After
None of the three firms answered questions about the disappearance of Goldman PFM from
The retail wealth management and custodial arms of Fidelity and rival Charles Schwab
Representatives for Fidelity declined to comment, citing a policy against discussing the status of individual firms in the referral program. Creative Planning CEO Peter Mallouk also declined to comment, saying in an email that he was unable to discuss any aspect of the Goldman PFM deal ahead of the expected close in the fourth quarter. Representatives for Goldman Sachs didn't respond to emails seeking comment.
It's not clear whether there's any connection between the deal and Goldman PFM leaving Fidelity's referral program, according to Mike Watson, a senior vice president and
Much of Creative's early growth prior to an ongoing acquisition binge that's
"Consumers were saying, 'You know, I probably need a financial professional to manage my wealth,'" Watson said in an interview. "Along comes Creative, which was willing to do this at a lower cost than other firms that participated in the program. They earned every bit of it. They did a really great job of providing exceptional service. They were converting billions and billions of dollars a year in referral program assets."
The give-and-take of losing new referrals from Fidelity while retaining the existing stream from Schwab under Creative likely is playing only a minor role in decisions made by Goldman PFM advisors to stay through the transition or go to new firms, according to recruiter Rick Rummage, CEO of the
"You're dealing with some big personalities," Rummage said. "Most of them will only tolerate so much. That's why you see so much movement whenever there's a big change at a company."
The referral programs represent one area of shifts across the industry. Goldman PFM listed AdvisorDirect alongside the Schwab and Fidelity referral programs in its
Schwab
The RIAs receiving the referrals from Fidelity pay a substantial fee of 10 basis points on fixed-income assets, 25 bps on other referred holdings, an annual flat payment of $50,000 and a termination fee of 75 bps on any assets moved to other custodians, according to disclosures on the company's website and the Form ADV brochures of Goldman PFM and other members. Those participating RIAs also point out that they invest a lot of time and resources into converting the leads into customers of the firm.
Many other RIAs often express frustration that none of those leads flow to them, however.
Perhaps
"The RIA Industry is facing a critical reckoning as defendants' collusive RIA services scheme is accelerating market concentration and power in defendants and a handful of participating RIAs who unapologetically violate the fundamental purpose of 'investor protection' at the core of federal securities laws governing the RIA industry," the lawsuit stated. "Defendants are horizontal competitors who consciously combine, associate together, conspire and agree to carry out the RIA services scheme for the shared common purpose of dominating the RIA Industry, allocating advisory clients and services sold to them, collusively circumventing SEC compliance and federal laws and covertly engaging in unfair and deceptive concerted actions designed to achieve inflated sales, pricing, and profits that would otherwise be unattainable but for their collusive agreements, combinations and concerted action in furtherance of the RIA services scheme."
The lawsuit against Creative and the custodial giants may stand little likelihood of success. In a joint motion filed last September, the defendants described the allegations as "utterly frivolous" and an "imagined conspiracy."
"In their 199-page complaint, plaintiffs Stephen Greco and Spotlight Asset Group, a small, regional registered investment advisor, blame their lack of success, in an admittedly growing industry, on a massive conspiracy of not only thirteen separate defendants — with differing roles in the marketplace — but also various, unidentified co-conspirators," according to the filing. "Plaintiffs' fifteen separate causes of action, however, make no sense and are entirely unsupportable. The centerpiece of plaintiffs' complaint — that defendants 'conspired' to carry out a so-called 'RIA services scheme' and a 'silencing and retaliation scheme' — fails because plaintiffs allege no plausible facts to support the existence of an agreement among the defendants. Plaintiffs provide no evidence of collusion, either directly through 'smoking gun' evidence, or indirectly, through facts from which a conspiracy could be inferred."