What’s Ahead for Fixed Income?

After more than thirty years of falling interest rates and thus rising bond prices, yields may be moving higher.  While trends are often short-lived, this new trajectory could persist into 2017 and beyond given recent changes in the political landscape as well as a less accommodative Federal Reserve (Fed).  We’ll take a look at what this new monetary and political environment may mean for bonds and how to best-position your fixed income portfolio for the long-term.

A proxy for the bond market, the 10-year Treasury note yield hit an historical low of 1.36% in July 2016 only to jump 100 basis points (or 1%) by the end of November.  The move came as investors responded favorably to the surprise U.S. Presidential and Congressional election results, in anticipation of higher growth levels in the years to come.

Part of the optimism stemmed from the new administration’s promise to cut consumer and corporate taxes and spend on infrastructure projects.  This picture presents a mixed bag for bonds, however.  Increased fiscal spending and lower taxes are positive for economic growth and a healthy economy is generally good for lending and credit activity.  But stronger economic growth would push yields higher and thus bond prices lower.  On the other hand, higher yields would provide investors with higher current income, acting as a partial offset to lower bond prices.  Rising interest rates or yields would also allow investors to reinvest into higher-yielding bonds.

Duration is an important characteristic to consider when reinvesting at higher yields.  A bond’s duration is the length of time it takes an investor to recoup his or her investment.  It also determines how much a bond’s price will fall when yields rise.  Longer duration bonds such as Treasury or corporate bonds with long maturities experience sharper price declines when yields rise.  Likewise, shorter duration bonds are less volatile and will exhibit smaller price declines, all else being equal.  Because we can’t predict the exact direction or speed of interest rate changes, it’s important to have exposure to bonds with a mix of durations.  In this way an investor is able to respond to any given environment.  For example, when yields are rising, an investor can sell her shorter-duration bonds, which are less susceptible to prices changes, and reinvest into longer-duration bonds with higher rates.

Another factor that affects bond prices is inflation.  Inflation expectations have started to heat up in light of low unemployment, wage growth, and expectations for increased government stimulus.  Higher inflation could also put upward pressure on interest rates and thus downward pressure on bond prices.  While inflation can erode the real returns of many bonds, some bonds, such as Treasury Inflation-Protected Securities (TIPS), stand to benefit.  TIPS are indexed to inflation and backed by the U.S. government.  Whenever inflation rises, the principal amount of TIPS gets adjusted higher.  This in turn leads to a higher interest payment because a TIPS coupon is calculated based on the principal amount.

Finally, the Federal Reserve’s shift away from accommodative monetary policy will have an impact on bond prices.  Although higher interest rates from the Fed will likely pressure fixed income prices, overall we view this change favorably.  This is because a return to more normal interest rate levels is critical to the functioning of large institutions like insurance companies and banks, which play a key role in our society.  Likewise, higher interest rates will provide more income to the millions of Baby Boomers starting to retire and would help stabilize struggling pension plans at many companies.

Taken altogether and in light of an uncertain environment, we believe a diversified bond portfolio targeted to meet your specific fixed income needs is the best way to weather this changing yield environment.  In addition to considering your specific income objectives, our Investment Policy Committee meets regularly to assess the current economic, fiscal, and monetary environment.  We adjust our asset allocation targets in order to take advantage of attractive opportunities or reduce exposure to higher-risk (over-valued) areas.  While we may over-weight some areas or under-weight others, in the long-run we continue to believe that a well-diversified portfolio is the best way to weather any market environment.

Thank you,

The Parsec Team

Share this:

Infrastructure Spending

The next driver of economic growth and company fundamentals?

Now that the U.S. presidential election is behind us and a big unknown has become known, stocks are responding favorably.  While equities are basking in a bit of short-term certainty following the November 8th election results, key questions remain.  One of the most significant relates to future government spending, and specifically, infrastructure.  After years of unprecedented monetary accommodation that may have artificially inflated equity prices, increased investments in our nation’s roads, bridges, and airports could provide a significant (and real) boost to corporate earnings and the economy.

Regardless of your presidential preference, both Clinton and Trump promised to increase infrastructure spending on the campaign trail.  Hillary planned to spend about $275 billion over five years while Donald claimed he would double her target.  Overall U.S. infrastructure recently received a grade of D+ from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), suggesting this is one instance in which competitive campaign rhetoric may work in our favor.

Most experts agree that the U.S. has underinvested in infrastructure for nearly three decades.  As a result, many of our bridges, roads, public buildings, and ports have not had significant upgrades in 50 to 100 years.  Government officials are well aware of the problem, but lack of bipartisanship has been a hurdle to distributing needed funds to critical projects.  While historically divided government has been more favorable for stocks, in this case, an all-Republican government may enable the passage of much needed infrastructure spending bills.

Research suggests that over the long-term, every $1 spent on infrastructure has the potential to boost economic activity by $3.  This is because updated roads, bridges, and buildings improve productivity and drive efficiencies.  Increased spending on these projects would also provide new jobs, further benefiting GDP growth.

While most focus on the economic gains, modernizing key infrastructure facilities may have the added benefit of reducing the harmful greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.  According to a report by the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, more than 60% of the world’s greenhouse gases are associated with old and ailing power plants, roads, buildings, and sanitation facilities, among others.

Finally, increased infrastructure spending may be the balm we need to escape from years of easy monetary policy that has inflated equity prices.  Stock valuations are trading above their long-term historical averages despite multiple quarters of weak sales and earnings growth.  Now with record-low interest rates poised to go higher and few tools left in the Federal Reserve’s tool box, a shift towards new fiscal policies that increase productivity and encourage corporations to invest – such as infrastructure spending – would provide companies with real sales and earnings drivers.  This in turn would help bridge the gap between currently lackluster fundamentals and elevated security prices.

To be sure, there are potential negatives associated with increased fiscal spending, including currently large labor shortages in the construction industry, dependence on prudent government spending, and regulatory red tape.  Likewise, increased infrastructure spending could add to an already elevated federal budget deficit.  However, taken altogether the positives appear to outweigh the negatives.  And new fiscal spending could be just what we need to keep the economy on track while supporting stock prices.

Share this:

The Benefits of Focusing on Your Long-Term Financial Goals

As your advisor, our main focus is helping you reach your long-term financial goals.  We say this a lot, but it bears repeating.  It’s worth revisiting because near-term portfolio returns and market noise can distract even the best investor from remembering why he or she invests in the first place.  For most of us, investing is about creating the life we want, giving back to family, friends, and community, and leaving a legacy.  At Parsec, our job is to lead you through difficult market periods, including times when your portfolio may lag the major market indexes.  Every portfolio will experience underperformance from time-to-time.  However, getting caught-up in weak near-term performance can actually hinder progress towards your long-term goals.

This happens when we lose sight of the big picture.  Asset class leadership naturally ebbs and flows over the course of any economic cycle, and so too will portfolio returns.  Financial behavioral scientists suggest that if we’re caught-up in near-term underperformance we’re more likely to act reactively instead of proactively.  Reacting to current portfolio performance increases the odds that we sell low, buy high, trade excessively, or even sit-out the next market run.  In other words, focusing on near-term market moves increases the odds that we hinder our long-term performance results.

In contrast, measuring your progress versus your long-term goals is more likely to increase proactive behaviors and thus improve the odds of realizing your objectives.  For example, framing portfolio returns in the context of your retirement savings target several years from now is more apt to help you keep calm during periods of market turbulence.  “Keeping your eye on the prize”, as they say, can cultivate resiliency and has the added benefit of lowering your anxiety levels.  When you’re less stressed, you’re more likely to engage in proactive behaviors like maintaining an appropriate asset allocation mix, rebalancing back to your target regularly, and staying invested during market downturns.

While we acknowledge that portfolio declines or underperformance is never fun, it’s important to recognize that difficult performance periods are par for the course.  Over time some assets and sectors will outperform while others will lag.  Rather than trying to time the market or catch the latest trend – which is extremely difficult to do – sticking with a diversified asset allocation and rebalancing regularly is a tried-and-true method for achieving your financial goals.

With that in mind, our job is to help you stay focused on the big picture.  Doing so lowers the odds of engaging in detrimental behaviors and increases your chances of success.  When you succeed, we succeed!

Thank you,

The Parsec Team

Share this:

What is Smart Beta?

You’ve undoubtedly heard this term, used to describe a certain type of investment that is becoming increasingly popular. What does it mean? And if these investments are “smart,” does that mean that the others are “dumb?”

So-called “smart beta” investing is a bit of an active/passive hybrid methodology. Traditional passive investments are typically replicas of well-known market capitalization-weighted indices, like the S&P 500. A market cap-weighted ETF holds each company in the index according to its size in the index, which can be calculated by multiplying a company’s outstanding shares by the current market price of one share. While this provides broad market diversification at a very low cost, one drawback of this approach is that the companies whose stock prices are rising become relatively larger while companies whose stock prices are falling become relatively smaller. If markets are less than perfectly efficient and stock prices are anything other than fairly valued, cap-weighted indices will tend to favor overvalued companies.

“Smart beta” strategies use different weighting schemes to construct a portfolio, involving metrics such as dividends or low volatility, or even equal-weighting, all of which sever the link between price and weight and tend to provide a value tilt to the portfolio. The reason for this is that, when rebalancing the portfolio, these strategies result in buying low and selling high. Portfolios based on market cap-weighted indices will often do the opposite when rebalancing, buying more shares of the companies whose stock prices are going up, and vice-versa. According to Research Affiliates, LLC, “smart beta” strategies must also encompass the best attributes of passive investing, such as transparency, rules-based methodology, low costs, liquidity, and diversification.

Does this mean that “smart beta” is a panacea that will bridge the gap between active and passive investing? Many of these strategies have back-tested well and have become increasingly popular, resulting in large inflows of capital. Rob Arnott, one of the pioneers of smart beta at Research Affiliates, has written about rising valuations in smart beta investments as a result of their soaring popularity (“How Can “Smart Beta” Go Horribly Wrong?”). He cautions against “being duped by historical returns” and advises investors to adjust their expectations for future returns to account for mean reversion. He and his co-authors think there is a possibility of a smart beta bubble in the works, due to the rising popularity of such strategies.

And what about traditional passive investments? Is there still room for these vehicles in an investor’s portfolio? Absolutely, particularly in the more efficient sectors of the broad market.  Even Arnott believes “there is nothing “dumb” about cap-weighted indexing.” At Parsec, we stay abreast of current investment trends, but use a measured approach to portfolio construction that is research-based and backed by sound financial theory. We don’t believe any one investment is particularly “smart” or “dumb,” but rather that there is room for different types of investments within the context of a well-diversified, well-constructed portfolio.

Sarah DerGarabedian, CFA
Director of Portfolio Management

Share this:

Brexit: What is it and what are the investment implications?

There have been many headlines recently about the so-called “Brexit”, or the possibility of the United Kingdom leaving the European Union. There is a referendum on the subject coming up on June 23 in the UK, with current polls showing 47% in favor of staying and 40% in favor of leaving. This is not to be confused with the “Grexit” fears from a few years ago about the possibility of Greece leaving the European Union as well as the Euro currency. The UK is different in that it is a member of the EU, but continues to use the Pound as its currency rather than the Euro. Therefore, the UK maintains its own central bank and monetary policy. The main effect of such an exit has to do with trade agreements within the EU.

Potential negatives of an exit include a possible slowdown in the UK economy, short-term local stock market volatility and\or depreciation in the Pound. The EU represents about 50% of UK exports but only about 10% of imports, so if trade agreements are less favorable as a result of the exit then the UK stands to lose.

There are also positive factors to consider with regard to the UK. According to Goldman Sachs, the economy (as measured by Gross Domestic Product) in the UK is projected to grow faster than that of the US or the other Euro area countries in both 2016 and 2017. The Pound has already fallen 9% against the dollar over the past year, and the UK stock market has underperformed both the S&P 500 and the MSCI EAFE index over the same period. A vote to remain in the EU would remove the current uncertainty, and could be a catalyst for UK stocks to reverse their recent underperformance. If the vote is to leave the EU, many trade agreements will need to be renegotiated. This process will likely take years to complete, while UK stock market volatility should be short-lived.

To quantify our clients’ potential exposure to the UK, in a typical portfolio our target weighting for international stocks is about 26% of the overall allocation to equities. Of this amount, approximately 1/3 is emerging markets and about 2/3 developed markets. The UK is considered a developed market, and makes up about 20% of the MSCI EAFE index, which is the primary benchmark for most actively managed developed international mutual funds. This would imply that roughly 3-4% of our typical stock portfolio has exposure to UK equities through mutual funds, plus any additional exposure through individual stocks we might buy that are headquartered in the UK.

Since the outcome of the Brexit vote is impossible to predict with certainty, portfolio exposure to UK stocks is low and the effect of the vote on stock prices is indeterminate, we are maintaining our current target weights in international stocks.

From a diversification standpoint, investing in international stocks reduces overall portfolio risk since foreign stocks do not move exactly in tandem with US stocks. Sometimes international investing improves portfolio returns and sometimes it does not. In recent years international stocks have underperformed relative to the US, but historically there have also been periods of significant outperformance. While there will be more hype and headlines as the June 23 vote approaches, we remain committed to long-term investing in a globally diversified portfolio.

William S. Hansen, CFA
President
Chief Investment Officer

Bill

Share this:

IRA Beneficiaries: Per Stirpes vs. Per Capita

Did you know that your IRA beneficiary supersedes your will? No matter how carefully you’ve crafted your last intentions in your will, an outdated IRA beneficiary that was never updated after your divorce can unwittingly bestow your former spouse with all of your IRA inheritance, while also disinheriting your new spouse and children. That’s why it’s important to update your beneficiaries after major life changes such as marriage, divorce, births, illness, domestic issues and deaths.

While you’re at it, make sure to check how the beneficiary form reads too.  Most will default to either a “per stirpes” designation or a “per capita” designation. Knowing the difference in these two designations is important, as is making sure you understand what the form you’re signing defaults to, so you can override it if necessary.

Both of these designations refer to what happens if one of your beneficiaries is no longer living.  A per stirpes designation means that if one of your IRA beneficiaries is deceased, the deceased person’s children will receive his or her share.  Imagine you have two children – a son and a daughter – to whom you’ve split your IRA beneficiaries 50/50.  Your daughter has two daughters and your son has two sons.  At your death, if your son has not survived you, your two grandsons would receive his share of the IRA.  Your daughter would receive 50% of the IRA and your grandsons would each receive 25%. Keep in mind that if your son had no heirs, the entire balance would go to your daughter.

A per capita designation does not look along the lineal lines. Instead, if one of your beneficiaries is deceased, the proceeds are distributed to the other beneficiaries as if the deceased beneficiary was not to inherit any, regardless of whether or not he/she had children. Imagine you have three children, and each is to receive a third of your IRA.  If one child predeceases you, the IRA would go equally to the living two children.

What if none of your primary beneficiaries survive you (and either you selected per stirpes but your beneficiaries have no children, or you selected per capita)?  That’s when the contingent beneficiaries become important.  Your IRA money will go to your contingent beneficiaries only if no primary beneficiaries survive you. If you want to ensure that one of your heirs receives a portion of the IRA, you must name him/her as a primary beneficiary.

Why can’t you just avoid this whole beneficiary form and let the will name your beneficiaries?  You can, but your estate is not considered a person under the law, and therefore beneficiaries will have limitations to how long they can stretch out distributions from the IRA.  They will not be allowed to stretch the distributions out over their lifetimes, which will result in losing valuable tax-deferred growth. Review your beneficiaries with your financial advisor to ensure the are aligned with your intentions.

Harli Palme, CFA, CFP®
Chief Operating Officer
Chief Compliance Officer

???????????

Share this:

My Introduction to the New York Stock Exchange

Wendy Beaver is a financial advisor in our Southern Pines office.  She got her start on Wall Street and we wanted to know what her experience was on the NYSE.  Here is what she had to say:

As a former Head Equity Trader of NationsBank and a former Manager of Business Development of Prime Executions, a firm on the Floor of the New York Stock Exchange, I spent many years closely involved with the workings of the NYSE. It all started in the early 1980s, when I was a junior equity trader at InterFirst Bank in Dallas, Texas. For many years, The New York Stock Exchange held a program to introduce up and coming people in equity trading to the NYSE, called the FACTS Program. An invitation to attend this day long program was coveted among my peers. When I received my invitation, I was honored, and, I must admit, a little nervous at the thought of spending a whole day at the venerable New York Stock Exchange.

As it turned out, that day began a life long love and respect for the New York Stock Exchange, whose history began with the signing of the Buttonwood Agreement by 24 New York City stockbrokers and merchants on May 17, 1792, outside at 68 Wall Street under a Buttonwood tree. Twenty-five years later, on March 8, 1817, the organization officially became the New York Stock Exchange Board, later simplified to the New York Stock Exchange. The location changed several times over the years before settling into its present locational 11 Wall Street in 1865. The Neo-Classical building was registered as a Historic Landmark in 1978.

A few years after this important registration, I was there attending the FACTS Program. The day started with an introductory meeting outlining the days events, after which my fellow attendees from throughout the country and I were taken to the NYSE Trading Floor. My first stop was at the post of a Specialist firm. The Specialist was a member of the NYSE, whose role was to maintain a fair and orderly market in his inventory of stocks listed on the New York Stock Exchange. They had actual long and narrow books with lined pages where the existing buy and sell interest was written at particular prices. If there were no actual client interest, the Specialist firm had to use their own capital to facilitate the trade. It was fascinating to me to observe as the Floor Brokers approached the Specialist post, checked the book up and down and began negotiating their order.

The next stop was to be assigned to a Floor Broker, who could be employed by a member firm of the  NYSE (Merrill Lynch, Paine Webber, etc.), or be an independent $2 Broker representing many member firms. Their role was to execute the orders from the clients of those firms. The Floor Broker picked up the order from his clerk in his firm’s booth around the perimeter of the Trading Floor. Buy orders were written on green tickets and sell orders were written on pink tickets. Then the Floor Broker walked very quickly(running was prohibited) to the Specialist post where that stock was traded. After negotiating with the Specialist and executing the order, the Floor Broker tore the ticket off the pad and threw it on the floor. At the end of the day, paper tickets were knee deep on the Trading Floor! The Floor of the New York Stock Exchange was the busiest and most exciting place I had ever been. Through human communication and interaction, a large majority of the equity trades that took place in this country were executed there.

The rest of the day was spent with lunch in the Stock Exchange Luncheon Club, a wood-paneled dining room that served members of the NYSE and other Wall Street professionals from 1898 until it closed in 2006, and a visit to the Boardroom of the NYSE, which held a rostrum from the original floor from the early 1800’s and the urn given as a gift to the New York Stock Exchange by Czar Nicholas II of Russia in 1904. ( I was fortunate enough to return to the Boardroom quarterly from 1994 to 1997, when I was asked to be a member of the Institutional Traders Advisory Committee to the Board of the New York Stock Exchange.) A closing reception was held for us in the Luncheon Club at the end of the day.

The bull markets of the 1980s and 1990s shattered all trading records. In fact, volume topped 2 billion shares a day in 2001. Although the NYSE upgraded its technology constantly over the years to meet the increasing volume, this amount of volume presaged changes to come. In 2005, the New York Stock Exchange merged with Archipelago, the first all-electronic exchange in the United States. In 2006 the NYSE ArcaEx merger created NYSE Arca and formed the publicly owned and traded for profit NYSE Group, Inc. In turn, NYSE Group merged with Euronext, creating the first trans Atlantic stock exchange group. In 2008, Specialist firms became Designated Market Makers. Finally, on December 20, 2012, Intercontinental Exchange, an American Futures Exchange, bought NYSE Euronext.

In October 2014, my Parsec colleague Greg James and I visited the NYSE Floor. It is a much quieter place now, with Floor Brokers working from trading desks with Designated Market Makers, often using hand held computers. Today more than half of all NYSE trades are conducted electronically, and Floor Traders are used to set prices and deal in high volume institutional trading. It is considered the largest equities-based exchange in the world based on total market capitalization of its listed securities. That being said, I still got that same awe-inspiring feeling walking onto the Trading Floor with Greg that I got many years ago walking onto the Trading Floor as a junior trader at the New York Stock Exchange for the first time.

Wendy S. Beaver, AAMS®
Financial Advisor

Share this:

32nd Annual Economic Crystal Ball Seminar

Each year we co-sponsor the Annual Economic Crystal Ball with UNC Asheville.  This is a great opportunity to hear Parsec’s Chief Economist, Dr. James F. Smith, and Nationwide’s VP and Chief Economist, Dr. David W. Berson, discuss the economic and financial outlook through 2017.  To register please email Kimberly Moore at kmoore@unca.edu or call at 828-251-6550.   A copy of the brochure can be found here.

  • Location: Lipinsky Hall Auditorium (Next to Ramsey Library)                                               UNC Asheville Campus
  • Date: Thursday, April 28, 2016
  • Reception: 6:15 p.m.
  • Economic Outlook:  7:00 p.m.
  • Financial Outlook: 7:30 p.m.
  • Q & A: 8:00 p.m.

The Economic Outlook will focus on inflation, employment, interest rates, the strength of the dollar and the housing market. The Financial Outlook will explore the implications of Federal Reserve policy for the financial markets. Various investments will be addressed, with an emphasis on interest rates and the bond market.

About our Speakers

David W. Berson, Ph.D                                                                                                              Dr. Berson is Senior Vice President and Chief Economist at Nationwide Insurance, where his responsibilities involve leading a team of economist that act as internal consultants to the company’s business units.  His numerous professional experiences include Vice President and Chief Economist at Fannie Mae from 1989-2007, past president of the National Association of Business Economists, and senior management position with Wharton Econometrics Forecasting.

James F. Smith, Ph.D.                                                                                                              Dr. Smith is the chief economist at Parsec Financial.  He has more than 30 years of experience as an economic forecaster. Dr. Smith’s career spans private industry, government and academic institutions, and includes tenures with Wharton Econometrics, Union Carbide, the Federal Reserve and the President’s Council of Economic Advisers.

Share this:

The Year of The Fiduciary Rule

For about a year now, the industry has witnessed much conjecture and debate about the proposed Department of Labor’s Conflict of Interest rule, also known as the “Fiduciary Rule.”  The rule attempts to broadly categorize anyone offering investment advice to retirement plans or IRAs as a fiduciary.  It is in the final stages of review with the Office of Management and Budget and is expected to pass.

The mechanics of how this works are seemingly straightforward.  An advisor recommending a rollover of retirement assets into an IRA or similar account would be considered a fiduciary.  That matters because a fiduciary cannot make a recommendation that would cause his or her income to increase.  The rule indicates a five-prong test to determine if a person is advising retirement assets.  If any of the following apply, you are now considered a fiduciary:

  1. If you advise on the purchase or sale of securities or property in a retirement account;
  2. advise taking a distribution from a plan or IRA;
  3. manage securities or property including rollovers from a plan or IRA
  4. appraise or offer a fairness opinion of the value of securities or property if connected with a specific transaction by a plan or IRA; or
  5. recommend a person who is going to provide investment advice for a fee or other compensation.

Retirement plan sponsors should take note because if you read the rules correctly, it suggests anyone (including laymen) offering advice to a plan participant or an owner of an IRA would likely be considered a fiduciary and could be held personally liable for their recommendations or advice.

Registered Investment Advisors may not see a significant change in business practice.  We are already considered fiduciaries.  However, broker/dealers (B/D) may not have it as easy.  B/Ds are generally not considered fiduciaries to retirement plans or IRA assets, they are instead held to a less stringent “suitability” standard.  In the light of the proposed rule, one of the chief issues B/Ds face is how to handle variable income and commissions.  Changing their business model to accept level income would likely be an onerous undertaking.  There is an unattractive alternative.  Under the DOL’s Best Interest Contract (BIC) exemption, the broker/dealer may be exempt from the fiduciary rules if certain requirements are met.  These include:

  • obtaining a written contract prior to the offering of any advice,
  • supplying the prospect information and costs for every investment they could own,
  • providing performance information on each investment,
  • fully disclosing compensation arrangements and
  • maintainging this information for a period of six years.

In addition to this, the aforementioned information must be maintained a public website. Consider the amount of work and man-hours it would take to become compliant with the BIC exemption.  Because of this, it is expected that smaller B/D’s will exit the industry or merge with larger providers.

One of the controversial rules surrounds the “seller’s carve out” and its impact on small business retirement plans (plans with either less than $100 million in assets or 100 participants).  Under the rule as proposed, the advisor is not considered a fiduciary to the investments of these small business plans.  I question why every plan, irrespective of size, wouldn’t be required to have a fiduciary.  After all, under this specific rule, if the DOL is trying to protect consumers, why protect some of them and not all of them?

In closing, we at Parsec have been watching this unfold for months and are eager to see the final form of the rule.  Perhaps an unintended consequence is that many customers and retirement plans may have to reconsider their advisory relationship.  Regardless of the new rule, it is important to always put the best interest of your clients first.  Parsec will be prepared for whatever the DOL comes up with.

Neal

Neal Nolan, CFP®, AIF®
Senior Financial Advisor
Director of ERISA Services

Share this: