It’s been seven years since Fenergo first quantified the associated time, cost, and challenges involved with onboarding institutional clients. With the help of Forrester's research, the study concluded that there is a wide range of results possible, depending on the sophistication of the institution’s current onboarding process and whether or not it was fully manual or supplemented by a technology solution. For institutions that were onboarding manually, the minimum amount of time was two weeks, and the maximum was over eight months! With such a wide range, the cost of onboarding a new client could be as high as $25,000, but the average was $6,000. These numbers are based on interviews Forrester conducted with organizations using Fenergo at the time of the study. The study admits, however, that such a calculation is difficult because onboarding is a fragmented process that requires attention from compliance, credit, legal, back-office operations, and more:
“Measuring the total costs of onboarding a new client is not an easy task given the different teams involved (...) the often siloed approach; and the different technologies employed. In addition, the costs vary according to, for example, the client’s risk rating and the applicable regulations. However, most of the interviewees were able to provide a broad estimation of the average onboarding costs. The overall average of the responses given was $6,000 per new client, but estimations ranged from $500 to $25,000. One of the interviewees told us that the onboarding and compliance team charge a fixed amount back to the front office; they internally charge $500 for a low-risk client and $1,200 for a high-risk client.”
But this isn’t a new story in the wealth management industry. In fact, many, many others have tried to illustrate the cost of inefficient onboarding with various studies and metrics measured.
In one Forrester study, Vendor Landscape: Financial Services Client Onboarding Solutions, the conclusion was that onboarding could take up to twelve weeks and cost anywhere from $10,000 to $25,000 per client. Most of that time is spent waiting. To illustrate this process, the study shares that:
“At one financial leasing firm, the process begins with a 12-person team doing credit due diligence; then, a 12- to 15-person client on-boarding team takes over; costs go up if the legal team needs to review the agreements and documentation or KYC and AML checks are required. Overall, the process takes six to 12 weeks, with only 30% of that involving actual tasks; the other 70% is just waiting.”
Clearly, a lot of effort has gone into quantifying inefficiencies in wealth management when it comes to onboarding new clients in the financial sector. Yet inefficiency is still prevalent across the industry. Fast forward to 2022, and the onboarding story is relatively the same. Most of the wealth managers that approach Mako for a digital onboarding solution are either operating manually or with some form of limited technology like an e-signature tool. Despite the amassing research, there are many factors delaying digital transformation, but the bottom line is that outdated operational processes are costing firms a ton of money per client, and preventing them from scaling their business.
With all these different factors coinciding, the cost of processing a new client isn’t a straightforward discussion. There are many different types of wealth managers, different ways to measure their processes (by envelope or account opening), and depending on how they operate there are varying amounts of staff involved, documents to complete, or steps involved in account opening.
The cost of onboarding a new client depends on the wealth manager and their state of operations. However, it’s clear that those using technology will pay a lot less, and those working manually will pay a lot more. As previously mentioned, the most common approach we’ve seen these days is a hybrid one, typically leveraging basic electronic signature technology, which still requires a lot of manual labour. In this scenario, the general steps to process a new client are, but are not limited to:
This is all while maintaining a clear approval and compliant internal controls system! Depending on how many staff are involved in each of these steps, there are indeed heavy costs associated with onboarding new clients manually or even using a hybrid approach. This cost will be significantly higher if there was an error in the paperwork and the process has to be repeated.
Keep in mind that the breakdown above doesn’t consider costs related to client interactions that could be serviced with a portal, secure document transferring, customer experience (multiple systems and logins), internal communications between departments, household complexities, compliance/audit costs and other processes and features that drive up per-client costs.
One of our favourite clients recently talked to us about the time it takes to onboard new clients. Gillian Kunza, CEO of Designed Wealth Management explains:
“We’ve talked with other advisors, and we know that with other systems an account can take upwards of two weeks to open. With Mako, it can take sometimes 15 or 20 minutes to get an account opened at the carrying broker, where you can start putting money into the account and doing transactions.”
With previous estimates as high as eight months manually, and even fancy (and expensive!) enterprise solutions boasting a reduction from an average of 45 days to just 6 days for onboarding, we wondered how much more Mako is saving clients by being able to onboard in just minutes. Going from 6 days to 20 minutes equates to significant time and money savings, let alone going from 45 days to 20 minutes!
While each firm has unique characteristics, actions like account openings and KYC refreshes will be common to all portfolio managers, for example. The same is true for other types of wealth managers, like fund managers who have a unique offering but similar processes. With that in mind, these savings outlined above are significant for wealth managers across the board. For institutional-size clients, who perform these types of actions in bulk, the savings are astronomical.
Image Credits
Feature Image: Photo by Sean Pollock on Unsplash
So in my view an appropriately diversified portfolio should have enough exposure to different asset classes, that its able to withstand a wide range of market disruptions. Usually, it’s some kind of negative or positive event… they’ll affect different asset classes differently. So by having your eggs in different baskets you’ll be well insulated from major risk. For example, there’s some kind of change in the housing market… both by having some exposure to it, you won’t miss out on the opportunity to make money. But if it’s something negative, you’re also not going to lose all your money if all of it were in the housing market for example. So at a high level, a properly diversified portfolio should grow in a growing market and yet not be at risk of major losses in a declining market.
You asked also about an efficiently diversified portfolio, and I would say that that’s a portfolio that achieves those goals with a minimum of different positions. There’s a lot of good reasons to have fewer positions in your portfolio. Being less complex means a portfolio is easier to rebalance and administer. Every time part of your portfolio goes up or down, you're going to need to rebalance it a little to make sure that it stays with the right allocations and the fewer positions you have, the easier it is to do that..the less trading fees you incur doing that.
There is a tradeoff between being completely diversified and being efficiently diversified. If you were completely diversified then you’d have a proportional segment of absolutely everything you could invest in under the sun, like shares of palm oil futures or something like that. I don’t think everyone should have palm oil futures in their portfolio but I’m not a wealth manager. I think it comes down to your portfolio and how large it is (probably the Canada Pension Plan has a proportion of palm oil futures in it). You’re going to have to talk to your advisor and choose a degree of complexity that’s right for your portfolio.
CN: Let’s just take a step back - what does a typical portfolio look like and has that changed over time?
RB: Yeah, so I'm not entirely sure what a typical portfolio looks like these days because it's actually changed quite a lot over time. I think common wisdom used to be that the classic balanced portfolio was 60% public stocks and 40% bonds. These days that's ancient history. Most would say that the bond allocation should be a lot lower these days in this age of unprecedented low-interest rates. These days it’s the stock portfolio that’s been driving a lot of the growth. I think a well-diversified portfolio in the modern era should absolutely include exposure to all kinds of alternative assets (that aren't even really that alternative but still kind of fall out of that traditional bucket). So you know I mentioned real estate, private companies, maybe for example commodities or other types of investments. So I think that there are a lot of things that you can invest in and your advisor can guide you on what’s appropriate for you.
CN: Yeah that makes a lot of sense. Talking about alternative investments, we’ve heard a lot this year about ESGs, impact investing, alternative investments… do you think there’s more of an appetite today for these types of investments than in the last ten years?
RB: Yeah that’s a topic that’s close to my heart having previously started an impact investment company. It’s definitely been a gigantic increase in interest. I think when I started my previous company we were speaking to large wealth managers and having them say “we’re barely getting a grip on early ideas.” Like not including gun manufacturers or tobacco companies, and now these same companies are launching impact portfolios and marketing this aggressively. So there’s definitely been a seat change, it’s a real industry, and there’s a lot of studies out there and data showing that ESG or impact investing can equal or outperform non-impact investments. So I think it’s a huge part of the market these days. That said, one of the things that’s driving it is people’s interest in it. I think that one of the stories of the investment industry has been the personalization of it. People’s portfolios are being tailored to their own needs and circumstances. Impact investing is definitely a piece of that. People are environmentalists, but an institution is not an environmentalist. It doesn’t live and breathe the impact on the environment the way an individual does. The person who is active in the David Suzuki Foundation for example is going to be active as an impact investor and it’s appropriate for them to be.
That’s a great question. I think there's a lot of advantages and you gain a lot with an automated platform. For me, it's a lot easier to manage. I have some of my money in one of these platforms and I barely think about it. It's being rebalanced all the time. The costs are much lower in terms of expense ratio for the same kind of rebalancing. Again you're missing a lot with that, but on just the mechanical portfolio rebalancing you're getting a great deal there. I would say that two other advantages are up-to-the-minute reporting, so you always have that login where you can see your position, see how your portfolio is doing historically. And finally, this is an advantage for me and anyone who doesn't love doing taxes, but typically they’ll take care of your tax forms for you, and end up with much simpler tax forms, so it kind of works out what your cost basis was and how much you have to report.
CN: So let's talk about the other side of the coin then...what are the risks of not having a seasoned professional managing your money?
RB: I wouldn’t exactly phrase the question that way. You know it's more what’s the benefits of having a real wealth manager? Some of the clients of robo advisory firms may not even be aware that they're missing out. A wealth manager isn't just balancing your stocks and bonds, that's kind of the very lowest mechanical level of what you get out of the wealth manager. Really they're your advisor on your life. Intimately intertwined with you because you're thinking about retirement planning, on planning for college for your kids, when is the right time to buy a house, and when should you get life insurance, for example. An advisor can help you with all of those decisions and they can connect you with service providers like a mortgage broker when you may be in need of one. So I think that you get a lot of value out of having one of these advisers, particularly when you get to a stage in life when these kinds of services are more about the long-term and your life circumstances are far more critical.
CN: There are clearly pros and cons and two sides of the story depending on who you're asking. Like you said, what stage of their life they’re in ...but do you think the platforms that we’re seeing emerging like to Qtrade, Wealthsimple, and all the rest will ever become status quo?
RB: Yeah, I do actually. I think that similarly to how you know we’re using online platforms to automate everything for us (I can’t think of the last time I used to travel for example), everything you’re going to be trying to do with your money is going to be automated, and it’s going to be appropriate to be handled by one of these one of these platforms. In particular, for most people at an early stage in their lives that have few assets to manage, not a lot of complexity, not a very extended personal family circumstance, it’s gonna make a lot of sense to have a low fee robo worry about it. But at some point their life circumstances are going to get more complex and you’re gonna get married, or maybe you’re not, or you may have other objectives that you may want some advice on and at that point it may make sense to either supplement the robo advisory portion of your portfolio, or graduate to a more holistic wealth management view.
CN: Thank you so much Raph, these answers were great. It’s always insightful chatting with you so thanks for sharing those answers with us today.
RB: It’s my pleasure.