I thought the article “No profit in talking politics with clients” (Aug. 29) was spot-on.
I have had to be very careful with the purchase of a practice this past December because I didn't know what the new clients' politics would be. It turns out that one of the clients has a life partner, and on my first meeting with her, she told me that she thought a Scandinavian law under which traffic fines are based on a percentage of violators' income should be implemented in the United States.
I almost couldn't help myself in asking how she thought that would jibe with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
Fortunately, I was able to redirect the conversation back to the business at hand. She is by far the most financially savvy client I have, and I enjoy working with her.
But it was very apparent that we didn't agree on politics. I was just fortunate I could step back from that tripwire before I set it off.
This brings up a related thought in terms of politics in the world of investments.
The Securities and Exchange Commission recently announced new ballot access rules for large shareholders.
Accumulating enough shares of public companies is no small task and is usually the domain of massive public-pension funds, along with mutual fund managers, hedge funds, etc. In the latter two cases, fund managers generally aren't selected based on their political connections.
But though public-pension boards aren't political appointments, the seats are usually filled by those with a great deal of political connections. Those connections have ideologies that can sometimes conflict with their fiduciary obligation.
I don't necessarily disagree with better access to corporate proxies. But to the extent that fund board members, helped into their positions by the political class, make arguably political decisions that have little effect on or even are detrimental to company performance, board members would be violating their fiduciary obligation to the pensioners.
Politics and investments really don't mix well unless it is the individual client's choice.
Andrew E. Oster
President and chief executive
Oster Financial Group LLC
Ponca City, Okla.
Advisers need to espouse 'intelligent economic policy'
I enjoyed the article “No profit in talking politics with clients” (Aug. 29), but I think that it is important to differentiate between pushing a particular candidate or party from espousing intelligent economic policy.
I think it would be negligent not to voice our opinions when we see incredibly bad economic policy being advocated and adopted.
Spending our way to recovery doesn't work, or Greece would be prosperous. Borrowing now and letting taxes fall on future generations so we can enjoy benefits today and subsidize businesses with failed business models is immoral.
If financial advisers don't voice this, they are abdicating their responsibility as citizens.
John W. Eckel
President
Pinnacle Investment Management Inc.
Simsbury, Conn.
Help investors manage risk to win their trust
Thank you for bringing an important issue to light in the article “Looking at financial pros through mud-colored glasses” (Sept. 13).
Although many financial advisers are frustrated by how long it takes to build investor trust in today's increasingly uncertain world, there is a very effective way to make it much easier and faster. All it takes is stepping back and addressing the big-picture issue of helping investors better understand and manage risk.
Ralph Waldo Emerson said it best more than 150 years ago: “Knowledge is the antidote to fear.”
Michael Carpenter
Principal
Carpenter Associates
Westford, Mass.
Knowledge of health care could differentiate advisers
I read the article “Taking the plunge” (Sept. 20) that addresses financial advisers' providing health care insurance products.
I wasn't at all surprised to read that most don't want to be involved in health insurance, because of the knowledge level necessary to provide the type of advice that health care requires.
I would say, though, that health care is far more than just health insurance. It is future care expenses, current care for dependents and other family members, and integration of these expenses into cash flow.
Although I am sure that it is helpful for many advisers to hand off health insurance to a third party, the ability to provide fundamental information could be a differentiating factor for the adviser.
Health care reform has clouded whatever individuals thought they knew, and health care has become and will continue to be more consumer-driven.
We all know that health care is now the biggest concern among pre-retirees. It also worries their children.
Providing basic information can solidify advisers' relationships with their clients.
Ellen Breslow
Managing director
EAB HealthWorks
New York
ADD YOUR VOICE to the mix. Readers: Keep letters brief. Include your name, title, company, address and a telephone number for verification purposes. E-mail Jim Pavia at
jpavia@investmentnews.com. All mail may be edited.
