Generally, ratings, rankings, and recognition are based on information prepared and submitted by the advisor, and are part of a process in which not all advisors elect to participate. A more detailed disclosure of the criteria used in making these rankings is included below.
Worth’s “The Top 250 Wealth Advisors” &
Robb Report’s “The Nations Most Exclusive Wealth Advisors
Worth magazine’s “The Top 250 Wealth Advisors” list has also been known as “The 250 Best Financial Advisors in America”, “The Top 100 Wealth Advisors” list and/or Robb Report Worth’s “The Nation’s 100 Most Exclusive Wealth Advisors”. Candidates, in addition to a minimum experience level of ten years, have historically been selected based upon the following criteria, of which the majority is submitted by the advisor:
* Nominations from readers, industry associations, clients, and other advisors
* Portfolio returns
* Compensation structure
* Success in identifying and achieving client goals
* Client retention rate
* Letters of recommendation from clients
* Types of clients and business philosophy
* Educational background and professional designations
* Professional longevity
* Success in discussing the current investment climate and achieving returns for clients, and
* Most importantly, advisor client relationships
Medical Economics’ “The 150 Best Financial Advisors for Doctors”
Applicants for the Medical Economics’ “150 Best Financial Advisors for Doctors” list have historically been required to complete an extensive questionnaire listing credentials, educational background, noteworthy professional achievements, specific areas of expertise, and percentage of physician clients. Candidates were selected for the list based upon these qualifications, in addition to client and peer references, strong recommendations from physicians, an extensive background check, and the applicant’s knowledge and experience in the financial advisory field. The majority of this information is provided by the advisor.
Medical Economics also weighs the conduct of the applicant’s firm and how the firm charges for their services, taking special interest in fee-only advisors that are inclined to provide objective and unbiased advice, operating without a conflict of interest.
Mutual Funds’ “100 Great Financial Planners in America”
Mutual Funds magazine’s list of the “100 Great Financial Planners in America” was published for only two years, ending in 2002 with the publication’s closing. Dependent upon an advisor’s application for nomination, the magazine used the following criteria for selection:
* Client and peer references
* A rigorous background check
* Extensive interview process of hundreds of experts nationwide from money management firms, consulting firms, fund companies, brokerages, universities and elsewhere
* Reviewed SEC filings (determining customer complaints, for example) and Interviewed State Regulators
* Areas of specialization and methods of compensation to ensure a diverse selection of advisors
Bloomberg’s Top Wealth Managers
Bloomberg recommended the top independent advisors who integrated a variety of client services, offered alternative investments and were willing to do lots of handholding. Bloomberg’s ranking was based on the asset value of the average client relationship. To qualify for the rankings, firms had to meet the following criteria:
* Minimum assets under management of $50 Million
* Registration with the SEC as a registered investment adviser
* Comprehensive financial planning services offered in-house
* More than 50% of the client base must consist of high-net worth individuals, as defined by the SEC
Goldline Research’s “The Most Dependable Wealth Managers for Women” List
In the United States there are more than 50,000 wealth managers that hold the advanced Certified Financial Planner (CFP®) certification, and there are more than 27,000 Registered Investment Advisors.
Here are a few of the criteria that Goldline Research uses when evaluating a dependable Wealth Manager:
* The number of years of experience of the firm/professional
* The range of services and/or products offered (e.g.: financial planning, estate planning, investment management, etc.)
* The number of total staff in the firm
* The number of staff with advanced certifications
* Advanced certifications and/or training held (e.g.: CFP®, CFA®, etc.)
* The number of investment advisors
* An analysis of the client: advisor ratio
* An analysis of the client: staff ratio
* Assets under management
* Any client minimums
* Average client account size
* Amount of assets added in the last 12 months
* Amount of assets lost in the last 12 months
* The firm’s fee structure (e.g.: fee-only, fee-based, etc.)
* An analysis of the firms’ fiduciary commitment to clients (e.g.: signed fiduciary oath)
* Licensing (local, state, federal), if applicable
* Geographic service area
* Any relationships that the firm/professional has with other related services (e.g.: estate planning, accounting, etc.)
* The number of active clients
* The number of total clients
* An analysis of any client additions in the last 12 months
* An analysis of any client losses in the last 12 months
* The quality of client references
* A review of any outstanding lawsuits, grievances and/or complaints against the firm/professional
* The firm’s/professional’s key differentiators