Select Language

Check Application Status
en

Resource Zone

Thriving through change in a regulatory environment

Asvin Chauhan, Dip FP, MIFP; Andrew C. Lord, CLU, ChFC

Rate 1 Rate 2 Rate 3 Rate 4 Rate 5 0 Ratings Choose a rating
Please Login or Become A Member for additional features

Note: Any content shared is only viewable to MDRT members.

Regulation has driven advisors in the UK to fee-based models, and the same is now happening in the United States. Chauhan and Lord will provide a global perspective on compliance and moving away from commissions toward fee-based practices.

Lord

In the prospecting phase of the business, I think most of us have been through that. I spent the first six or eight years of my career cold calling, literally the phone book, and just writing a ton of lives and seeing anybody that I possibly could. And all of us can tell war stories really about the prospecting phase of our business. It still brings chills to think about that. I’m pleased to have it over with.

The next phase of our industry we call marketing. And it’s very easy to describe. What happened with the marketing section is we used profits from prospecting, just hitting the pavement hard and plowed them back into the business, into the practice. All with the ultimate goal of scheduling more interviews under favorable circumstances.

And all these ideas came from MDRT. They talked a little bit on the main platform this morning about execution. Always pretty good at hitting it hard and executing the ideas when we got home. So the very beginning of the marketing phase was direct mail. We did massive amounts of direct mail, especially in a community our size, 30,000 to 40,000 a month. And that was back in the old days, guys. U.S. Postal Service. Little cards that were handed back in to schedule the interviews.

We were early endorsers of the seminar marketing opportunity. Did that very hard. As a matter of fact, in our last year of doing the workshops, we held 82 events for the public in one calendar year. So just more than one a week. And that worked out very well. We started to develop the base.

And now the attract phase of the business for the last dozen years or so, I’ve enjoyed producing at a level as a more mature practitioner, I guess I have to say, where we’re attracting clients. We still keep score like the old days. We have 51 referrals so far this year at about a little beyond the three-quarter mark. And most of those come from what I’d call event marketing. Wine tastings. I’m excited about a new idea that we had just the other day: An oyster tasting. We have great seafood in New England. Golf tournaments. Tennis tournaments. Those types of non-business events help to attract clientele at this point, as well as some educational stuff. A couple of times a year we do market updates and educational events for smaller audiences. So that’s it, prospect, market, attract.

 

Moderator

I ask you what inspired you to change over to a fee-based practice.

 

Lord

Yes. I’m pleased that you asked that question, Sue. And as a matter of fact, it was right here at Top of the Table, my very first Top of the Table in 1995, just up the coast a little bit at Pebble Beach. Do you know Malcolm Gladwell and the Tipping Point? I made a decision, in the moment, on the spot, to switch to fee for service.

The reason for that was the underlying tone in the meeting was that significant producers, one from Australia by the way, and several here from the States, one from the U.K., were in trouble with their primary companies. What I mean by in trouble, in litigation. The companies had kind of shut the door and there was a court battle over renewals. It was very interesting as a young producer to see what was going on at that level.

And for those of you who have been around for a while, I remember this like it was yesterday. Sid Friedman stood up in the first row and told the audience that if his company could find a Coke machine that could sell his product for a quarter, they would execute to it right away. He was a career life insurance man, somebody very important to me in my growth. To hear him say that was interesting.

I had just had my primary company acquired by an international company and they immediately closed all of their offices in New England. So I left that company. I thought I would work for a small, New England, old style mutual company. I went to them but was there for less than a year. They were bought. I had an independent RIA at the time. They immediately terminated my licenses for securities because they didn’t want me to have the by letter. So I had, at a young age in the industry, been beaten up a little bit by the big companies. And I wanted to find a way to bill my clients directly. That’s how it happened.

 

Moderator

I’ll ask Asvin to introduce yourself and perhaps what inspired you go down the fee-based model.

 

Chauhan

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. And thank you for choosing this session. Andy and I really appreciate it.

I’m in my 27th year in the life insurance profession. For the first 16 years, I sold regular premium. Largely protection business, a little bit of regular premium investment. In fact, in the first 16 years, I hadn’t even done a million pounds of single premium cumulative investment business. So, I was not in the investment business. I was purely in the regular premium business.

And 16 years in, I was getting really tired. I was tired of chasing people around the country. And the relationship, the value for them or for me actually was only in product placement. If they bought a product that’s how I get compensated. But all that time and effort we put in, there was no value for that in terms of our compensation. And I was struggling with that because, after 16 years, you have an obligation to service your clients. How do you find the balance behind servicing people who you’ve paid an implementation fee for, but no ongoing income for the value of your advice is incredibly important, and finding new clients in order to sustain and grow your life?

So, I was really tired at that point. And it was in a meeting in December with a fellow MDRT colleague. We were just chatting about life and business and it just happened to be right at the very end of that meeting. He gave me a throwaway comment about investment work and how one could seek to be compensated with investment work. The drive home was about two hours and that comment just hung in my head. I got home and I started to think about what the next 16 years were going to look like. I really didn’t want them to look like that last 16 years where my compensation was dependent upon somebody purchasing a product.

So, as we got back to the office in January, I identified the clients I had that had some form of investment work with us where we placed a product maybe 10 years, maybe 15 years ago, but never really reviewed it other than thinking for them to increase their contribution so they have a better retirement in the future or more money for their children as time goes on.

… [mic problem] … what are the costs of these contracts and what has the performance been and where is the correlation of my advice within that center, versus what we considered at that time was a new world where we might create a program where we not only implement something for a client, but we systematically review it. So, 11 years ago that was the path we started on. The reason why I changed to an alternative way of being remunerated was regulation. Because, in the U.K., commissions disappeared three years ago absolutely. For anything that has a pound or a dollar of investment and/or more, there is zero commission. You can self-protect your products that are not unit linked, that doesn’t exist in the U.K. anymore anyway, sadly. But for pure protection products you can still be compensated by commission. But for any investment product there is zero commission.

We did not make the transition because of regulation. We made the transition because of desire. I was fed up with where I was. I wanted to be somewhere else. My practice consists of me and two full time staff. We service 167 clients.

For today, we’re only seeking to work largely with mature people. When I say mature people, I mean 55 to 65 years old. We occasionally pick up people in their 70s. And really, we’re seeking people who have either accumulated wealth or are growing. So, if they’re yet to accumulate wealth, sometimes we find in the early 50s they actually don’t have as much money as one would like them to have because they’ve been paying for their home, putting their kids through private education. Perhaps we’re a little different, Andy, in that we’re a boutique practice. My choice is I’d like to work with a small number of people. I need to work with people who are either growing or who have a degree of security that I can help enhance or protect. They’re the people we’re looking for today.

If I go back 16 years, it was simple. You pull off the data off the database and you look at what transactions we have placed with these clients. And those clients where we don’t need protection business and I would go back into the back of my head and say, “Is there an opportunity to form a long-term relationship with this client outside the transactional relationship?” If there isn’t, then that is no longer a client. It’s a policyholder. We identified that. It’s a policyholder.

So that policyholder supported us to get this to where we were at that point. We maintain a slightly lower level of contact with them. They’ll get an occasional call to see if any circumstances have changed. We won’t go out there annually, we’ll simply give them a call to ask them, “Has anything changed? Are you happy with everything as it is?”

But with those clients that we identified that we thought actually need a little more attention were the people who are growing or are at mature state and we, perhaps, need to engage them in a different way. So that’s how we segmented our client base at that time.

 

Moderator

And what about yourself, Andy. How did do that?

 

Lord

As far as trying to determine who would be on a fee-for-service basis instead of a transaction basis, we just went all in, 100%, cold turkey, and converted everybody. There wasn’t any segmentation going on. I made a commitment to move in this direction. I believed it was a better way, more transparent, more rational way to represent the client. More equitable. We didn’t really give folks the opportunity to go in any other direction. So, like Asvin, that’s the business that we were interested in pursuing and we converted everybody instantly.

The only screening that we really do on that level is we operate three different platforms, three different levels of engagement. And not platforms for our international members in the sense that it’s a company providing a platform. They’re built in-house. One of the things that’s great about the Round Table is the little meetings that we have, sidebar meetings. And how do you determine pricing? And my belief, and it’s a deeply held belief, is that I don’t. The marketplace does. We sampled the marketplace and continue to do so every year. At the end of the year coming up in December we’ll take a look at who we believe to be our best competitors, which by the way are major franchises – Fidelity, Vanguard, Schwab -- and be exactly priced at their level, but providing more comprehensive services than just the asset management.

 

Moderator

…determine your pricing structure.

 

Chauhan

We weren’t of the size of firm where we could do the things that Andy has just talked about. We simply contacted an existing MDRT member, another fellow Top of the Table member who, like Andy, has a huge scalable business. He’s a very successful seminar seller. And we simply purchased his process in terms of costs, charges, reporting. It was just really that simple.

 

Moderator

Did you have a pricing matrix?

 

Chauhan

Yes, which he supplied us. We tweaked it perhaps a little bit but not a lot.

 

Moderator

When you decided to start implementing a fee, how did your clients respond to being asked to pay that fee? Did you have to deal with many objections or obstacles around that.

 

Chauhan

I think for me the initial obstacle was in my own head. How am I going to position this with my clients who I had been servicing at that time for 15 or 16 years? I’d sold them all these programs and now I’m going back to say, “Well, that’s no longer valid. We have a different way of working.”

I was nervous at that time. But like I said earlier on, we sat down, we looked at the contracts we put in place for people. And these were the best contracts that were available at that time. But the world moves on. Fifteen years on, ten years on, five years on, the world moves on. And we look at what’s available today and we say, “Well, OK, is there a reason for a client to move from as an example, a packaged product with Prudential which is a great company, strong funds, very strong company?” And we say, “Is there a program here where we could unbundle this package and we give them the best product provider?” And then we perhaps have a basket of the best investment funds that are available there. So we pull it right apart and ask, “Could we do that cheaper than the program they’re in today?” And that’s kind of how we positioned it.

I think telling a story, as we heard this morning, is great. I’m very much a facts- and evidence-based person. I like telling stories. But I like to have the facts with me. We would make sure we would have a technical analysis taken with us, which is available all over the planet nowadays, all these fund performance charting data and things like that. We have all of that ready when we go into that meeting to talk to the client.

I found one particular story really interesting. I would say to my clients, “You know, 15 years ago we set this program up and this was the Mercedes Benz of that time. You’ve been driving this vehicle for 15 years and it’s never broken down. It’s never failed. It’s done a great job. You’re really happy with it. You’re familiar with it. It feels good. It feels comfortable. But just happens to be this year you take the vehicle into the Mercedes Benz showroom and they say, “We have a new vehicle outside. Would you like to take it for the day? Would you like to drive this one while we’re looking after your existing vehicle?” You’re really happy with the one you just dropped off, but now you go out in the new one and all of a sudden, this feels so much more comfortable. It’s so much cheaper to run it. It’s far more economical. The service intervals are further apart. So that makes a lot of sense here. “Hang on a second. It’s cheaper to run on a daily basis. The service intervals are further apart. It’s more comfortable. It has the latest safety technology. Features and benefits I didn’t know existed here. But now that I know they exist, they’re really valuable. They make sense in my world.”

That was the story I told for the first five years or so until I got a bit more confident and we have a little bit more literature. And I don’t use that story now. But it was a really great one that really helped me that time with my confidence.

 

Moderator

Great analogy. And what about you, Andy?

 

Lord

I think that’s a great analogy too. And I think that maybe even the only objection was the one between my ears. My clients really received the transition to fees very well, almost with 100 percent delivery. In full disclosure, again for our international members, is a significant tax advantage to unbundling some of the services for our clients in the States because they become tax deductible. We can arrange our bill in a way that really boils down to a government subsidy for financial planning.

The client was always interested in how we were compensated, enjoyed a more transparent upfront approach and especially enjoyed the tax deduction. So pretty easy to make the transition.

 

Moderator

How important do you think it is for you that you’ve got quite a repeatable process?

 

Lord

I serve the middle market. A bunch of years ago, we started to call the middle market millionaires. My average family is, my sweet spot is $1 million to $3 million in net worth, and that includes the primary residence and maybe a cottage by the sea or a camp up on a lake in the woods or mountains. They’re pretty small sized cases. I also come from a rural area. My community has less than 30,000 people. My state has a million. So it’s quite small. We made a decision early on to not go vertically and to try to go after the ultra-high net worth marketplace, but more horizontally. And to have lots of regular people as clients. That suited where I’m from, my background, my natural market so to speak. It’s critically important to have the process in place if you’re going to serve volume.

We have 507 families right now that we’re looking after. And it needs to run like a machine. I’d say it’s critically important.

 

Chauhan

Just like Andy, I think it’s vital that you have a repeatable process. Because, with a repeatable process, your business is scalable, the advice process is scalable. If you’re doing bespoke planning for every new client, it’s hard work. It’s really hard work. Because once you get to a certain level, you’re giving all that time and energy to a bespoke process which sucks up so much energy, I think it’s difficult for you to grow further from there.

We absolutely have a repeatable process in our business. Everything is documented. It’s currently documented, process driven. We’re just engaging somebody to build us a software system where everything will be on a software system. You press one button, hopefully, two or three things will be done at one time. But we really think that process driving your business and your advice process, that’s the real big one for us. The advice process. If you can process drive the advice process, that’s brilliant. It’s not like one size fits all. But, if it’s yes, you go in this direction, if it’s no, you go down here.

 

Moderator

Do you think having a fee structure has encouraged longer term client relationships?

 

Chauhan

Absolutely. My experience has been that if you’ve told a client, “So far we’ve gotten you from this place to this place. We think we can do a better place,” and we articulate that with all those facts and figures and the story of the Mercedes Benz or whatever it may be, then we’ve told them we’re going to systematically review their affairs. If you can show them how you’re going to systematically review their affairs. We have some financial analysis. It’s a company called Financial Express that prepares all of these sort of fund links and things like. And we’ve built our portfolios on there. It shows the transaction history for the last five years. And we can demonstrate to the client that, “Look, this is the work we’re doing on behalf of our clients.”

I also explain to them, “The work that goes into each quarter to review your affairs, your financial model, your financial program is several telephone directories thick. Now I’m sure you don’t want me to send that to you every quarter. What we do is we condense it down into a simple letter, a two-page letter, which tells you what’s happened in the world and what changes we’re planning to make.” We then might have something around, perhaps a fund switch, so we write some minutes about a fund switch. What’s happened with the existing program, what’s our recommendation, what are the differences in performance, why we’ve made that change, etc.

These are actually mine. The retirement program and, for us, a little investment program. They simply sign this document. On one side, it tells them what they’ve got. On the other side, it tells them how we’re changing it. And they return that to us.

As I say, we’re starting to go technology-driven. Hopefully, by Q1 next year, this will all be done at the press of a button where we’ll be emailing clients in a secure environment. They can read that. Press the button and say, “We agree.” It comes back and it’s done automatically.

 

Lord

This might be kind of harsh, but in a transaction-based business, I think the word relationship is suspect for a lot of producers. They’re providing a service. They’re in, they’re out. Many people are able to continue to service that business and point out new needs and solve new problems. But the fees allow for time. It allows us to spend time with the client and the time is critical in developing the relationship. Much like a physician, instead of just slamming into the room and exiting the room and 10 minutes with some computer records. Being able to listen to the client, know in their soul what’s going on with their vision, their goals and objectives. Instead of being out in the field drumming up new business constantly, it’s that recurring fee that allows that to happen. I think it’s very, very important.

 

Moderator

Do you think there’s any difference between a younger client and a more mature client in having a fee type structure?

 

Lord

I don’t. For an educated consumer. I will say, though, that I think the asset management business is totally being commoditized. That first speaker that we had this morning that showed the chart of pricing, crashing to zero. It’s my belief that that’s the industry that we’re in. And the younger people are more in tune with that because they’re more comfortable with the robot advisor, the algorithms.

But I think once they’re educated on the comprehensive planning in that sure asset management is a piece of this relationship, but it’s a small piece, that that objection is overcome and they don’t mind paying fee for service.

By the way, that’s one of our platforms. It’s new to us and we’re kind of excited about it. What we do is we bill a monthly charge for the younger people. Much like they would pay their cellphone bill or their cable television bill. It’s well received. They get that.

 

Chauhan

I am not well placed to answer that question on the basis that we have very few young clients. Our only young clients in recent years are the children of our existing clients. And we’re often working with generational businesses where the parents are saying, “We’ve built our retirement fund, we have a business where we can fund that kid’s retirement fund.” It kind of just slips in there. We don’t really target younger people, so I can’t comment further.

 

Lord

Asvin certainly isn’t speaking to your particular situation, but I will tell you that in 2002 I made the decision to work only with a certain age bracket. I think it had a lot to do with 9/11 and where I was in my life, where I wanted to be. And I look back at it as the biggest mistake I’ve made in my career. It was an enormous amount of business that I walked past.

And now, at this stage in my business, I’m concerned about succession. I’m not concerned about a capital gain, I’m not concerned about it being a sale. I’m concerned about my clients being well looked after and to have a team of people come in to look after my demographic is difficult. Because my demographic is old and failing. I did the same thing years ago. So now I’m intentionally trying to get the young blood in the practice. It’s invigorating for us, it’s challenging, it’s different. It’s not as lucrative. But I think in the long haul it’s better for the practice. Food for thought.

 

Moderator

Questions?

 

Question

With fees, are you charging an upfront planning fee? Or, are you saying, “Look. We’re not getting any commission but we’re going to charge you 1 percent to manage that asset or those assets over the years. The better you do, the better we do. The worse you do, the worse we do. We have an incentive for you to do well.” The question is: Are you charging an upfront fee? If so, how are you determining that?

 

Lord

I earn an upfront fee for financial planning. And then an at … fee … The upfront fee for the financial plan is usually pretty reasonable. And quite frankly, the major goal there is to get them organized on our setup and to get them to write a check. To understand that this is a business and a professional relationship. Beyond that, I think what happens is there are two sides to the coin on the incentive-based compensation. On the one hand, you’re certainly incentivized to pay attention and do well when you’re being compensated on a percentage basis. On the other hand, though, I think there’s a risk bias there in that you’re also incentivized to take more risk for the client than perhaps you should be matching up to, not so much their suitability, but their cash flow and their life’s plan. There are two sides to the coin on that. And we do it both ways, Mark. We have the incentive-based percentage arrangement and then the flat retainer.

 

Chauhan

Mark, great question. This is how we articulate how we work with our clients. At the top, it says how we engage new people. It’s either by professional seminar or by personal referral. We don’t do a lot of seminars. Most of our work is by personal referral.

And then you go to the next process which is discovery meetings. In the discovery process, if we’re meeting somebody by referral, we’re assuming that Sharia has handed over the baton to that individual who’s coming to us. We would normally charge for that meeting and it could be anywhere between $200 and 17. It’s a very minimal fee, or down to 97 pounds. But we will waive that. We have a standard letter that goes out explaining that’s the cost but “because Sharia’s introduced you, due to my relationship with Sharia, we’re not going to charge for this.” The client feels that there’s a value. However, if we then move past that first process into the next one where we’re documenting things, then we charge a fee and we have a matrix in here of all the things we charge for. The average fee is about 550 pounds. And the average portfolio circa 250. We’re not doing portfolios at 5 million and 10 million. The biggest one I had this year was 1.5. The next one behind that was 1.1. Everything else has been in the hundreds.

 

Question

So you’re basically charging a nominal fee to kind of get them to buy into the process and then it’s asset-based management.

 

Chauhan

Absolutely. It goes back to what we talked about earlier on about not being compensated by product placement alone. I’m not confident enough to charge people $10,000 for the report. Because that’s really where they should be paying the money is the report stage, not the implementation stage. But I don’t have that level of confidence. I charge a fee that I feel is enough to disturb them to take it seriously. When the report comes to them, they think, “Well, I paid for that so that should be independent and telling me absolutely the truth based on the dynamics or the matrix I set for him at the first meeting.” That’s our first fee.

The second fee is the product placement fee, which depends on the size of the portfolio, but our average comes out at about 3 percent to implement this recommendation. And then it’s 1 percent per annum to look after their affairs.

 

Question

When you guys spoke earlier, I think the insurance companies or the model was all right for them and all wrong for us, unfortunately. And, with the way the world is changing today and we are changing that model to say, “Wait a minute. With life insurance, it was a transactional-based sale. You made a sale you got paid. You didn’t see the client again. There wasn’t really a lot of service to really do.” With this, at least, you’re getting paid to see a client all the time and you don’t feel like you have to get on to the next client because you know you’re getting paid every day to see that person. So, I think the model works really well for us. Thanks for the comment.

 

Chauhan

Can I just say one thing? One of the things I wished I’d invested in a little earlier, which I’ve done just a few years later, was when we started that journey, there was a real confidence gap there. So I created all these materials or whatever we got, largely back then they were free. We pay for everything today to show clients the difference.

I wish I had done … my company. I mean, if, because that would have shown clients that we really mean business here. We’re changing the way we’re working. Back then, my firm was called Ashleigh Court and it was an independent financial advisory practice. I had letterheads at Ashleigh Court Independent Financial Advisors. But we completely rebranded a few years, about three years in to this process. We changed the name of the firm to Ashleigh Court Private Client Wealth Management Limited. “The wealth creation people.” That I found, those three years in, really did help clients understand, “He truly is taking a different direction.” And this private client wealth management thing is all words, really, but it really gets them to understand we truly are focusing on delivering something of better value to them than they had previously.

 

Question

[inaudible]

 

Lord

Great question. I think what happens is the longer the relationship goes on, when you add up the cost of doing business with us, it becomes a significant expense. Especially when you factor in the opportunity cost. And I think my role now as a practitioner is easy to describe. It’s to constantly reinforce to the client that Andy is doing what he is paid to do. We do that in a variety of different ways, mostly touches to remind them that we’re paying attention. For example, in the United States, recently we had a major breach with one of our credit companies, Equifax. And we used that as an opportunity. Instantly got the clients a letter of instruction. How they should handle it, what their risks were.

We’ll use, and I shouldn’t say any crisis like the last administration, to take advantage of and look at it as an opportunity. It’s constant contact. It’s in touch with them constantly. You have an idea on that which I’m executing in January that I’m nervously excited about which is to offer them, to show them the three different platforms that we use, and give them the choice to jump between the platforms. So that takes a little bit of guts, but my kids are getting older and out of college and I can afford to take the hit, I guess. As I say, I’m nervously excited about what the reaction will be when they see the other. It’s really going to test the value. Isn’t it?

 

Chauhan

Daryl, great question. For the 11 years we’ve been running this process, every single year we’ve met one, two, possibly three people who hold us accountable. They tell us at the very beginning, we expect to see you in 12 months’ time and we want to know what’s happened. Because they understand. We paid him back then. He’s asking us to change. He’s given us all this great information. It all sounds great. But we want to hold him accountable.

It’s no secret. We’ve been in a bull market for the last eight or nine years. It’s been great. It’s easy for us to demonstrate, “That’s where the Pru fund was because it’s all built on the technology platform.” It’s spouts out all the reports, doesn’t it? And it says, “That’s the proof and here’s our portfolio.” So it’s been really easy. Now this might get a little tougher in the next two or three years when the markets might change.

There are two things I think, if that is a concern in anybody’s mind, which it is in mine, is that we must remember we’re not selling fund performance, we’re selling a systematic review process. So, you’re going to be far better informed on this journey over the next 20 or 22 years, as I’ve got 22 years ahead of me. In the next 22 years, you’re going to be far better informed about what’s happening with your financial planning world. If we go off track, you’re going to know. If you go off track, you’re going to know. And we’ll get back on track together. It’s a systematic review process is what they’re paying for.

 

Question

[inaudible]

 

Lord

All of the above. It’s a different level of assets. Often younger people move more toward a monthly retainer model. Older, wealthier people move toward a wealth management model. The three models are really easy to describe. Monthly retainer. We have to come up with a better term for these people. We call them “high income, not yet wealthy.” The young professionals out there who are making the dough but not holding on to the money. We have a setup for that.

And then for the more significant cases, either a flat retainer or a flat retainer with a 25-basis-points level of compensation in addition to that. If the client wants us to be compensated based on skin in the game, like Mark was saying a few minutes ago, they have that opportunity. So those are the three levels.

 

Moderator

I just wanted to share when we were chatting yesterday, the differences between these two businesses in that Asvin, when he decided to go, and I hope you don’t mind me sharing this, because I thought this was really good, when he decided to go to fee for service, he actually had a full insurance book and not so much of an investment book. So, he has grown that investment book organically in the time he decided to change over to fee for service. Where Andy changed to fee for service on quite a substantial existing investment book which has actually, obviously, kept going.

So perhaps in closing if each of you could just say what do you think was the best thing about changeover, whether it was best for the business or best for the client.

 

Lord

Well, I think it’s synonymous. Isn’t it wonderful that we’re in a profession where what’s best for the business is best for the client? We’re in California, so I’ll say Californian thoughts about money, that money flows to people who earn it. Flows away from people who don’t. And I think putting the client’s best interest is everything and that that’s what has brought the success.

 

Chauhan

Andy said, absolutely, what I had in mind. Which is we absolutely have to put our clients central to everything we do. Absolutely everything we do. But when we get remunerated every day for the work we do, man does that give you a level of peace of mind. And give you the ability to build those really robust processes, those really robust portfolios. Ensure we’re deep diving, ensure the clients are getting absolutely the best they possibly can based on the resources that we have available in today’s world. So yes, absolutely.

 

Moderator

And just a last wise word … that you would like to share.

 

Chauhan

If you’re seeking to make a change, if you’re here today, it sounds to me as if you’re maybe double checking on what you’re already doing or seeking to make a change. Certainly, if you’re seeking to make a change, contact people who are already in this marketplace. The Round Table is an extraordinary association, people often share a lot of stuff for you. A half an hour or an hour goes an awfully long way with the right people. So please feel free to speak to those. If I can help in any way, Andy, if we can help in any way, then please don’t hesitate to contact us. We’re delighted to help.

 

Asvin Chauhan, Dip FP, MIFP is a 19-year MDRT member with eight Court of the Table and three Top of the Table qualifications. He is an enthusiastic volunteer for MDRT and currently serves as Regional Chair for the Membership Communications Committee. He is also a Gold Knight of the MDRT Foundation. He has been in the life insurance business for more than two decades and is a master practitioner of neuro linguistic programming (NLP).

 

Andrew C. Lord, CLU, ChFC is a 29-year MDRT member with two Court of the Table and 22 Top of the Table honors. An Excalibur Knight of the MDRT Foundation, he has been a regular Round Table and Foundation volunteer. His many committee assignments include serving as Chair of the Top of the Table (2002). He is founder and president of Essential Planning LLC, a mid-size financial planning shop. Lord has been interviewed for articles in numerous publications, as well as on radio and television.

 

{{GetTotalComments()}} Comments

Please Login or Become A Member to add comments