CheckMate

This is just a wonderful story I ran across today, and a tremendous example of a financial advisor who’s making a big charitable impact. It’d be a great story anytime, but especially so now with the daily dose of financial sector bad news, finger pointing, and “Who shot John?” blame that’s going around.

Phil Eggers is a financial advisor in Plano, Texas who is also a pilot and the President of the Board of Directors at Grace Flight of America, an organization of volunteer pilots who fly patients to get specialized medical treatment that isn’t available to them locally. Most, if not all, of those patients are either in locations without scheduled air service, simply aren’t able to afford that type of travel, or both.

Check out Phil’s story at “Adviser gives back, with flying colors”. There are a number of very touching testimonials from those who’ve benefited from Grace Flight, and Phil also describes how he came to be a successful financial advisor. I liked his comment here a lot:

The 43-year-old Mr. Eggers is happy to help people in need.

“I didn’t have squat growing up,” he recalled.

Financial services was his ticket out of his Iowa farm community, and Mr. Eggers said he knew he wanted to be an investment adviser since he was in middle school, inspired by a cousin who was a broker and the “the success in the family.”

Clearly somebody who has never forgotten where he came from.

As I’ve said before, we generally don’t toot our own horn around here, but sometimes we do make exceptions.

Some of the work that our Managing Partner, Dr. Chris Howard, is doing in the area of diversity recruiting is really outstanding, and I want to brag a little about my very close friend and business partner.

As the youngest Falcon Foundation Board of Trustees member, Chris chairs the Diversity Committee and is leading a $220,000, multiple year initiative in select school districts to increase the candidate pool of minority applicants to the U.S. Air Force Academy.

In addition, Chris has also received a federal planning grant from the Commission on National and Community Service to create an AmeriCorps program at the University of Oklahoma meant to increase graduation rates among under-represented minority students.

I could go on - Chris always has so many plates spinning in the air at one time I can’t even keep up with him - but I’ll just leave it at that for now. I just wanted to mention how proud I am of Dr. Chris Howard, and how fortunate we are to have someone with his great talent and commitment associated with this company.

I’ll admit that it’s pretty tough to write anything really relevant and useful right now because of how fast and furiously things are changing, not to mention that the news seems to be one bad thing after another. And, as I said last time, I’m all out of predictions.

I’ve already seen a bunch of “best things to do now” articles, both about personal finance in general and job searches in particular. A big part of the problem there is that you can feel like you’re already behind the curve - if you didn’t take action before now, it’s too late to do anything. Not so…

One of the best personal finance blogs I know of - if not the best - is Get Rich Slowly. (I know what you’re probably thinking, but, trust me - if you only read one, this is the one to read.) It’s been around for several years now, and the guy who writes it - J.D. Roth - learned his lesson the hard way: he was $35,000 in debt, and paid it all off. And, no, he didn’t win the lottery - you can read the story in “Free at Last! Saying Good-Bye to 20 Years of Debt”.

His most recent post today is called “The Millionaire Quiz“, which contains a 15-question test to see just what you know about millionaires. It’s good for anyone to read, but definitely something a budding financial advisor should have a good handle on.

After you read that one, take a good look around the site - there’s a ton of information that’s always very valuable, and no more so than right now.

Unless you’re avoiding the news entirely (not a bad idea in general, but that discussion goes beyond this short post), you are no doubt inundated by now with all the financial gloom-and-doom from the past few days.

I always want to be able to add something useful or different here, but I don’t know that there’s anything significant I can add to the seeming billions of words floating around on this subject right now.

I’ll say this - take a deep breath and honestly assess your situation. If you are in dire straits (as in “I’m not gonna eat tomorrow.”), that’s one thing, and you have to take appropriate action. If you aren’t in that kind of situation - and I’m willing to bet the vast majority of you aren’t - do your best to remain calm, take a hard look at just how what’s going on is directly affecting you, and act / plan accordingly.

Beyond that, I did see what I thought was some sound, basic advice in this post at CareerHub: “Lehman Employees: Here’s What To Do Next”. The author outlines six specific steps, but I especially liked his overall theme:

“But Lehman employees - and indeed job searchers in other sectors - would be well advised to stop listening to all the noise, and instead focus on moving forward with a plan that will secure their next role.”

Sure, I know, as he also says, “Easier said than done.”, but it’s still dead on.

I won’t make any predictions, either, and I would strongly caution you to not buy into any of the predictions that others are making. The reality is that at this point, with things constantly changing minute-by-minute and hour-by-hour, nobody really knows how things are going to shake out, least of all me.

So, right now, unless you have some new overriding reason not to, if you still want a career as a financial advisor, I’d say keep pressing on toward that goal.

I see stories all the time - and you probably do, too - that are just press releases masquerading as news.

It’s not hard to spot these things - usually it’s something from MarketWatch with a location, date, and then “PRNewswire via COMTEX” on the first line. Plus they are normally very much self-promoting and self-serving - if the subject of the “news” is the source and the contact for the article…well, not too tough to figure out what’s going on. Sometimes you can actually even see the contact information for the outside person the company contracted to place the press release listed at the end of the story.

That doesn’t mean press releases are all bad - for example, in my last post I referred to an article that was picked up by MarketWatch which was the usual PR Newswire press release. In that case, though, there was actual data from a survey taken by the Association for Financial Professionals, the source of the press release, and I wanted to give my opinion about that data. Granted, still a press release, but one with some substance worth discussing, not something I tried to pass off as some landmark piece of news, and, most importantly, not something that we had anything to do with, or that was about us, or that we were the source for.

So, the next time someone touts something as “news” because it was picked up by one of the major business magazines (like Business Week, Fortune, or CNN Money), or news services (like Reuters or AP), take a closer look - you might be surprised to find out that it’s just another press release.

You know how I’m always telling you to look closely at numbers? Well, here’s yet another example…

I just ran across the Association for Financial Professionals’ 2008 Women in Finance Survey results under this headline in a MarketWatch story a couple days ago:

“Financial Professionals See Continued Weakness in U.S. Economy”

It’s full of statistics from the survey to back up that headline, including, perhaps most notably, this one:

“…89 percent of financial professionals expect their career to be impacted negatively as a result of the current economic slowdown…”

You have to go all the way to the bottom of the article to find the number that really got my attention, though, and the one I think is the most important statistic in the whole story:

“The 2008 AFP Women in Finance Survey, sponsored by Citi’s Global Transaction Services, asked 3,000 corporate practitioner members — evenly split between males and females — about the impact the current slowdown in the U.S. economy has had on job security and prospects for career advancement. The survey received 571 responses, with a response rate of 20 percent.”

Which means that all those numbers — and that headline — are based on a total of a whopping 571 people, and just one fifth of the total number of people they sent surveys to.

Now maybe a statistician would say that’s representative, but I’m not a statistician, and I have to tell you that I’m not so sure.

Hey, for all I know, the other 2429 people were too busy out making money to answer the survey…

Here’s another story in the “things you don’t see on the networks or major news services” category - it’s in today’s Ft Worth Star-Telegram:

DFW-Arlington area adds 68,000 jobs in the last year, the most in the U.S.

By JOHN AUSTIN
jaustin@star-telegram.com

FORT WORTH – We’re No. 1, at least when it comes to job growth.

That’s the news from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which beamed a little economic sunshine into the local forecast this week by announcing that the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington area led the nation with 68,000 new nonfarm jobs over the past 12 months.

Jobs in the D-FW-Arlington area grew 2.3 percent in July compared with the same month last year. Houston and San Antonio grew 2.2 percent each.

Read more…

What? I’m shocked…there are major metropolitan areas in the U.S. that have actually added jobs in the last year? Yep.

I’ve said this before and will keep saying it again and again…

Whatever you do, do NOT get caught up in the daily gloom-and-doom, “the economy sucks”, recession, etc., talk. No question, some people are being laid off, losing jobs, and running into some tough times - I don’t pretend that those things are not happening nor do I mean to trivialize the impact they have had on those affected. But there are also many companies still hiring and many unfilled positions out there for which we are currently recruiting.

More specifically, if you have a sincere desire to be a financial advisor, and you have the right background and abilities, you can become a financial advisor with a great firm. Period.

I’m going to take a break from the “Can you trust recruiters?” series, and may or may not return to it. Oh, there’s lots more to say in that area, but it’s not the most pleasant subject, and I do get tired of talking about it, as much as it really does need to be discussed.

Here’s something on a lot more positive note…

Great article in the Jacksonville Financial News and Daily Record today about Margaret “Mag” Black-Scott, who rose from being a financial advisor at Morgan Stanley to her current position there as vice chairman for national sales. I think you’ll find her background and career path pretty interesting (not to mention who she’s married to), but what struck me most was her comments here:

“If you look at the statistics regarding women in this business you’ll find we represent only about 15 percent of the financial advisors. Women on Wall Street face unique challenges but I think it’s a great business for women. Some don’t pursue finance as a career because they think it’s so risky, but look at how many women have careers in real estate. How risky is that? Morgan Stanley would like to convince more women to enter the financial services industry,” said Black-Scott.

Excellent points.

And, trust me, it’s not just Morgan Stanley - all of the major wirehouses are dead serious about adding a lot more women to the ranks of financial advisors.

This is the third part of a series about whether you can trust recruiters, and the kind of questions you should ask or ask about recruiters to help make that determination. In Part 1, I gave an overview of the reasons behind the series and guidelines for working through it, and in Part 2 I discussed the market leading position that a recruiter might claim.

In this third installment, I want to address the number of recruiters a firm says they have:

• Does the firm claim to have a large number of recruiters, say, several hundred or more?

• If so, how does the number of recruiters claimed stack up against the industry standard, i.e., known leaders among executive recruiting firms? (For reference, the Lucas Group, perhaps the premier firm among executive recruiters and a place we’ve mentioned previously, says they have 400 associates.)

• Is the firm claiming part-time independent contract recruiters in their total, possibly in an apparent attempt to make the firm look bigger? There’s absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever with contract recruiters, but what about claiming them all as members of your firm so you can advertise having a large number of people? How does that strike you?

• Are the names of all of the firm’s recruiters listed on their website?

• How many of the firm’s recruiters do you see with an online presence, e.g. job listings, on social networking sites, and so on? If a firm says they have several hundred recruiters, I’d expect to see some evidence of the majority of them online, not just five or ten of the same names. Do you?

• Does the company list national or division directors? Are those one-person divisions (i.e., the director), or are there actually teams of recruiters assigned to those divisions? Are the team members’ names listed on the firm’s site?

This is the second part of a series about whether you can trust recruiters, and the kind of questions you should ask recruiters to help make that determination. In Part 1, I gave an overview of the reasons behind the series and some guidelines for working through it.

OK, with what I said in my last post firmly in mind, let’s start with this one - market leadership:

• Does the recruiter claim a leading position in a specific market (for example, “the largest recruiter in the xxxx niche”)?

• If so, what’s that based on - something you can easily check out or something you can’t (e.g., the actual firms who are using that recruiter, since that’s usually confidential)?

• Does the logic behind the recruiter’s claim make sense to you? Or does it appear to be some “creative redefining” where they have spun some very specific and narrow parameters in a way designed to give themselves an exalted position (i.e., the “whale in a bathtub”)?

• How does the claim stand up against known industry leaders? And by that I don’t mean staffing agencies like, say, Kelly Services or Robert Half, but recognized leaders in the executive recruiter world like the Lucas Group?