Enjoy the current installment of “weekend reading for financial planners” – this week’s edition kicks off with the big news that despite all the recent buzz, it appears that the SEC may be waiting nearly a year to release a final version of its Regulation Best Interest advice rule… but only because the Department of Labor may also be working in coordination with the SEC on its own version of an updated fiduciary rule as well. And also in the news this week is an announcement by the CFP Board that the organization is expanding its Mentor Match program, from what over the past two years was focused primarily on mentoring for young women entering financial planning (as part of its Women’s INitiative or WIN program), to be available to any CFP certificant instead.
From there, we have a number of additional articles on retirement planning, from a look at the rise of “financial freedom” and “financial independence” as an alternative to the traditional label and approach of “retirement,” to a fascinating look at the spectrum for total financial dependence to total financial independence (on a 17-step scale!), and the phenomenon of “microadventures” as a way to have more enjoyable vacation experiences even when you don’t have the time for an extended vacation (whether during your working years, or in “busy” retirement itself!).
We also have several practice management articles this week, including: an articulation of the key difference between being a manager and a leader; a different way to think about who your most “valuable” clients are (based not just on their revenue or referrals, but how much they value what you do as a financial planner in the first place, which makes them more likely to become your long-term advocates); why it may be better to ditch the Annual Review for As-Needed Reviews instead; and a look at ideas about how to name (or re-name) your advisory firm if you don’t want to simply name it after yourself as the lead advisor/owner.
We wrap up with three interesting articles, all around the theme of how to make better decisions: the first explores the so-called “distinction bias,” and how we tend to overweight and overvalue small differences (and misjudge how much we’ll really care about them in the future) when we compare objects side by side; the second looks at how delaying decisions tends to increase their stakes, so often the best way to make “easier” decisions is simply to proactively make more/faster small decisions instead; and the last looks at the growing base of research around decision-making itself, and how to better frame decisions for yourself with techniques like creating a “premortem” analysis or doing proactive scenario planning… or if you want to use the traditional “Pros and Cons” list, at least be certain to assign values or weights to them so that you give each factor its proper consideration!
Enjoy the “light” reading!