Note: Descriptions are shown in the official language in which they were submitted.
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
SYSTEM AND METHOD CONFIGURED FOR FACILITATING FINANCIAL
ANALYSIS
CROSS REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS
The United States non-provisional patent applications entitled "DECISION
ASSISTANCE PLATFORM CONFIGURED FOR FACILITATING FINANCIAL
CONSULTING SERVICES" having serial number << amend to include serial number
after
serial number is assigned>> and "METHOD CONFIGURED FOR FACILITATING
FINANCIAL CONSULTING SERVICES" having serial number << amend to include serial
number after serial number is assigned>>, which each have a common applicant
herewith and
are filed the same day herewith, are incorporated herein by reference.
FIELD OF THE DISCLOSURE
The disclosures made herein relate generally to financial consulting
methodologies
and more particularly to systems and methods configured for facilitating
financial consulting
services.
BACKGROUND
Many financial experts and investors would agree that there has been a
considerable
increase in the lack of investor trust within the traditional financial
services industry.
Circumstances responsible for this lack of trust include poor advice from
financial advisors,
advice based on flawed and/or inaccurate information, predatory sales tactics,
and corrupt
financial organization. The circumstances that have led to this lack of trust
have contributed
to a general market decline (i.e., value of funds and number of persons
investing), which is a
circumstance quite damaging to the equity markets and the ability of companies
to raise
capital (as well as damaging to a transaction and product sales-based industry
- the traditional
financial industry).
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
Product vendors and their paid salespeople generally control and often limit
access to
product information. Vendors typically do not want consumers to have a
practical way to
objectively evaluate their products in comparison with those of others. Such
an ability to
objectively compare (i.e., comparatively evaluate) products being offered
would effectively
commoditize financial products, and would adversely impact the large
advertising and
marketing budgets of these large product vendors. Guarding against the risk
that industry
products such as mutual funds are not turned into commodities was listed as
one of top
challenges facing the Investment Company Institute's membership, as was stated
in the June
20, 200 Financial Planning Journal of the Bureau of National Affairs.
Brokers and other product salespeople from the traditional financial services
industry
continually approach prospective and active individual investors (i.e.,
consumers) to solicit
the consumer to buy their financial products. In general, these brokers and
salespeople are
approaching the consumers not necessarily because their financial products are
needed or
have been requested, but because that is their job. They have been hired to
sell a particular
organization's financial products to whomever they can.
Over the past 15 or more years, there has been a general trend within the
financial
services marketplace away from individual advice and guidance toward product
sales. This
can be envisioned in what can be described as a customer - client continuum,
where at one
end (i.e., the customer side) of the continuum a person is treated as a
customer to be sold and,
at the other end (Le., the client side), the person is treated as a client to
be advised. This trend
toward the customer side of the continuum is leaving an increasingly large
void at the client
side of the continuum.
In an environment with ever-growing numbers of financial products (e.g., over
13,000
mutual funds and thousands of insurance products), consumers have no practical
approach for
obtaining information on all of these choices and no practical approach for
comparing them
(e.g., to see which would be best for them) even if they could obtain the
needed information.
This lack of knowledge is often exploited by the traditional financial
services industry.
Because trusted advisers of consumers (e.g., attorneys and Certified Public
Accountants) lack
sufficient knowledge of and information about these many financial products,
even these
trusted advisors are often limited in what they can do to protect their
clients from having this
2
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
lack of product knowledge exploited. This limitation often holds true even if
they are able to
obtain such information, because of the overwhelming volume of such
information.
Yet another limitation of such conventional financial products and services is
that
related conventional processes used to select and recommend money managers are
essentially
"opaque". Such processes are typically not disclosed and, often, the
fiduciaries of such
product and services do not request a description or explanation of the means
by which these
!
money managers are selected and/or recommended. With this process being
essentially
opaque, any number of abuses can occur with limited means for readily
detecting them.
Most consumers of financial products would prefer the option of having a
trusted adviser
such as their attorney or CPA (i.e., someone without a product sales agenda)
provide them
with advice relating to investment decisions, and to insulate themselves from
the sales
pressures inherent in the traditional financial services industry. Therefore,
methods and
equipment configured for facilitating financial consulting services via
trusted advisers who
are not necessarily professionals within the traditional financial services
industry would be
useful.
3
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE
In accordance with one embodiment of the disclosures made herein, a method
comprises determining a collection of indices, determining a composite
investment index
performance score dependent upon the indices, and assessing the investment
portfolio
dependent upon the composite investment index performance score. Each one of
the indices
corresponds to a respective investment of an investment portfolio.
In accordance with another embodiment of the disclosures made herein, a method
comprises determining a plurality of investment performance scores,
determining a plurality
of investment index performance scores, and assessing each one of the
investment
performance. Each one of the investment performance scores corresponds to a
respective
investment of an investment portfolio and to a respective investment index.
The respective
investment index corresponds to a respective one of the investment performance
scores.
In accordance with another embodiment of the disclosures made herein, a method
comprises determining an asset class corresponding to an allocated investment
of an
investment portfolio and performing a comparative performance assessment
between the
allocated investment and a plurality of non-allocated investments represented
by the asset
class.
Correspondingly, it is a principal object of the inventive disclosures made
herein to
provide a solution that overcomes limitations and drawbacks associated with
conventional
approaches for facilitating financial services for clients. Specifically,
methods disclosed
herein enable facilitation of financial consulting services via a trusted
adviser of the client,
but who is not necessarily a professional within the traditional financial
services industry.
Furthermore, such methods produce consulting information (e.g., investment
choices) that is
objectively quantified. Accordingly, embodiments of methods in accordance with
the
inventive disclosures made herein enable a client to make decisions in an
objective and
unbiased manner.
4
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
Turning now to specific embodiments of the inventive disclosures made herein,
in at
least one embodiment of the inventive disclosures made herein, determining a
composite
investment index score includes combining the investment indices dependent
upon criteria
utilized for designing an investment portfolio.
In at least one embodiment of the inventive disclosures made herein,
determining a
composite investment index performance score includes combining investment
indices
dependent upon actual allocations of funds within an investment portfolio.
In at least one embodiment of the inventive disclosures made herein, a
composite
investment performance score is determined and assessing an investment
portfolio includes
assessing the composite investment performance score dependent upon a
composite
investment index performance score.
In at least one embodiment of the inventive disclosures made herein, a
plurality of
investment performance scores is determined and each one of the investment
performance
scores corresponds to a respective investment of the investment portfolio.
In at least one embodiment of the inventive disclosures made herein, a
plurality of
investment index performance scores is determined.
In at least one embodiment of the inventive disclosures made herein, each one
of a
plurality of investment performance scores is assessed dependent upon a
respective one of a
plurality of investment index performance scores.
In at least one embodiment of the inventive disclosures made herein,
determining a
composite investment index score includes combining investment indices
dependent upon
criteria utilized for designing an investment portfolio.
In at least one embodiment of the inventive disclosures made herein,
determining a
composite investment index performance score includes combining investment
indices
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
dependent upon actual allocations of funds within an investment portfolio.
In at least one embodiment of the inventive disclosures made herein,
performing a
comparative performance assessment includes assessing an investment portfolio
dependent
upon a composite investment index performance score.
In at least one embodiment of the inventive disclosures made herein,
performing a
comparative performance assessment includes determining a plurality of
investment
performance scores, determining a plurality of investment index performance
scores, and
assessing each one of the investment performance scores dependent upon a
respective one of
the investment index performance scores.
In at least one embodiment of the inventive disclosures made herein,
performing a
comparative performance assessment includes determining a composite investment
performance score, determining a composite investment index performance score,
and
assessing the composite portfolio performance score dependent upon the
composite
investment index performance score. '
These and other objects and embodiments of the inventive disclosures made
herein
will become readily apparent upon further review.
6
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
The method of claim 17 wherein:
determining the composite investment index performance score includes
combining
the respective investment index indices dependent upon actual allocations of
funds within the
invest.
7
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWING FIGURES
FIG. 1 depicts an information flow schematic in accordance with an embodiment
of
the disclosures made herein.
FIGS. 2A and 2B depict a method for facilitating financial consulting services
in
accordance with embodiments of the disclosures herein and in view of the
information flow
schematic depicted in FIG. 1.
FIG. 3 depicts an embodiment of the operation for determining the investment
choices
depicted in FIG. 2.
FIG. 4 depicts an embodiment of the operation for enabling the comparative
performance assessment of the investment portfolio depicted in FIG. 2.
FIGS. 5 is a chart depicting a graphical representation of performance scores
in
accordance with an embodiment of the disclosures made herein.
FIGS. 6A and 6B jointly depict an alternate embodiment for presenting the
information depicted in the chart of FIG. 5.
FIG. 7 depicts a table having a plurality of multi-segment bars that
graphically
represent corresponding composite scores.
FIG. 8A depicts an embodiment of a weighting approach configured for
facilitating a
performance assessment in accordance with the inventive disclosures made
herein
FIGS. 8B and 8C depict an embodiment of a hierarchical weightings structure in
accordance with the disclosures made herein.
8
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
FIG. 9 depicts a network system configured for facilitating financial
consulting
services functionality in accordance with embodiments of the disclosures made
herein.
9
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWING FIGURES
An embodiment of an information flow schematic 100 in accordance with the
inventive disclosures made herein is depicted in FIG. 1. Entities within the
information flow
schematic include a financial services client 102, a trusted advisor 104
(i.e., an affiliated
trusted advisor), a financial services consultant 106 and a decision
assistance platform 108
(i.e., a system). Communication of information (e.g., client background
information and/or
client-specific consulting information) is carried out between the financial
services client 102
and the trusted advisor 104. Similarly, communication of information (e.g.,
client
background information and/or client-specific consulting information) is
carried out between
the trusted advisor 104, the financial service consultant 106 and the decision
assistance
platform 108.
In the embodiment of the information flow schematic 100 depicted in FIG. 1,
the
trusted advisor 104 is a separate person/entity from the financial services
consultant 106 and
isolates the financial services client 102 from direct interaction with the
financial services
consultant 106 and the decision assistance platform 108. In another embodiment
(not
specifically shown), the trusted advisor 104 and the financial services
consultant are the same
person (e.g., an attorney, CPA or family member), whereby that same person
isolates the
financial services client 102 from in-depth and/or direct interaction with the
decision
assistance platform 108. In still another embodiment (not specifically shown),
the trusted
advisor 104 and the financial services consultant are different persons acting
on behalf of the
financial services client 102 from within a common organization (e.g., an
attorney and CPA
employed by a common local, national or international consulting firm),
whereby the
common organization isolates the financial services client 102 from in-depth
and/or direct
interaction with the decision assistance platform 108. In yet another
embodiment (not
specifically shown), the financial services client 102 serves as his or her
own trusted advisor
and financial services consultant, whereby the financial services client 102
directly interacts
with the decision assistance platform 108.
It is disclosed herein that interaction and communication between the
financial
services client 102, the trusted advisor 104 (i.e., an affiliated trusted
advisor), the financial
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
services consultant 106 and/or the decision assistance platform 108 may be
implemented via
a networked computer systems. For example, via the network system 400 depicted
in FIG.
9, such interaction and communication may be facilitated via a networked
computer system.
The Internet is one embodiment of such a networked computer system. As such,
it is
disclosed herein that a website may be provided for enabling such interaction
and
communication. Specific examples of such interaction and communication
include,
information acquisition functionality (e.g., receiving background information
from the
client), service payment functionality (electronically receiving payment for
services),
distributed processing functionality (e.g., where various decision assistance
functionality is
performed in a distributed manner), consulting information delivery
functionality (e.g.,
providing client-specific consulting information such as objectively-
quantified investment
choices and client-specific reports to the client and/or trusted advisor),
etc.
The decision-assistance platform 108 accesses and/or is provided information
about,
for example, the client (e.g., the client's life circumstances, 'investment
preferences, financial
position, financial goals, risk tolerances, etc.), decision basis information
(including, without
limitation, asset allocation technology and rule set), investment performance
information
(both with regard to all available product choices and client-specific,
historic performance
information) and document format template information for performing
associated decision
assistance functionality. In one embodiment, information utilized in carrying
out decision
assistance functionality as disclosed herein (e.g., manually and/or by a
decision assistance
platform) is stored in and accessible from one or more databases. Examples of
decision
assistance functionality, as discussed below in greater detail, include
inputting, compiling
and/or determining information comprised by a client-specific template and
determining
client-specific consulting information (e.g., determining client-specific
investment choices) at
least partially dependent upon decision basis information. Examples of such
decision basis
information include information relating to prescribed decision-making rules,
information
relating to investment effect selection and information relating to
correlating investments
opportunities to client financial needs, desires and/or goals. Examples of
investment
performance information include information associated with returns on an
investment,
information associated with risk of an investment, information associated with
other
performance and structural characteristics of an investment (e.g., manager
tenure, turnover
ratio, internal fee/cost structures, etc.) and information associated with
compiling
comparative analyses of performance and structural data. Examples of document
format
11
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
information include information associated with formatting prescribed
documents, content
included within prescribed documents and information associated with
outputting
information related to making investment choices (e.g., creating a printed
document including
such information and/or displaying such information). Decision basis
information,
investment performance information, and document format information are
examples of
client-specific consulting information in view of a particular client and
facilitating decision
assistance functionality in accordance with the inventive disclosures made
herein.
In accordance with at least one embodiment of the inventive disclosures made
herein,
decision assistance functionality disclosed herein is carried out by a
decision assistance
platform that comprises a first decision engine (e.g., a rules-based expert
system) and a
second decision engine (e.g., a investment selection optimization system). The
first decision
engine facilitates creation of a client-specific template that represents a
client-specific profile
comprising various information (e.g., rules, data sets, processing
instructions, perforniance
criteria, etc). Examples of such information comprised by the client-specific
template include
performance weightings and factors (e.g., parameters corresponding to
investment effects
desired by the client), defined data and/or datasets, logic conditional
filters for designating
manipulation (e.g., refining/slimming datasets) of datasets, and processing
instructions. The
processing instructions represent information that enables tasks such as
proper utilization of
factors, weightings and filters to be facilitated, that enables document
assembly functionality
to be facilitated (e.g., automated report generation) and information related
to recursive
analysis/assessment of investment information. Information comprised by the
client-
specific template is utilized by the second decision engine to facilitate
scoring and ranking
processes for optimizing investment selection (i.e., generating investment
choices) in a
manner consistent with a client's individual needs, goals and desires. Such
instructions
include information relating to appropriate percentage allocation of
investments among
available asset classes (i.e., the asset allocation), to appropriate blending
of performance
factors and/or to appropriate weighting of such factors. The scoring and
ranking processes
includes enabling assessment of investment choices in a manner that is
intended to aid a
client in identifying which money management teams have historic performance
that most
closely matches the investment experiences that the client desires (i.e., what
investment effect
the client desires).
12
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
It is disclosed herein that a person may perform, in a manual fashion, certain
decision
assistance functionality disclosed herein as being facilitated by the decision
assistance
platform rather than such functionality being performed by the decision
assistance platform.
In one example, functionality of disclosed herein as being facilitated by the
first decision
engine of the decision assistance platform is at least partially facilitated
by a person in a
manual manner and resulting information is subsequently made available to the
decision
assistance platform for enabling functionality of the decision assistance
platform to be
facilitated (e.g., functionality facilitated by the second decision engine of
the decision
assistance platform). In one specific example, client-specific template
information is at least
partially generated in a manual manner rather than by a decision engine of the
decision
assistance platform
FIGS. 2A and 2B depict a method 200 for facilitating financial consulting
services in
accordance with embodiments of the disclosures herein and in view of the
information flow
schematic 100 depicted in FIG. 1. An operation 202 is performed for obtaining
client
background information, such as in response to a meeting with the financial
services client.
After obtaining the client background information, an operation 204 is
performed for
inputting relevant and/or required client background information into a
decision assistance
platform. Inputting such information is an embodiment of enabling access of
such
information.
In response to inputting the client financial objectives, the decision
assistance
platform performs an operation 206 for determining investment choices (e.g.,
an appropriate
asset allocation) that correspond to the client financial objectives. After
determining the
investment choices (e.g., asset allocation), the decision-assistance platform
performs an
operation 208 for determining an objective ranking (i.e., an objective
quantification) of the
computed investment choices (i.e., an operation that objectively scores and
ranks, in a
manner specific to that client, all available investment choices within the
various asset classes
of investment choices computed in operation 206), thereby producing
objectively ranked
investment choices. In at least one embodiment of the inventive disclosures
made herein,
determining the objective ranking includes objectively and client-specifically
determining a
performance score (discussed below in greater detail) for each of the
investment choices and
ranking the investment choices dependent upon information derived from the
client-specific
-13
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
performance scores.
In one embodiment, determining the investment choices includes applying a
logic
conditional filter to at least one of potentially many performance and
structural factors
expressed as numeric information, alphanumerical information and/or date
information. For
example, such a conditional filter is used for omitting funds that are closed
(i.e., not accepting
investments from new investors), or that have other structural or situational
characteristics
(i.e., factors) that are not desired or appropriate (e.g., investment amount
exceeds an
investment amount prescribed) for a client. In one embodiment, determining
investment
choices includes determining the investment choices dependent upon information
derived
from different aspects of the client-specific template (i.e., different client-
specific template
information). Such determining is, in at least one embodiment of the inventive
disclosures
made herein, performed by a first decision engine of the decision-assistance
platform,
whereby resulting information compiled by the first decision engine is
subsequently provided
to the second decision engine of the decision-engine platform, thus enabling a
scoring and
ranking process to be carried out by the second decision engine. In one
embodiment, the
client-specific template include one or more of potentially many filters and
weightings, with
one or more of the filters and weightings being applied to performance factor
information,
client information, investment opportunity information, and/or investment
performance
information.
After determining the objective ranking, the decision assistance platform
performs an
operation 210 for providing client-specific consulting information (e.g.,
investment choices,
objective quantification thereof, etc). In one embodiment, such providing the
client-specific
consulting information includes preparing and outputting a client-specific
investment report
by a document assembly engine of the decision-assistance platform. In another
embodiment,
such providing the client-specific consulting information includes visually
displaying such
information. Ion stall another embodiment, such providing includes making such
information
accessible for related operations (not necessarily or specifically shown) of
the method 200.
Accordingly, it is disclosed herein that the decision assistance platform is
preferably
configured for preparation and output of information as printed and/or
electronic documents
(i.e., reports that are configured for being printed and/or electronically
displayed).
14
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
A client-specific investment report as disclosed herein documents client-
specific
consulting information such as objectively ranked investment choices. Such
client-specific
consulting information (e.g., objectively ranked investment choices) is,
preferably, presented
in view of multiple variables that are dependent upon information derived from
the financial
objectives of the client. For example, various scenarios of investment choices
may be
presented that are dependent upon information derived from a plurality of
desired investment
effects and related computed performance scores. Such investment effects are
dependent
upon information derived from performance criteria. Broadly, performance
criteria in
accordance with the inventive disclosures made herein include criteria
relating to return, risk,
associated industry-prescribed asset classes, investment effect rules and
correlating
investments opportunities to client expectations. Specific examples of
performance criteria
and their related performance factors are depicted below in Table 1. Detailed
information
defining such performance criteria and their related performance factors are
not discussed in
detail, but would be understood by a person skilled in the related art (e.g.,
financial systems
and methodologies).
Performance Criteria Related Performance Factors
Annualized Return N-Year Return, N-Year Average Return
Annualized Standard Deviation N Year Standard Deviation
Index Index Score, Composite Index Score
Yield N-Year Yield
Beta N-Year Beta
Market Capitalization Average Market Capitalization
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
Sharpe Ratio N-Year Sharpe Ratio
Turnover Ratio N-Year Turnover Ratio
Treynor Ratio N-Year Treynor Ratio
TABLE 1- Performance Criteria and related Performance Factors
In at least one embodiment of the client-specific investment report, the
client-specific
investment report includes charts and tables depicting investment allocation
among various
asset classes, statistical/historical performance of investment choices within
various asset
classes, distribution of composite performance scores for such investment
choices, and client-
specific scoring and ranking of such investment choices. In at least one
embodiment, the
client-specific investment report includes a client-specific assessment of
available investment
alternatives dependent upon information derived from an assessment of such
available
investment alternatives.
After reviewing the client-specific consulting information, the trusted
advisor and/or
the financial services consultant (in consultation with the client) may
facilitate an operation
212 for revising decision criteria upon which the objective ranking of
investment choices is
based. Such revisions include revisions to performance criteria (e.g., factor
selections and
weightings) and modifying/clarifying information associated with client
financial objectives.
In response to the trusted advisor and/or the financial services consultant
revising any of the
decision criteria, the method precedes at the operation 206 for determining
investment
choices an objective-ranking (i.e., operation 208) dependent upon information
derived from
the revised criteria. In response to neither the trusted advisor nor the
financial services
consultant revising any of the decision criteria, the method continues at an
operation 214 for
facilitating delivery of the client-specific consulting information (e.g., in
the form of a client-
specific investment report) to the financial services client (e.g., the
trusted advisor initiating
electronic submission of the information by the decision assistance platform
or the trusted
advisor personally facilitating presentation of the information). After the
financial services
16
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
client selects one or more investment choices into which funds are to be
allocated (e.g., after
consultation with the trusted adviser), an operation 216 is performed (e.g.,
by the trusted
advisor or financial services client) for inputting the selected investment
choices into the
decision assistance platform. Once funds are allocated, the selected
investment choices
represent an investment portfolio of the financial services client.
Periodically (e.g., quarterly), an operation 218 is performed via the decision-
assistance platform for facilitating a comparative performance assessment of
the investment
portfolio, thereby generating periodic performance information (i.e., client-
specific decision
information). As discussed below in greater detail, the comparative
performance assessment
provides information for qualitatively and objectively assessing selected
investment choices.
After facilitating the comparative performance assessment of the investment
portfolio, the
decision assistance platform performs an operation 220 for providing such
client-specific
decision information for subsequent operations. One example of enabling such
subsequent
operations includes outputting of a periodic performance report comprising
such periodic
performance information at the request of the trusted adviser. In one
embodiment, the
periodic performance report is prepared and outputted by a document assembly
engine of the
decision-assistance platform. After performing the operation 220 for providing
such client-
specific decision information, the trusted advisor performs an operation 222
for facilitating
providing such information for review by the financial services client.
Preferably, a decision assistance platform as disclosed herein plays no role
between
the trusted advisor and the financial services client. However, in other
embodiments, a
decision assistance platform as disclosed herein does play a role between the
trusted advisor
and the financial services client. For example, the decision assistance
platform may facilitate
compilation of information directly from the financial services client or may
provide
investment choice information directly to the financial services client.
FIG. 3 depicts an embodiment of the operation 206 for determining the
investment
choices. An operation 230 is performed by a performance criteria decision
engine (i.e., a first
decision engine) of the decision-assistance platform for accessing client
background
information and an operation 232 is performed by the performance criteria
decision engine
for accessing decision basis information. In one embodiment, client background
information
17
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
and decision basis information are accessed from one or more databases by the
performance
criteria decision engine.
In response to the client background information and the decision basis
information
being accessed, an operation 234 is performed via the performance criteria
decision engine
for determining corresponding performance criteria (e.g., investment effect
parameters).
Examples of the corresponding investment effect parameters include parameters
associated
with risk of an investment, parameters associated with return on an
investmcnt, parameters
associated with other structural and performance aspects of an investment,
various investment
allocation rules and parameters associated with correlating investment
opportunities to client
financial expectations. In at least one embodiment, the category of investment
effect
parameters includes investment allocation parameters. The performance criteria
decision
engine performs an operation 236 for deterrnining performance-weighting
factors dependent
upon information derived from the investment effect parameters in response to
determining
the investment effect parameters. For example, a performance factor weighting
of .80 and
~
.20 may be used to compute and apply performance factors for risk minimization
and return
maximization, respectively. The .80/.20 performance factor weighting ratio
would
correspond to a situation in which the client financial objectives indicate
that the client is far
more concerned with risk minimization than return maximization.
After determining the performance factor weightings, an investment choice
decision
engine (i.e. a second decision engine) of the decision-assistance platform
performs an
operation 238 for accessing investment performance information (e.g., risk,
return, and other
structural and performance information), followed by the investment choice
decision engine
performing an operation 240 for determining investment choices dependent upon
the client's
individual investment needs, desires and/or goals. Preferably, the respective
decision engines
facilitate determining the performance selection and weighting factors,
determining
investment effect parameters, and determining an objective scoring and ranking
of available
investment choices without human intervention during the respective
computation operations.
It is disclosed herein that functionality (e.g., operations) facilitated by
the
performance criteria decision engine (i.e., a first decision engine) of the
decision-assistance
platform may alternatively be facilitated manually by a person, rather than by
the
18
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
performance criteria decision engine. In such an embodiment, resulting
information from the
manually facilitated functionality is subsequently made available to the
investment choice
decision engine for enabling functionality of the investment choice decision
engine to be
facilitated.
FIG. 4 depicts an embodiment of the operation 218 for performing the
comparative
performance assessment of the investment portfolio. An operation 260 is
performed for
determining portfolio investments (i.e., the investment choices that presently
comprise the
client's portfolio). In response to determining the portfolio investments, an
operation 262 is
performed for determining a corresponding investment performance score for
each of the
portfolio's individual investments and an operation 264 is performed for
determining a
corresponding composite investment performance score. The composite investment
performance score is a composite score that represents an overall performance
of all of the
individual portfolio investments.
After the portfolio investments are determined, an operation 266 is performed
for
determining comparison investment indices corresponding to each one of the
portfolio
investments. The comparison investment indices are those indices that suitably
correspond to
each of the portfolio investments (e.g., within a corresponding asset class,
exhibiting
corresponding performance factors, etc). In response to determining the
comparison
investment indices, an operation 268 is performed for determining a
corresponding
investment index performance score for each of the comparison investment
indices and an
operation 270 is performed for determining a corresponding composite
investment index
performance score. The composite investment index performance score is a
composite score
that represents an overall performance of all of the individual investment
indices. These
individual and composite investment index performance scores are computed in
the same
manner (i.e., using the same performance factors and the same performance
factor
weightings) as is used in operations 262 and 264 described above. After
determining the
various performance scores, the operation 220 (FIG. 213) is performed for
providing such
information for associated operations (e.g., for printing and/or displaying
such periodic
performance information).
It is contemplated that determining the composite investment index performance
score
19
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
may include combining the respective investment index indices dependent upon
information
derived from actual allocations of funds within the corresponding investment
portfolio and/or
upon at least one of criteria relating to risk and criteria relating to
return. Similarly, it is
contemplated that determining the composite investment performance score may
include
combining the respective portfolio investments dependent upon information
derived from
actual allocations of funds within the corresponding investment portfolio
and/or upon at least
one of criteria relating to risk and criteria relating to return. Furthermore,
it is disclosed
herein that a decision engine system of the decision assistance platform
and/or a document
assembly engine of the decision assistance platform may perform the
functionality of the
operation steps of 218 for perforniing the comparative performance assessment
of the
investment portfolio.
Accordingly, scoring and ranking of all available investment choices within
each asset
class within the client's portfolio is performed. The scoring and ranking is
performed using
the same performance parameters and parameter weightings used in the original
scoring and
ranking analysis used by the client to select the clients investment choices.
The various
related investment indices are scored and ranked in exactly the same manner as
~ the
investment choices within the asset class for which a particular index is
relevant: The scoring
process produces a composite numerical score for each of the client's
investment choices, all
other available (yet unchosen) investment choices, and the relevant indices.
These numeric scores, when used to sort the results of the scoring (e.g., from
the
highest composite score to the lowest composite score), effectively and
quantitatively
compare all investment choices with each asset class (both chosen and
unchosen) as well as
the relevant indices. The highest scoring and, therefore, the highest 'ranking
of the choices
are those whose blended composite score (i.e., the score resulting from the
blending of all of
the individually weighted performance factors used in the scoring process)
indicate those
choices that the historic performance which most closely matches the
investment
performance desired by the client for a particular asset class being evaluated
(i.e., the
performance desired of that asset class, which was the reason for the
inclusion of that asset
class in the portfolio).
It is disclosed herein that the investment indices may correspond to asset
classes
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
corresponding to the individual portfolio investments. In such case, it is
contemplated that
performing the comparative performance assessment is performed between
allocated
investment (i.e., those selected investment choices that are funded) and a
plurality of non-
allocated investments represented by the asset class (i.e., all or a portion
of the investment
choices that were not selected for being funded).
FIG. 5 is a chart 300 depicting a graphical representation of performance
scores that
are depicted in view of corresponding asset classes 301. In one example, the
chart 300 is
comprised by a periodic performance report. The composite performance score
302 for each
one of the asset classes 303 within the portfolio is depicted by a first
configuration of
graphical indicia (e.g., a corresponding horizontal bar of a first color).
Depicted in
association with individual managers and/or funds 304 is a composite score
305. The
performance score 306 of each one of the investment indices 308 is depicted by
a second
configuration of graphical indicia (e.g., a discrete symbol of a first color)
superimposed over
the first configuration of graphical indicia. The composite investment
performance score 310
is depicted by a third configuration of graphical indicia ((e.g., a
corresponding vertical bar of
a second color). The composite index score 312 is depicted by a fourth
configuration of
graphical indicia (e.g., a triangle) superimposed over the third configuration
of graphical
indicia. In this manner, the selected investment choices of the financial
services client are
graphically compared to appropriate benchmarks.
The chart 300 of FIG. 5 is configured to provide a summary of portfolio
performance,
using bar graphs to represent scores resulting from an assessment of the
individual funds
comprising the portfolio as well as the portfolio as a whole. The chart 300
provides a means
for measuring overall portfolio performance, by comparing the "Composite
Portfolio" score
(i.e., the bar adjacent to the term "Composite") with the "Composite Index"
score (i.e., the
triangle superimposed on the bar adjacent to the term Composite). As depicted,
the
composite portfolio bar extends beyond the location of the composite index
triangle. The
positive differential indicated that the Composite Portfolio is outperforming
the Composite
Index in meeting stated performance goals. The chart 300 similarly,depicts the
performance
of individual portfolio investments in relation to individual composite index
components.
The graphical representation of the composite index score 310 is proportional
to a
21
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
blended score (i.e., discussed in the following paragraph in greater detail)
of the portfolio and
is positioned along a performance scale 311 such that its score can be
compared to the
composite index score 312 of the investment portfolio as a whole. The
performance scale
311 serves as a means for measuring performance (e.g., scores) based on
relative position of
graphical representations depicting such scores. The graphical representation
of each asset
class performance score 302 is proportional to the composite score of
individual fund (or
manager) and is positioned the performance scale 311 such that its each
performance score
302 can be compared to its fund's relevant index score 306. The graphical
representation of a
fund's relevant composite score index score 306 represents the performance of
the respective
fund.
The composite performance scores 302 for each individual fund and related
asset
class 303 provide a summary of the performance assessment performed on each of
the
portfolios asset classes. Additionally, blending of the performance scores of
the individual
funds held is used in determining the composite investment performance score
310. The
scores of relevant indices 308 are similarly blended and used in determining
the composite
index score 312. In one embodiment, such blending is accomplished by using
current
market value of individual manager's holdings and the proportional percentage
of those
holdings with respect to the total value of the portfolio. For example, in an
instance where
the value of the manager's holdings were $5,000,000 and the total portfolio
value were
$100,000,000, 5% of the composite portfolio score 302 would be attributed to
the composite
investment score of that manager. Furthermore, the same proportion of 5% would
apply to
the manager's relevant index score and the blending determination of the
composite index
score.
Performance of a fund and its manager is typically considered within the
context of a
specific performance factor. For example, 5-year average return could be
sorted to find out
which manager had the highest return over a five-year period. However, when
multiple
performance factors (i.e., performance criteria used for decision making
purposes) are used
simultaneously to evaluate a manager's performance, the combining of each
factor's
performance is done in a manner that produces a composite score that can be
used to evaluate
the manager's/fund's overall performance. Once multiple performance criteria
(which are
functionally used as decision criteria) are selected, individual weightings
can be assigned to
22
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
each of the performance criteria so that the overall manager performance can
be defined to
the specific performance and decision requirements (e.g., needs, goals, risk
tolerances, etc) of
the investor (i.e., the financial services client). Having a visual
representation of how
weighted performance criteria impact the composite scores is useful for
quickly identifying
which decision criteria are having the most impact on the composite scores.
The chart 314 of FIG. 6A and the table 316 of FIG. 6B jointly depict an
alternate
embodiment for presenting the information depicted in the chart 300 of FIG. 5.
While
essentially the same information is presented in FIG. 5 as jointly depicted in
FIGS. 6A and
6B, presentation in accordance with the chart of FIG. 5 is advantageous in
that it allows a
greater volume of information to be presented in a given amount of space
(i.e., with respect to
the presentation approach of FIGS. 6A and 6B).
It is disclosed herein that the charts depicted in FIGS. 5, 6A and 6B are
examples of
inforniation configured for enabling objective and comparative assessment of
investment
choices to be made by an investor/financial services client. It is also
disclosed herein that
operations and/or approaches for generating all or a portion of the
information comprised by
the charts depicted in FIGS. 5, 6A and 6B are examples of assessing such
information and/or
enabling comparative assessment of such information.
FIG. 7 depicts a table 325 having a plurality of multi-segment bars 327 (e.g.,
bars
with different color segments) that each graphically represents a
corresponding composite
score. The lengths of each multi-segment bar 327 is proportional to its
corresponding
composite score 329 and, for comparison purposes, relative to all of the
composite scores
shown. The various segments 330 of each bar 327 represent the relative
performance of the
corresponding weighted performance criteria. The length of each segment 330
represents a
performance criteria's weighted performance, as compared against a group of
its peers within
the same asset class. Longer segments proportionally represent a larger impact
on the
composite score. The order of the segments of each bar match the display order
of the
performance criteria labels 331 (e.g., 5-year return) in the header section of
the table 325.
However, in certain instances, a particular segment of a particular bar will
not be depicted,
representing that a manager is either missing data for the corresponding
performance criteria
or that a combination of minimal weighting and/or poor performance has cause
that
23
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
performance criteria to have little to no impact on the corresponding
composite score.
Relative performance of performance criteria (i.e., criteria utilized for
making
investment decisions) in accordance with the inventive disclosures made herein
may be
assessed relative to one or more points of reference. Relative performance of
decision
criteria against all peers is a first point of reference. For example,
comparing the length of
the 5-Year Average Return segments in the Table 325 of FIG. 7 indicates
roughly a 35%
difference in length favoring the top rated manager, which is translated to
same difference in
performance as it relates to its peer group. Performance as it relates to the
peer group is
calculated using a scale of 5-Year Average Return values. All of the
performance criteria's
peers define this scale and each performance score is applied to that scale to
find it's relative
rank within the group. Because the graphical representation of performance
takes each '
performance criteria's scale into consideration, it is useful for comparing
performance of
performance criteria scores quickly. Thus, large differences in performance
between
managers can be identified easily.
Relative performance of the performance criteria as it relates to the
composite
performance score is a second point of reference. Performance criteria
weightings are not
mentioned when evaluating the relative performance of performance criteria
relative to all
bears. This is because the weighting assigned to each performance criteria is
applied equally
to the group of peers. However, the weightings assigned to each performance
criteria directly
influence determination of the composite score. For example, comparing the
length of all the
segments for the top manager shows that the majority of the weighting has been
placed on the
5-Year Return and 5-Year Standard Deviation. For this example, 80% of the
weighting is
placed on the combination of those two performance criteria, which means that
on a
composite scoring scale of 0 to 10, these two performance criteria can add as
much as 8
points to the composite score. Unlike the 5-Year performance criteria, the
combined
weightings of the 3-Year Return and 3-Year Standard Deviation are only
weighted at 17.5%,
which can add as much as 1.75 points to the composite score. The weighting
assigned to
each performance criteria acts as a multiplier that defines the maximum impact
that the
performance criteria can have one the composite score and also the maximum
length of the
corresponding segment of the bar in Table 2. The effect of the weighting can
be seen easily
by comparing the sizes of the 5-Year performance criteria to the 3-Year
performance criteria.
24
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
FIG. 8A depicts an embodiment of a weighting approach 335 for facilitating a
performance assessment in accordance with the inventive disclosures made
herein. The
weighting approach 335 depicts a manner in which a performance assessment of
managers is
performed within each of the asset classes and shows a relationship of
performance
characteristics and performance criteria that have been used. The multi-
segment vertical bar,
.
337 depicts a grouping of performance criteria 339 used in the assessment and
the degree of
influence (i.e., weighting) assigned to each. Each one of the performance
criteria 339 of the
vertical bar 337 has one or more subtending performance factors 341 associated
therewith.
The performance factors 341 that relate to common performance criteria 339
subtend from
that particular performance criteria 339, thus producing groupings of
performance factors in
some instances.
Weightings are individually assigned to the performance factors 341 and
indicate how
much influence each of the performance factors 341 has within its group.
Increasing any one
performance factor's weighting within a group results in a corresponding
degrease in the
weighting assigned to the one or more other performance factors in the group.
In effect, the
sum of all of the performance factor weightings within a group must always sum
to 100%.
The same applies to the sum of all of the weightings applied to the
performance criteria 339
from which all of the performance factors 341 subtend.
Weighting of the various performance criteria 339 and performance factors 341
influence performance scores referred to herein. Specifically, each grouping
of performance
scores has a direct effect on a performance score. Because a 50% weighting has
been applied
to one of the performance criteria 339, that performance criteria will control
50% of a
performance scale (e.g., 5 points of the 10-point scale). The individual
performance factors
341 subtending from each performance criteria 339 have an indirect affect upon
the
performance score. That indirect affect is determined by multiplying the
weight assigned to
that performance factor 341 and the weight of the performance criteria 339
from which it
subtends.
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
FIGS. 8B and 8C depict an embodiment of a hierarchical weightings structure
that
represents an approach for utilizing the weightings for determining
performance scores. In
effect, the weighting structure depicted in FIGS. 8B and 8C and the weighting
approach 330
depicted in FIG. 8A accomplish the same objective and produce the same type of
information. The difference is simply a matter of presentation.
The hierarchical structure includes a tree structure 350 where nodes 352 of
the tree
structure 350 are either classes or performance factors (depicted as `factor'
in FIGS. 8B and
8C). The tree structure 350 serves to distribute weightings to the performance
factors. The
weightings assigned to the performance factors define the potential impact
that a performance
factor may have on the scoring and ranking performed during an assessment
(e.g., the
comparative performance assessment discussed above) of investment information.
Performance factors are the `leaves' of the tree and correspond directly to
the
performance data recorded in a corresponding dataset (i.e., investment
performance
information). Performance factors are always an end node 354 of any branch in
the tree 350.
As depicted in FIG. 813, `Class 1A' is a parent class node to `Factor 2'
(i.e., a child class
node to `Class lA'), it is itself a child class node to `Class 1' (i.e., the
parent class node of
`Class lA') and it is a sibling class node to `Factor 1' and `Class 1B' (i.e.,
the sibling class
nodes of `Class 1A').
Classes are a group of performance factors or some combination of performance
factors and classes. Only classes may be parent class nodes, but they can also
be child class
nodes or sibling class nodes. Factors may never be parent class nodes, and may
only be child
class nodes or sibling class nodes. Nodes on the same hierarchal level that
are assigned to the
same parent class node, will add up to 100%. Or, if they do not add to 100%,
they are
reduced to sum up to 100% while maintaining the weighting relationship between
the
assigned performance factors and classes. The performance factors that are
assigned to
classes are typically similar or share some common theme. The purpose of the
classes is to
have a way to influence the relative weightings of all the subtending classes
and performance
factors that have a relationship to a parent class.
26
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
All nodes 352 within the tree 350 have an assigned and/or a calculated weight.
These
weights can be assigned via a template, by manual entry or, though some other
type of
decision process (e.g., that of the performance criteria decision engine
disclosed herein). It is
necessary to normalize the weightings of all of the nodes 352 to 100%, so that
their
weightings are relative to subtending parent class nodes. Once normalized into
a relative
weighting, an actual weighting can be calculated for each of the class nodes.
As depicted in FIG. 8C, actual weights are calculated based on the relative
weightings
of the nodes 352 in the weightings hierarchy. Actual weightings influence the
scoring and
ranking that takes place during an assessment of investment information. Each
nodes relative
weight is multiplied by the actual weight of its parent node, which produces
the actual weight
of each one of the nodes 352. The hierarchy is processed from the highest node
in the tree
350 to the lowest nodes in the tree, because the actual weight of parent class
nodes is required
to,calculate the actual weight of its children (i.e., child class nodes). The
actual weightings
are then applied to investment performance data to generate a corresponding
factor
performance score. These individual factor performance scores are then
combined to
produce a composite performance score.
Using a hierarchical weighting structure is advantageous in that it enables
the effect of
different weighting scales to be blended. Blending such scales through the use
of weighting
allows evaluation of performance factor values using various different scoring
methods. For
example, though such blending, blended investment index performance scores and
a
corresponding blended composite investment index performance score may be
computed. As
depicted in FIG. 8C, blended tree fragments 355 represent a plurality of
performance factor
weightings that sum to the weighting of a respective parent node 356.
FIG. 9 depicts a network system 400 (i.e., a data processing system)
configured for
facilitating financial consulting services functionality in accordance with
embodiments of the
inventive disclosures made herein. The system 400 includes a decision-
assistance platform
402, a network interface device 404 coupled to the decision-assistance
platform 402, a
network system 406 coupled to the network interface device 404. The decision
assistance
platform 402 comprises a database structure 407 accessible by the decision-
assistance
27
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
platform 402. Accordingly, communication of information between the decision-
assistance
platform 402 and other entities (e.g., a computer of a client, a computer of a
financial services
consultant, a computer capable of downloading investment performance
information, etc) is
enabled and accessibility of information required for carrying out such
financial consulting
services functionality is enabled (e.g., via accessing a website from which
such functionality
is accessible).
The decision-assistance platform 402 includes a performance criteria decision
engine
408 (i.e., a first decision engine), an investment choice decision engine 410
(i.e., a second
decision engine) and a document assembly engine 412. The performance criteria
decision
engine 408 is an example of a means for carrying out performance weighting
factor
computation functionality as disclosed herein. Such computation of performance
weighting
factors may include information comprised by the client-specific template
(e.g., logic
conditional filters and/or processing instructions).
In at least one embodiment of the inventive disclosures made herein, the first
decision
engine is configured for facilitating initial allocation functionality (e.g.,
facilitating
appropriate client-specific allocations of investments and investment effect
parameters). The
investment choice decision engine 410 is an example of a means for carrying
out comparative
scoring and ranking (i.e., quantification) of investment choices computation
functionality as
disclosed herein. A decision engine system of a decision assistance platform
is defined
herein to comprise the performance criteria decision engine and the investment
choice
decision engine. The document assembly engine 412 is an example of a means for
carrying
out document preparation/outputting functionality as disclosed herein. It is
contemplated that
the various engines may be physically embodied as separate or fully integrated
software/hardware modules.
The database structure 407 includes a decision information database (which may
include rules set) 414, an investment performance information database 416,
and a client
information and document layout information database 418. In at least one
other
embodiment, separate client information and document layout information
databases are
provided. Information (e.g., rules) upon which the decision assistance
platform 402 is
dependent for carrying out performance criteria decision functionality as
disclosed herein is
28
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
maintained in the decision information database 414. Information upon which
the decision
assistance platform 402 is dependent for carrying out scoring and ranking
computation
functionality (i.e., of investment choices) as disclosed herein is maintained
in the investment
performance information database 416. Informatioin upon which the decision
assistance
platform 402 is dependent for carrying out document preparation/outputting
functionality as
disclosed herein is maintained in the client information and document layout
information
database 418.
It is disclosed herein that, in at least one embodiment of the inventive
disclosures
made herein, the decision assistance platform 402 is not a physically distinct
apparatus or
system. Rather, in such at least one embodiment, the decision assistance
platform 402 is a
functional platform comprised bX functionality imparted across a plurality of
systems or
system components (e.g., discrete functional blocks linked via a network
system).
Accordingly, it is disclosed herein that system elements configured for
imparting such
functioinality may be or may not be located at a common location and may or
may not reside
on a common computer.
It is disclosed herein that, in at least one embodiment of the inventive
disclosures
made herein, the decision assistance platform 402 comprises a single decision
engine (e.g., a
single data processing program) configured for facilitating all or a portion
of the functionality
of the 408, an investment choice decision engine 410 and a document assembly
engine 412.
In one example, a single decision engine program running on a suitable data
processing
system facilitates all or a portion of the functionality of the 408, an
investment choice
decision engine 410 and a document assembly engine 412 via a single data
processing
program. In another example, a single decision engine is fashioned to include
various
functional modules that interact to facilitate all or a portion of the
functionality of the 408, an
investment choice decision engine 410 and a document assembly engine 412.
Referring now to computer readable medium in accordance with embodiments of
the
inventive disclosures made herein, methods as disclosed herein are tangibly
embodied by
computer readable medium having instructions thereon for carrying out such
methods. In one
specific example, instructions are provided for carrying out the various
operations of the
method 100 depicted in FIGS. 2A and 2B for facilitating financial consulting
services. The
29
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
instructions may be accessible by the decision-assimance platform from a
memory apparatus
of the decision assistance platform (e.g. RAM, ROM, virtual memory, hard drive
memory,
etc), from an apparatus readable by a drive unit of the decision assistance
platform (e.g., a
diskette, a compact disk, a tape cartridge, etc) or both. Examples of computer
readable
medium include a compact disk or a hard drive, which has imaged thereon a
computer
program for carrying out financial consulting services functionality in
accordance with
embodiments of the inventive disclosures made herein.
Although the discussion of method and systems in accordance with embodiments
of
the inventive disclosures made herein have been presented thus far in view of
financial utility
to investors, it is contemplated that such methods and systems may be
configured specifically
for providing utility in the areas of commercial and residential lending,
venture capital
funding, investment banking services. Furthermore, it is contemplated that
such methods and
systems may be configured for providing utility beyond financial services.
Specifically,
embodiments of the decision-assistance platform functionality disclosed herein
may be
applied in applications other than financial services. Retail e-commerce
applications, market
research applications, human resource applications, dating services and raw
material
procurement are examples of such applications where an objective and unbiased
scoring and
ranking assessment of all available choices (i.e., within any universe of
choices, the
differences among them which may be quantified) functionality, consistent with
a client's (or
consumer's) individual needs, goals and/or desires, provided by the decision-
assistance
platform functionality are useful.
The inventive disclosures made herein relate to facilitating financial
consulting
services. Methods and equipment in accordance with embodiments of the
inventive
disclosures made herein are configured for enabling quantitatively ranked
investment choices
to be offered to clients by trusted advisers (e.g., attorneys, lawyers,
siblings, community
bankers, and the like) who are not necessarily professionals within the
traditional financial
services industry. The trusted advisor is thus armed with the knowledge to
coordinate all of
their clients' financial services needs, not as product salespeople, but in
their traditional role
as the providers of independent advice. In doing so, the client is provided
with an increased
level of trust with respect to the financial information being provided and
the person
providing the financial information.
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
Methods in accordance with embodiments of the inventive disclosures made
herein
and system configured for carrying out such methods provide trusted advisors
having access
to such methods (i.e., affiliated trusted advisors) with a proprietary support
arrangement
including a decision assistance platform. The proprietary decision assistance
platform
enables the affiliated trusted advisors to advise their clients and to
coordinate solutions to
their needs, outsourcing the responsibility of product research, comparative
assessment,
implementation and acquisition. This unique outsourcing structure creates
significant
efficiencies and allows affiliated trusted advisors to largely confine their
time to meeting with
and advising their clients, which is the most important and best use of their
time. It
eliminates the need to refer clients away to brokers, insurance agents, and
other product
salespeople, allowing the affiliated trusted advisor to retain a large portion
of revenues that
they have traditionally referred away to such brokers, agents and salespeople.
Furthermore, methods and systems in accordance with embodiments of the
inventive
disclosures made herein are designed to address a number of increasingly
important and
troubling trends that both consumers and professional advisory firms are now
facing. The
growing complexity and range of available choices is creating increasing
uncertainty and stress
among clients and their advisors (i.e., those individuals trying to help them
make informed
decisions with regard to product selection), and is increasing the need for
unbiased, trustworthy
advice. As the range of available choices continues to proliferate and as the
volume and
complexity of information about them continues to grow, many investors simply
do not have
the time to become knowledgeable about what their choices are, much less
having the time and
the ability to confidently choose from among them. In essence, many investors
no longer have
the time or individual ability to be able to discern what is truly "best" for
them and their
faniilies relative to investment choices.
With rapidly expanding access to an increasingly diverse array of financial
products
and service choices - as well as increasingly voluminous and complex
information about
such choices - consumers increasingly need help in objectively analyzing the
universe of
available investment choices in order to feel secure that they have done "the
best" for
themselves and their families. Embodiments of the inventive disclosures made
herein
provide solution to increasingly broad needs for objective, trustworthy
advice. The
significance of this solution will continue to grow in parallel with the
growth and
31
CA 02640068 2008-08-08
WO 2007/106060 PCT/US2006/005475
development of the knowledge-based economy and e-commerce. With proper
methodologies, training, technological tools and support, affiliated trusted
advisors who
already possess the greatest degree of client trust will be able to
successfully meet this
expanding client need for more broad ranging, objective advice with respect to
financial
products.
In the preceding detailed description, reference has been made to the
accompanying
drawings that form a part hereof, and in which are shown by way of
illustration specific
embodiments in which the invention may be practiced. These embodiments, and
certain
variants thereof, have been described in sufficient detail to enable those
skilled in the art to
practice the invention. It is to be understood that other suitable embodiments
may be utilized
and that logical, mechanical and electrical changes may be made without
departing from the
spirit or scope of the invention. For example, functional blocks shown in the
figures could be
further combined or divided in any manner without departing from the spirit or
scope of the
invention. To avoid unnecessary detail, the description omits certain
information known to
those skilled in the art. The preceding detailed description is, therefore,
not intended to be
limited to the,specific forms set forth herein, but on the contrary, it is
intended to cover such
alternatives, modifications, and equivalents, as can be reasonably included
within the spirit
and scope.of the appended claims.
32
