CheckMate

We aviators have a way of dealing with emergencies in the air. We prioritize by remembering the following mental checklist and course of action: Aviate, Navigate, and Communicate. In that order.

I wasn’t there, but I can imagine the thought process of Captain “Sully” Sullenberger on US Air Flight 1549 went something like this:

1. bird strike, one engine out… Crud! Fly the airplane.. engine number two out.. more Crud! Fly the airplane.. keep wings level… AVIATE… check!

3. call the controllers and let them know what I’m doing. Alert the crew and passengers.. COMMUNICATE.. check! Now fly the airplane and land.

Which, as we know, he successfully accomplished.

Being a Financial Advisor in today’s turbulent times also requires a similar check list. The last course of action you want to take right now is one of panic and confusion. You’ll lose your passengers (clients) faster than Captain Scully can say, “check!” Instead, follow what he did.

1. FLY the airplane. Remain calm in your approach to financial management of your clients and don’t make any abrupt moves that would cause your aircraft to lose control.

2. NAVIGATE your career and the safety of your client’s portfolios. Now is a good time to re-evaluate your landing spot. Will you remain where you are right now or should you consider other “landing” options? Where do you want to take your passengers for a safe landing? If your current company is not a safe place for them, start considering other options.

3. COMMUNICATE your intentions to your clients. Whether you decide to stay where you are presently, or if you are considering other options, tell your clients now so that they are comfortable knowing that you are in control. I remember reading that one of the passengers from flight 1549 said that when he heard the Captain announce that they were going down and to prepare for a hard landing, he knew he was going to be alright because his captain sounded very confident and reassuring.

Be that Captain to your clients. They need you now more than ever…

Another case of a company bucking the trend and the conventional wisdom:

Subaru posts 2008 sales increase in US

CHERRY HILL, N.J. – Subaru said Monday its U.S. sales crept higher in 2008 on strong demand for Forester and Impreza models. The Japanese company is the only major automaker so far to post an increase in yearly sales.

Subaru’s December sales fell 7.7 percent to 17,287 units from 18,739 in December 2007, as a big increase in Forester sales failed to overcome declines in its remaining models.

But Subaru sales for all of 2008 rose by 0.3 percent to 187,699 vehicles from 187,208 in 2007, as consumers snapped up its top-selling Forester and Impreza models. The company is likely to be the sole large automaker to report higher sales for 2008, as the troubled economy pummeled new car sales across the industry.

Yeah, you read that right - Subaru actually sold more cars in 2008 than in 2007. (More here: “Subaru posts 2008 sales increase in US”)

Now contrast that with this little graphic from Edmunds today:

(More here: “2008 U.S. Auto Sales Are Worst Since 1992″)

Holy smokes - those are some dismal numbers.

We’ve talked about this before back in July (see “Who says the US automobile market is flat? Not VW.”) It’s just like I said back then - there are still companies - and financial advisors - succeeding even in these tough times.

So take heart in that, don’t buy into the gloom-and-doom, and realize that success as a financial advisor is still very much within your reach.

It’s still early to be talking about what kind of holiday season retailers had this year, but here’s one big number that’s already in - Amazon just announced its 14th record holiday season with the biggest sales ever.

Here’s the key data from “At Least Amazon Had A Good Christmas” at Techcrunch today - take a good look at these numbers:

Peak items ordered on a single day

2008: 6.3M
2007: 5.4M
2006: 4.0M
2005: 3.6M
2004: 3.6M

Items ordered per second

2008: 72.9
2007: 62.5
2006: 46.3
2005: 41
2004: 32

Peak items shipped on a single day

2008: 5.6M
2007: 3.9M
2006: 3.4M
2005: 2.7M
2004: 2M+

You can read even more details in the official news release “Amazon.com’s 14th Holiday Season Is Best Ever”.

You already likely know where I’m going with this one, too - even in the middle of the current downturn with daily stories about one more problem or failure, money is still being spent and still being made.

You may have already heard about this story - it really speaks for itself and needs no comment from me.

Well, other than to say it’s nice to know there are still some stand-up people and companies who “walk the talk” and will do the right thing:

“Five-figure bonuses stun Chicago plant workers”

Another perfect example of what I’ve been saying about the need to be very, very cautious in buying into any of the predictions floating around now…

Ever since the Bank of America acquisition of Merrill Lynch was announced, the press has been full of stories about how all those Merrill financial advisors were going to leave in droves.

First there was all the speculation that no matter what the retention deal was when it was released, it wouldn’t be enough to keep them there.

Then after the retention deal came out a few weeks ago, the hype continued along the lines of how there was going to be a mass exodus of Merrill advisors because of the way the deal was structured, i.e., it rewarded top performers who produce over $1 million annually far more so than those under that number.

Well, guess what - it didn’t happen. Here are the key numbers from “Merrill reps overwhelmingly go for BofA deal” in Monday’s Investment News:

• 94% of financial advisors who were offered a package signed back on.

• About 6200 of the roughly 6600 financial advisors who were offered the deal took it.

• 99% of financial advisors who produce $1.75 million annually or more accepted the offer.

Read those numbers again - I’d say “overwhelming” pretty much covers it.

Some will likely quibble with that definition because, as Merrill Lynch said, “only about half of the firm’s nearly 17,000 advisors were eligible in the first place”, but, as Merrill also said, those eligible were “responsible for about 75 percent of the firm’s production”. (See “Update: 6,200 Merrill FAs Sign BofA Retention At Deadline” at Registered Rep.)

So why did so many stay? I’m no great pundit, but I think it’s a sign of the times and really pretty simple. With things being so turbulent right now, most of the Merrill advisors saw no great advantage in leaving and thought it was a smarter move to stay put.

Now that’s not to say that I don’t think it’s a smart move for some advisors, especially top producers, to make a move if the timing and situation are right - far from it. Nor do I think that this is a big sign that this is the end of top financial advisors leaving their current firms - that’s always going to go on.

No, my point is just what I said at the beginning and have been saying for some time now. Be very skeptical about any predictions you read, especially right now, and examine them closely, particularly the source of the prediction.

And if you’re someone who’s intent on becoming a financial advisor, I’d also say there are some very good lessons here, not only about the nature of predictions, but, more importantly, about what actually happened at Merrill Lynch.

I ran across this great John Kenneth Galbraith quote the other day, and I will admit I hadn’t heard it before.

He said it back in 1993, but it’s never been more appropriate than right now:

“There are two kinds of forecasters: those who don’t know, and those who don’t know they don’t know.”

- John Kenneth Galbraith, Wall Street Journal, January 22, 1993

Please keep that in mind as you read the seemingly infinite number of words being written about the financial markets, “meltdowns”, recession, depression, and so on.

More specifically, don’t base your future career choices on anybody’s predictions about “what’s hot and what’s not”. I bet you can think of a number of careers that were once considered the “big thing” but don’t look so good right now - I know I can. And if you went into one of those careers not because you loved it, but because you thought you had a sure thing forever, you’re likely to be mighty disappointed right about now.

If becoming a financial advisor is what you have in your heart to do, then do it.

This is definitely not a political post - if you haven’t noticed, we stay away from that area entirely here.

What we do write about is helping you achieve personal success, in particular by becoming a financial advisor. And that’s what this post title refers to - your personal success.

Things have been decided, we now know who has been chosen to be our next President, and many are naturally wondering what the future holds and how that will affect them.

I’m not sure where this quote originates, but I know I’ve heard Dave Ramsey and Dan Miller repeat some variation of it many times for several years now:

“Your chances for success are not determined by what happens in the White House, but by what happens in YOUR house.”

That runs directly counter to many people’s thinking, which is why Dan and Dave repeat it so often. Now, they aren’t living in some fantasyland or saying that decisions made in Washington, DC have no impact. But what they are saying is that ultimately what happens to you is dependent on you, and if you’re counting on Washington to make you successful (or unsuccessful), you’re focusing in the wrong place.

They’ve also said that they will certainly review their businesses and make course corrections as necessary - that’s something they already do all the time, and naturally recommend that you should do the same with your career or business. But the gist of their argument is this - if whatever you were doing before the election is affected that drastically by the outcome of the election, then you were in the wrong business or career to begin with.

No question in my mind that’s the case with being a financial advisor, too. Where you go to work might be different, and how you do business as an advisor might be different, but nothing has changed so much that it should keep you from becoming a financial advisor.

I mean, think about it - have you ever seen a time where people were more in need of sound financial advice than they are right now?

On the other hand, if some outcome of the election has changed your mind about being an advisor…well, maybe it wasn’t the right career for you to begin with. And that’s OK - better to know that now than several years down the road.

So, while the nature of the business will change, the firms with openings might change, and many other factors may change as well, as I’ve said all along - if you truly want to become a financial advisor and have the right skills and aptitude, you can become one.

As a potential financial advisor, you need to have some idea of what clients might ask you.

One good way to do that is to see what financial publications might be telling people that they should ask you, since there’s a good chance your potential customers are reading those magazines.

This short article in the November issue of Kiplinger’s Personal Finance magazine gives you a nice succinct list of questions you could be asked - take a look:

“What to Ask Your Financial Adviser”

Nothing particularly complex there (although the answers to those questions could very well be), but those are all questions you better be prepared to answer.

I love stories about comebacks. This one would be great to read anytime, but especially so now with what’s going on daily in the markets and the economy.

The headline pretty much tells the story - “A return to his calling - Louisville’s Hallion goes from out of umpiring to in the Fall Classic” - but let me give you a condensed summary.

Tom Hallion decided he wanted to be a baseball umpire in 1979, so he quit going to college, took money out of savings, went to umpire school, and spent the next six years working his way up to the major leagues. In 1999, he was one of the many umpires who quit their jobs during a contract argument with Major League Baseball, thinking they would finally get some action on their demands. Instead, they found themselves out on the street with no jobs.

You can read the rest of the story at the link to find out how he got there, but here’s the bottom line:

“Tomorrow night he’ll position himself down the third-base line in Florida.”

Yep, Tom Hallion is umpiring in the World Series this year.

Comebacks do happen, and don’t ever forget that.

For all the current discussion about just what’s caused the current problems in the financial markets, I really haven’t seen much about the exact, specific actions on specific dates that caused things to fall.

I just read two very interesting articles that are the exception to that and revolve around the same theme - the role of JPMorgan Chase in the failure of both Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch.

There’s a lot of speculation about the intent and exact nature of JPMorgan’s actions, but, in my opinion, what’s not in question is that in both cases those actions were the proverbial last straw and drove both Lehman and Merrill under.

The first article is a NY Times piece called “The Road to Lehman’s Failure Was Littered With Lost Chances“. It’s a really good outline of the timeline of the demise of Lehman, but what was most interesting to me was this part:

Lehman executives complain bitterly that any chance of keeping the firm alive began to dissipate rapidly just after Labor Day when JPMorgan Chase, which handled Lehman’s trades, came calling for more money. Lehman had put down securities it believed were worth $6 billion during the summer to assuage the bank’s concerns that its trades were risky. But JPMorgan thought those securities had deteriorated in value, and asked for $5 billion in cash or liquid assets on Sept. 4.

Over the course of the next week, JPMorgan requested more money from Lehman. However, executives at the two companies disagree over how much money was requested and whether the requests were reasonable. The dispute has become part of a legal claim filed by creditors of Lehman.

I’m surely not on the inside to know exactly what happened, but I think it’s pretty clear that JPMorgan basically called Lehman on the loans they had out with the result being that it was “the end of the line”.

The second article - “Was Merrill ‘Chase-d’ Into Its BofA Marriage?” - at CNBC refers to the Lehman situation and states that JPMorgan pulled the same move with Merrill they had with Lehman:

On Friday Sept. 12, Chase officially alerted Merrill it wanted an additional $5 billion in collateral. Merrill did not come up with the collateral.

Around that time, Merrill began negotiating with Bank of America. That Saturday Merrill’s chief of strategy, Peter Kraus, told Chase that Merrill wasn’t going to deliver the collateral — but not because of liquidity issues. Merrill was objecting to the principle of asking for additional collateral.

By Sunday night September 14, Bank of America purchased Merrill.

I’m not sure why I haven’t seen more discussion about this one, frankly, along with a lot more questions about JPMorgan Chase’s timing and logic behind calling both firms on their loans. It sure would be very educational to know the significance of the timing - just why did JPMorgan feel that they had to press the issue with both firms during the first two weeks of September? And who at JPMorgan made that call?