors but for investors nationwide. Barron’s is to be commended for its efforts and contributions, and should be encouraged to improve, not chastised because of its impact and success.
Chairman & CEO
Edelman Financial Services
Sounds like Ric took this opinion a little too personally.
I personally spent time at a large wirehouse and shared an office with a member of the Barron’s list. While the “advisor” was an extremely nice person, they also happened to be married to a very high ranking executive in the firm. This allowed the advisor, a mid level producer until the marriage, to gather assets like never before. Smaller advisors sucking at the power Teat offered a portion of their book to join the team. The relationships and connections, combined with eternal marketing and using the wirehouse’s generic plug and play investment allocations got this advisor on the list.
I know nothing about Mr. Edelman, and I’m sure he is a nice guy. But these lists are a complete waste of time for investors, a pure ego stroke for the top producers at their respective firms, and another way for wirehouses to keep their top producers happy enough to continue to stay put instead ofgoing independent for a higher payout and not being “elite”.
Congratulations to all the members of this year’s Barron’s list.
There is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of by being recognized as the top advisor in the industry.
You must be confused as to whom the shame should be attached.
It does appear that your assessment is sour grapes. I doubt you would refuse such an honor.
This may be a small detail, but I see you do this in many of your articles from Watchdog (as you did in the article above). You often state that investors should work with, and advisors should be registerd as, an RIA or IAR. It should be noted that an advisor themself cannot be an RIA. Advisors can ONLY be IAR’s. While an advisor may OWN an RIA firm, they are not considered an RIA. Only the firm is the RIA. So even a solo-practicioner is still an IAR of his/her RIA firm. Stating that an advisor is an RIA is incorrect.
Jack,An investment advisor representative is a selling agent of an advice product overwhich they have little control. The advice product vendor acts in a fiduciary capacity as a money manager but does not support the specific fiduciary duties each broker owes their clients. This brokers selling advice products are not acting in a fiduciary capacity to their clients.
I usually refer to advisors the way they refer to themselves. In our vetting we ask advisors if they are RIAs or IARs. Advisors who own their own firm or are partners in a firm invariably answer they are RIAs or they check both boxes. Some advisors are confused by the distinction between the two. They are usually IARs who are registered under their B/Ds’ RIAs. Some do not even know this is the registration that permits them to provide financial advice and ongoing financial services for fees. And, we wonder why investors are confused.
Looks and sounds like Ric has a very tender ego!
You are suggesting that professional standing, universally defined by fiduciary duty, does not make a difference.
The fact that everyone on the Barrons list is mischaracterized as an advisor (which requires the fulfillment of fiduciary duty based on objective fiduciary criteria of statute case law and regulatory opinion letters) does not mean everyone on the list is not a fiduciary. Ric Edelman is a fiduciary to his credit. If you are not aware what that means, he is accountable and responsible for his recommendations, not possible in a brokerage format nor are IARs who are simply sales agents of an advice product over which they have no input or control.
There are very specific duties articulated in an (a) expert authenticated prudent investment process incorporating (i) asset/liability study, (ii) investment policy, (iii) portfolio construction, monitoring and management, which makes it safe for advisors to acknowledge fiduciary status. This is made possible throught the use of (b) advanced technology that (i) facilitates continuous comprehensive counsel, (ii) more modern approaches to portfolio construction that streamlines cost and manages a higher degree of portfolio detail in real time, required for fiduciary standing, (c) work flow management tied to a functional division of labor (Advisor, CAO, CIO) so expert advice is scalable, easy to execute and routinely manage at a very high level, and (d) conflict of interest management which goes far beyond disclosure (acknowledging an abuse of consumer protections) so the consumer’s best interest are being served.
If any of this is unfamiliar to you, it might why you asked the question. This is what fiduciary duty looks like. Your job as a broker is done after you have made a product sale and are paid entailing no accountability or ongoing responsibility.
Ric Edelman should be celebrated as an exemplary advisor to be emulated, not chastized for doing the right thing from those that do not know any better. Just because Barrons does not get it right does not mean Ric Edelman does not get it right.
In terms of assets under advisement, number of clients and level of counsel routinely and consistently provided, Edelman scores quite high. I can’t think of an advisor who primarily deals with individuals who scores higher. There are many advisors that advise more assets, but they typically work with institutions. Isn’t it Barrons responsibility to explain their rankings, not those being evaluated ?
Exactly. They don’t explain it and he can’t explain it, but he’s happy to accept the award and promote himself with it, and the public is none the wiser. Shameful.
When is the biggest of anything the best? It’s usually not the case, particularly of personal services.
Apple has undoubtedly place a sensible strategy in place while using the start of it is really Apple apple iphone smartphone. With shut integration to its Safari World-wide-web browser, Apple seems set to generate yet another modern user knowledge for Apple lovers globally.
Barron’s should call its list the “Most Productive Advisors in America” versus the “Best Advisors in America”. The word “Best” implies they are doing the best job for their clients compared to advisors who are not on the Barron’s list. Best implies competitive performance for reasonable risk and expense. How can Barron’s claim they list the best then disclose performance is not a criterion because advisors don’t have track records. Isn’t that admitting they don’t really know who the best advisors are based on results? And, production of assets and revenues have nothing to do with high quality financial advice and services. The fact is, in the financial service industry, big is not always better. Unfortunately, most investors do not make this distinction.
Barron’s did disclose “more than 4,000 advisors” completed their questionnaire. So the 1,000 are the most productive out of 4,000, not the hundreds of thousands of advisors who sell investment services and products. Explain that to the CFAs, CIMAs, and CFPs who are doing great jobs for their clients, but can’t qualify to be on the Barron’s list.
Thanks Steve for clearing something up for me. My next column is going to deal with who can call themselves advisors. We did not research counselors, but your comments cleared something up for me. I could not believe what I found was true. Now I believe it.
Two of the comments here reminded me of things I was going to say in my preamble before my preamble got too long.
Steve, you suggest that RIABiz do its own Top 100 list. I admit I felt the ground move beneath my feet at that suggestion, knowing just what a bone-crushing task that it is.
I have always liked Schwab’s picks for 'best’ in the sense that I presume they have really had a chance to observe their advisors over years or decades from a favorable footing. Who else can do that?
Ric’s note reminds me that our RIABiz algorithms and Barron’s thresher machine both put Ric near the top of their respective lists.
Ric’s note also reminded me of something I’ve heard a few people say about Barron’s — namely that it could take steps to improve. I find critics are typically very fair overall. They can sense when you’re doing your darnedest and when you could do a little more — both in terms of transparency and processes. My sense is it could take steps to get better and make the RIABizzes of the world look silly lobbing mortars.
LOL. For years I have seen familiar names on this list who were at my own shop. They all had this in common: They were know to be fed new accounts by management, they were actually large teams which provided almost no personal or customized client service, they pushed the firm’s in-house managed accounts because they could not manage assets themselves. I am sure there are a few great advisers hidden on their list somewhere. For those of us who know the list, it is simply a production brag for the firm and recruiting tool for the wirehouse managers.