Custom Tailored, Unique Fit, Proprietary, and Particularly Individual

Today I conclude analysis of an e-mail from Todd Tressider of www.financialmentor.com. My belief that the financial industry offers less genius and innovation than its marketing and advertising portrays ties back to why we need not bestow fiscal responsibility on those who have previously violated public trust.

     > For most people wealth is not the result of learning the latest
     > investment technique at an over-priced weekend seminar, discovering
     > unknown secrets, or pursuing other magic pill formulas.

I think this is a great point. The secret sauce pitch sure is alluring: see it for what it is.

     > As John Bogle correctly stated, “The secret is there are no secrets.”

Great quote! I previously discussed proprietary offerings and I still have more to say on that in a future post.

     > That’s why designing your personalized wealth plan is the make-or-
     > break starting point. Get this step wrong and much future effort is

I somewhat agree with this. Financial advisers often advertise design of a wealth management (WM) plan tailored uniquely for the client. I don’t believe such plans need be as unique as they claim.

     > misplaced and generally wasted. Get it right and your financial goal

I won’t disagree with that…

     > is virtually assured (as long as you persist with sufficient action).
     >
     > It’s literally that simple.

… but I will disagree with this. Nothing is guaranteed—perhaps not even “virtually”—when it comes to making money. Very few things are “simple,” either: especially hard work.

     > The truth is wealth doesn’t require genius, special talents,
     > privilege, or luck. Those are all myths.

I agree! I think time-tested approaches can take us a long way.

     > It also doesn’t require any more work than financial mediocrity. It
     > is not about working harder: it’s about working smarter…

I somewhat disagree with this. I think people who claim to work “smarter” are gifted with intelligence (unnecessary here as just mentioned), developed with regard to cognitive strategies, or making excuses to be lazy. Those in the first two groups are successful. The latter group includes smooth talkers who I have seen fail. Hard work may take additional time but is more likely to get the job done. Taking shortcuts may amount to gambling in hopes that the essential elements will be completed.

     > In addition, your plan gives you a context for judging all the
     > “bright-shiny-objects” that can distract you. You’ll know what
     > fits, what doesn’t, and why.

Great point! See the second prerequisite discussed here.

The promise of unique fit and custom tailored is an emotional sales tactic because if you think someone cares enough to understand your particular situation then you are more likely to trust (establishment of rapport). This tactic can also serve as a distraction from a shady professional history, which is much more important than particularly individual.

See through the veneer because I seriously doubt a unique wealth plan is necessary for everyone. According to Genome News Network, people are 99.9% identical with regard to DNA. The influence of ego makes us feel particularly individual in our own minds. In reality, though, we’re all human beings who can be broken down into a few different categories when it comes to risk tolerance, financial goals, and WM.

Because it’s no more complicated than that, promising something exclusive is really not necessary.

And as Tressider said above, genius (or innovation) is also unnecessary for an effective WM plan. That “proprietary” label establishes an aura of mystery and intrigue when time-tested approaches will do just fine. Once again, do not be distracted from more important details such as the quality of person with whom you are dealing. While I generally believe in giving people second chances, avoid people or entities with a history of chicanery when it comes to your hard-earned money.