Relationships are Built to Last

Awards

In 2017, NCA Financial Planners was named to the Top 100 Independent Financial Advisors for the 10th consecutive year placing them in the esteemed group of Independent Advisory All-Stars.  NCA FInancial Planners in one of only 12 firms across the country and only in Ohio to be awarded this honor by Barron's Magazine.


 

TOP 100 INDEPENDENT FINANCIAL ADVISORS¹

2007-2017

 

 


 

TOP 1,200 ADVISORS BY STATE¹

2010-2017


 

AMERICA'S TOP 200 WEALTH ADVISORS²

2016-2017


 

TOP 400 FINANCIAL ADVISERS³

2013-2016


Barron’s “Top 100” Financial Advisors List and Barron’s “Top 1,200” Advisors by State
Source: Barron’s “America’s Top 100 Independent Financial Advisors,” September 15, 2017 and Barron’s “America’s Top 1,200 Financial Advisors,” March 4, 2017, respectively. Barron’s is a registered trademark of Dow Jones & Company, L.P. All rights reserved. Barron’s “America’s Top 100 Independent Financial Advisors” rankings are based on data provided by over 4,000 of the nation's most productive advisors. Factors included in the rankings: assets under management, revenue produced for the firm, regulatory record, quality of practice and philanthropic work. Investment performance isn't an explicit component because not all advisors have audited results and because performance figures often are influenced more by clients' risk tolerance than by an advisor's investment-picking abilities. A ranking of "N" denotes "not ranked that year". This ranking has been consistent since the list’s inception in 2010 to present day. “America’s Top 1,200 Financial Advisors” rankings are based on three general categories of factors: assets under management, his or her contribution to the firm’s revenues and profits, and indications of service quality. There are multiple factors and calculations in each of these categories. Investment performance is not a criterion, because clients’ investment goals vary widely. This ranking methodology has been consistent since the list’s inception in 2007 to present day.
Neither NCA nor any other participating advisers paid a fee to be eligible for the “America’s Top 100 Independent Financial Advisors” or “America’s Top 1,200 Financial Advisors” rankings. NCA is unaware of any undisclosed facts that could potentially invalidate the appropriateness of the rankings. By virtue of disclosing these rankings, NCA is disclosing favorable ratings (to the extent that NCA is ranked above other advisors) and unfavorable ratings (to the extent that NCA is ranked below other advisors). Barron’s does not publish, nor is NCA aware of the percentage of other advisers that received the applicable rankings. The rankings may not be representative of any one client’s experience because of the way in which it is calculated. The rankings are independently granted. The rankings are absolutely not indicative of NCA’s future performance, or any future performance pertaining to its clients’ investments. These rankings or any other rankings and/or recognition by unaffiliated rating services and/or publications should not be construed as a guarantee that a client will experience a certain level of results or satisfaction if NCA is engaged, nor should it be construed as a current or past endorsement by any of its clients. A copy of NCA’s current written disclosure statement discussing its advisory services and fees remains available upon request.
Additional information about Barron’s “America’s Top 100 Independent Financial Advisors” is available at the following link: http://www.barrons.com/report/top-financial-advisors?mod=BOL_Nav_TAD_hpp; and the ranking list itself is available at the following link: http://www.barrons.com/report/top-financial-advisors/independent/2017
Additional information about Barron’s “America’s Top 1,200 Financial Advisors” is available at the following link: http://www.barrons.com/report/top-financial-advisors?mod=BOL_Nav_TAD_hpp; and the ranking list itself is available at the following link: http://www.barrons.com/report/top-financial-advisors/1000/ohio/2017
Financial Times Top 400
Source: FT 400 Top Financial Advisers, March 30, 2017. Research for the award was conducted on behalf of the Financial Times by Ignites Research, a Financial Times sister publication (collectively, “FT”). The FT contacts the largest US brokerages to ask for practice information and data for their top advisers across the US. In doing so, they can obtain verified data on assets under management instead of relying on self-reporting by the advisers themselves. They asked for information on advisers with more than 10 years’ experience and that have more than $300m in assets under management. Such minimum criteria filters out most advisers. The FT then invite qualifying advisers out of this group to complete a short questionnaire that gives more information about their practices. They combine that information to their own research on the candidates, including data from regulatory filings.
The formula the FT uses to grade advisers is based on six broad factors and calculates a numeric score for each adviser (1) Assets under management: can signal experience managing money and client trust (2) AUM growth rate (look at both one-year and two-year growth rates): can be taken as a proxy for performance, asset retention and ability to generate new business. (3) Years of experience: indicates experience managing assets in different economic and interest-rate environments. (4) Compliance record: provides evidence of past client disputes. A string of complaints could signal problems. (5) Industry certifications (CFA, CFP, etc.): demonstrate technical and industry knowledge and obtaining these designations shows a professional commitment to investment skills. (6) Online accessibility: illustrates commitment to providing investors with easy access and transparent contact information.
Assets under management accounted for an average of 66% of each adviser’s score. Additionally, the FT places a cap on the number of advisers from any one state that roughly corresponds to the distribution of millionaires across the US. The FT 400 is presented as an elite group, not a competitive ranking. FT acknowledges that ranking the industry’s top advisers from 1 to 400 would be a futile exercise, since each takes different approaches to their practice and has different specializations.
The following are the subtle changes to the above criteria to the Financial Times Top 400 Financial Advisers across the 2013 to 2017 span:
Year:                                                                                                    2013      2014     2015     2016     2017
% of total score that assets under management is considered          80-85     80-85     65         66        66
Assets under management minimum requirement (in millions)          250         200       200       300      300
FT states "places a cap on the number of advisers from any one 
state that roughly corresponds to the distribution of millionaires across the US"                                            No         Yes       Yes       Yes       Yes
FT states "look at both one-year and two-year growth rates"              No         No         No        Yes       Yes


Neither NCA nor any other participating advisers paid a fee to be eligible for the Financial Times Top 400 ranking. NCA is unaware of any undisclosed facts that could potentially invalidate the appropriateness of the ranking. By virtue of disclosing this ranking, NCA is disclosing favorable ratings (to the extent that NCA
is ranked above other advisors) and unfavorable ratings (to the extent that NCA is ranked below other advisors). The ranking may not be representative of any one client’s experience because of the way in which it is calculated. The ranking is independently granted. The ranking is absolutely not indicative of NCA’s and its advisors’ future performance, or any future performance pertaining to its clients’ investments. This ranking or any other rankings and/or recognition by unaffiliated rating services and/or publications should not be construed as a guarantee that a client will experience a certain level of results or satisfaction if NCA is engaged, nor should it be construed as a current or past endorsement by any of its clients. A copy of NCA’s current written disclosure statement discussing its advisory services and fees remains available upon request.
Additional information about the methodology behind the Financial Times Top 400 ranking is available at the following link: https://www.ft.com/content/ff71fb00-e321-11e6-9645-c9357a75844a; and the ranking list itself is available at the following link: http://im.ft-static.com/content/images/21339400-1479-11e7-b0c1-37e417ee6c76.pdf
Forbes Top 250 Wealth Advisors
“Forbes” is a registered mark of Forbes LLC. Data for the Forbes “Top 250 Wealth Advisors” list is compiled by Forbes’ partners at “SHOOK™ Research, LLC.” is based on an algorithm of qualitative criteria, mostly gained through telephone and in-person due diligence interviews, and quantitative data. SHOOK scours the financial services industry— banks, brokerages, custodians, insurance companies, clearing houses and others for nominations. SHOOK accepts advisors who meet pre-determined minimum thresholds and acceptable compliance records. SHOOK invites a limited number of nominees to complete an online survey.
Basic Requirements include: (1) 7 years as an advisor (2) Minimum 1 year at current firm, with exceptions (acquisitions, etc.). (2) Advisor must be recommended, and nominated, by Firm. (3) Completion of online survey. (4) Over 50% of revenue/production must be with individuals. (5) Acceptable compliance record.
Additional quantitative requirements are the following: (1) Revenue/production; weightings assigned for each. (2) Assets under management—and quality of those assets—both custodied and a scrutinized look at assets held away. (Although individual numbers are used for ranking purposes, we publish the entire team's assets.) (3) Client-related data, such as retention. (4) Portfolio performance is not a factor; audited returns among advisors are rare, and differing client objectives provide varying returns.
Additional qualitative requirements are as follows: (1) Telephone and in-person meetings with advisors (if an in-person meeting cannot be accomplished, exceptions are considered in which the interview will occur after a ranking has been published). (2) Advisors that exhibit "best practices" within their practices and approach to working with clients. (only explicitly listed in 2017 criteria) (3) Compliance records & u4s. Some “dings” can be overlooked (e.g., firm or product failure beyond the scope of an advisor's due diligence; the older a ding, the less we look). Since there are many gray areas, the SHOOK team is willing to listen to a Firm that is willing to stand behind the advisor with written support from leadership. (4) Advisors that provide a full client experience of service model, investing process, fee structure (higher % of fee-based assets earns more points), and breadth of services, including extensive use of Firm’s
platform and resources (eg, liabilities) (5) Credentials (years of service can serve as proxy). (6) Use of team & team dynamics (7) Community involvement (8) Discussions with management, peers, competing peers (9) Telephone and in-person meetings
When using compliance issues to categorize, the following conditions will be considered in order to lessen weightings infractions: (1) Infractions that are denied or closed with no action. (2) Complaint arose from a product, service or advice initiated by a previous advisor or another member or former member of team. (3) Length of time since complaint. (4) Complaints related to product failure not related to investment advice (some limited partnerships, adjusted-rate securities, etc.). (5) Complaints that have been settled (must be proven) to appease a client who remained with the advisor for at least one year following settlement date. (6) Complaints that are proven to be meritless. (7) Actions taken as a result of administrative error or failure by firm. Once an advisor's compliance rating falls into a tenable category, an advisor's rating must be among SHOOK's highest qualitative measures including in-person interview and must consider letters of recommendation from firm.
The ranking algorithm is designed to fairly compare the business practices of a large group of advisors based on quantitative and qualitative elements. Data are weighted to ensure priorities are given to dynamics such as preferred “best practices”, business models, recent business activity, etc. Each variable is graded and represents a certain value for each measured component. These data are fed into an algorithm that measures thousands of advisors against each other.
Neither NCA nor any other participating advisers paid a fee to be eligible for the “Forbes Top 200 Wealth Advisors” ranking. NCA is unaware of any undisclosed facts that could potentially invalidate the appropriateness of the ranking. By virtue of disclosing this ranking, NCA is disclosing favorable ratings (to the extent that NCA is ranked above other advisors) and unfavorable ratings (to the extent that NCA is ranked below other advisors). The ranking may not be representative of any one client’s experience because of the way in which it is calculated. The ranking is independently granted. The ranking is absolutely not indicative of NCA’s and its advisors’ future performance, or any future performance pertaining to its clients’ investments. This ranking or any other rankings and/or recognition by unaffiliated rating services and/or publications should not be construed as a guarantee that a client will experience a certain level of results or satisfaction if NCA is engaged, nor should it be construed as a current or past endorsement by any of its clients. A copy of NCA’s current written disclosure statement discussing its advisory services and fees remains available upon request.
Additional information about the methodology behind the Forbes Top 200 Wealth Advisors ranking is available at the following link: https://www.forbes.com/sites/rjshook/2017/09/26/americas-top-wealth-advisors-methodology/#3a4a19124e13; and the ranking list itself is available at the following link: https://www.forbes.com/top-wealth-advisors/#7d0abd8d1a14