Data & Research February 4, 2010

Advisers Most Trusted Source for Investing Information

Brokers/advisers are the most trusted sources to provide accurate information about investments, investing, or the markets, according to the 2010 Edelman Financial Services U.S. Trust Barometer.
Reported by

Brokers/advisers received trust from 68%, followed by friends or family (61%), and portfolio managers (55%), while CEOs were judged least-trusted (32%), according to a release of the results of the survey of 500 “informed publics” ages 25 to 64. However, when broken down into age group, the younger demographic (age 25 to 34) had even higher levels of trust (75% for broker/adviser, 73% for friends or family). The survey defined an “informed public” as college-educated, in the top 25% of household income by age, and reporting significant consumption and engagement in business news and public policy.

Possibly reflecting their deep turmoil during the past two years, the banking and insurance industries ranked as the least trusted in the U.S., with banks recording the only slide in faith in the past year. In the U.S., trust in banks fell to 33% in the 2010 survey from 36%, while trust in insurers was the lowest in 2010 at 32%, although that level improved from 29% in the previous survey.  Only media companies matched the 32% low. Technology ranked highest with a trust level of 81%.

However, in the category of trusting institutions, those surveyed ranked community/regional banks as the most trusted financial institutions in the U.S. (79%), with mutual fund companies (59%) and life insurance companies (52%) in second and third. This also varied among age group, with those surveyed age 25 to 34 having significantly higher trust in all financial institutions than those age 35 to 64.

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

Information Sources

Although the broker or adviser was the most trusted source, it was not the most widely used source of information about financial information; only 64% of those age 25 to 34 and 54% of those age 35 to 64 said they use a broker or adviser at least monthly for financial information. Those surveyed get their information about finances from a variety of sources, most commonly including business TV news (91% of those age 25 to 34, 88% of those age 35 to 64), family and friends (91% of those age 25 to 34, 83% of those age 35 to 64), and the print or online versions of local newspapers (84% of those age 25 to 34, 81% of those age 35 to 64).

However, among traditional, corporate, and digital vehicles, none was more widely used than the others. That demonstrates a need for financial services firms to use “a portfolio of traditional and online communications vehicles to convey their messages successfully,” said Jeff Zilka, general manager, Edelman Financial Communications.

Corporate Reputation

For all industries, corporate reputation is now based on trust and transparency as much as leadership and share-price performance, the survey found. "Has transparent and honest business practices," "is a company I can trust," and "offers high quality products or services," were cited by 82%, 80%, and 79% of respondents, respectively, as important to the overall reputation to the company. However, fewer than half of respondents cited "is an innovator of new products, services, or ideas" (48%), "has highly-regarded and widely admired top leadership" (45%), or "delivers consistent financial returns to investors" (45%) as important to overall company reputation. Furthermore, among all industries in the U.S. (not just financial services firms), financial returns mores to last place among company reputation factors.

Those surveyed also said they consider “quality of communications” (75%) and “customer service” (70%) as important as “price” (70%) and “performance” (72%) in influencing reputation and trust for U.S. financial-services companies.

“We’ve seen significant changes in how people evaluate corporate reputations and the factors they view as most important in shaping their decisions,” said Matthew Harrington, president and CEO, Edelman U.S. “Just three years ago, financial performance ranked as the top criterion for all U.S. companies. It now scores at the bottom, replaced by transparency and trust. In financial services specifically, companies must realize that transparency via frequent communication and high-quality customer products and services are as essential to creating and maintaining investor trust as superior returns and five-star ratings.”

The vast majority (93%) of those surveyed believe problems exist in the industry that must be addressed and 63% said they think financial institutions need more regulation. Only a handful (7%) thinks the industry is problem-free, and 8% believe financial services should be regulated less than they are now. As for who should be most responsible for addressing the problems facing the financial services industry, 67% of respondents said all groups should work together, while 21% said government agencies. Only 9% of those surveyed said financial services companies should address the problems, while an even smaller group (2%) believed it should be Congress.

The 2010 Edelman Financial Services U.S. Trust Barometer sampled 500 informed publics in two age groups (25 to 34 and 35 to 64) in the U.S. and was produced by research firm StrategyOne and fielded by World One from October 13 through November 8.

More information is available here.

The Markets February 4, 2010

A(nother) Sure Thing?

Generally speaking, there’s no such thing as a sure thing – certainly when it comes to investing, and certainly not two years running.
Reported by

Still, if the results of the Super Bowl exert any influence on the markets – as proponents of the so-called Super Bowl Theory claim – then 2010 should – again – be a good year for investors.      

For the “uninitiated,” the theory (invented/popularized by the late New York Times sportswriter Leonard Koppett) says that a win by a team from the old National Football League is a precursor to rising stock values for the year (at least as measured by the S&P 500), but if a team from the old American Football League (AFL) prevails, stocks will fall in the coming year.        

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

NFL Legacy      

And, while the Indianapolis Colts will represent the American Football Conference in this year’s contest with the National Football Conference’s New Orleans Saints, both have NFL roots, the Saints since their franchise was awarded on November 1, 1966 (on All Saints Day, no less), while the Colts’ NFL origins date back to their origins in Baltimore.  And that, according to the Super Bowl Theory, means that it should be a good year for stocks – no matter which team wins.

That was certainly the case in 2009 (seeA Sure Thing?) when both Super Bowl teams – the Arizona Cardinals and the Pittsburgh Steelers – had NFL roots (the Arizona Cardinals by way of one time being the St. Louis Cardinals), and in 2007 when the S&P 500 rose 3.53% as these same AFC champion Indianapolis Colts beat the NFC Chicago Bears 29-17 (see If the Bears Win, Will the Bulls Run?).  That also turned out to be the case in 2006 when the Pittsburgh Steelers defeated the Seattle Seahawks in another battle of two legacy NFL clubs.  That turned out to be a good year for equities, with the S&P 500 closing up more than 13%.  

Except When It Doesn’t…

Of course, as even loyal proponents will admit, this theory used to work a lot better than it has in recent years.  The most obvious (and recent) proof of that was Super Bowl XLII, where the New York Giants pulled off a remarkable victory – but the S&P 500 still shed…well, we don’t really need to relive that here (particularly for Patriots fans).

In fact, in addition to those results, the Super Bowl Theory came up short every year between 1998 and 2001.  Moreover, for those looking for a clear winning strategy, the Super Bowl indicator has had only one “clean” win in the past decade.  On the one hand, the Super Bowl Theory has been right about 80% of the time.  

Recent History

Consider the AFC New England Patriots' 24-21 win over the NFC Philadelphia Eagles in 2005.  According to the Super Bowl Theory, the markets should have been down for the year.  However, in 2005 the S&P 500 climbed 2.55%.

Of course, the 2002 win by those same New England Patriots accurately foretold the continuation of the bear market into a third year (at the time, the first accurate result in five years). But the Patriots 2004 Super Bowl win against the Carolina Panthers failed to anticipate a fall rally that helped push the S&P 500 to a near 9% gain that year, sacking the indicator for another loss.

Consider also that, despite victories by the old AFL Denver Broncos in 1998 and 1999, the S&P 500 continued its winning ways, while victories by the NFL legacy St. Louis (by way of Los Angeles) Rams (with the just-retired Arizona quarterback Kurt Warner calling plays) and the Baltimore (by way of NFL legacy Cleveland Browns) Ravens did nothing to dispel the bear markets of 2000 and 2001.

Winning “Streaks”

All in all, the Super Bowl Theory has been on the money more often than not – much more often than not, in fact - but in true sports fashion, has had some winning streaks and some rough patches.  Consider that it “worked” 28 times between 1967 and 1997 – then went 0-4 between 1998 and 2001 – only to get back on track from 2002 on (purists still dispute how to interpret Tampa Bay’s victory in 2003, since the Buccaneers spent their first NFL season in the AFC before moving to the NFC). 

As for Sunday – the oddsmakers are giving the nod to the Colts – but not by much (5 ½ points).

It looks like it could be a good game – and that, whether you are a proponent of the Super Bowl Theory or not – would be one in which whoever wins, we all will!

Note: Other exceptions included: 1970, when AFC Kansas City won, and the S&P index gained 0.1%; 1984, when AFC Los Angeles Raiders won, and the S&P rose 1.4%; 1990, when NFC San Francisco prevailed, and the S&P lost 6.56%; and 1994, when NFC Dallas triumphed, but the S&P index fell 1.53%.

     

     

«