While financial planning has been increasingly engaged in public policy discussions through the Financial Planning Coalition, those interactions have still been largely "selfish" - i.e., pertaining to the regulation of financial planning and financial planners - and have not been regarding broader public policy issues, such as the general fiscal health of the country. On the one hand, it can be difficult for membership associations to take part in difficult public policy conversations when the common bond of membership is professional, and not political; in other words, there are both Republicans and Democrats amongst financial planners, and even if we all agree on the nature of the problem, we may strongly disagree about the appropriate solution, and advocating one path over another can alienate members. Nonetheless, it still seems to me that we could play a more active role, especially in today's environment, by utilizing the unique perspective of financial planning to help make major issues relevant at the personal level. Read More...
In the ongoing debate for the fiduciary standard, supporters of fiduciary have suggested that everyone in financial services should be subject to the standard, while those opposing have responded that consumers deserve a choice between fiduciary and suitability; in essence, they simply suggest that we should let consumers choose whatever method of financial services they prefer, and may be the best model win.
But to me, the choice presented is a false one: the real choice is not between fiduciary advice and suitable advice, the difference is between fiduciary advice from an advisor and suitable product sales from a broker. In other words, the real choice we should present to consumers is between advice and product sales, and the real goal of the planning profession should be to focus on who is and is not qualified to deliver advice, and really call themselves an advisor in the first place!Read More...
For most, the question of "minimums" in financial planning is a practice management issue from the firm's perspective: how much in fees must a client generate to be economically feasible, based on the firm's particular service model?
Yet as financial planning seeks to broaden its scope and serve more people, a question arises from the opposite side of the table: is there a certain amount of income or net worth necessary to even make financial planning advice useful to someone?
Is there such thing as having too little money, income, or wealth, for financial planning to even be a worthwhile thing to pay for in the first place? In other words, is there a minimum for a financial planning relationship, from the client's point of view, below which the prospective client just doesn't have enough income or assets for a financial planner's advice to be relevant?
In the nebulous space where financial services firms decide what to call themselves and how to hold themselves out to the public, there's not necessarily a very clear distinction between a "financial planning" firm and a "private wealth management" advisor. Often, the difference is little more than the perceived marketing distinction of the labels to certain target clients.
Nonetheless, there is some evidence to suggest that the services delivered to very high net worth clients can be quite different than those provided to the average American, and accordingly may require a different set of knowledge and skills to deliver effectively.
As a result, there is an effort underway to try to study the real differences between what it takes to be a successful financial planner versus a private wealth management advisor, in order to develop certification that is unique and appropriate to the distinct specialization.Read More...
Notwithstanding its risk and the painful volatility of the past decade, stock investing is still a cornerstone of financial planning advice. However, investing in equities - even just a little bit - is not for everyone. Some aren't interested in the risk; the trade-off just isn't worth it to them.
Of course, financial planning advice has much value to offer beyond just how to allocate an equity-centric portfolio. There's just one problem... financial planning advice may still be so equity-centric, that people who don't want to take investment risk just don't use a financial planner at all, as a recent Journal of Personal Finance revealed!Read More...
The membership of the Financial Planning Association has been declining for several years. After a peak of over 28,400 members in late 2002, the organization was largely flat for many years, still hailing at 27,805 members by the end of 2007. But the membership tumbled almost 15% from the end of 2007 through the end of 2009, and it is been largely flat at a base of approximately 23,600 members since then.
The FPA has suggested that its declining membership count is a result of its strong and passionate advocacy positions - in particular, its high Standard of Care and its positions on fiduciary financial planning - which have perhaps alienated some current/former/prospective members, but defends its positions (and their membership-limiting consequences) as being a necessary result of its mission to advance the financial planning profession.
Yet the question arises - if high standards of care and fiduciary financial planning are really at the heart of FPA's membership problem, then why is FPA membership declining even while the number of CFP certificants who are already committed to a comparable standard of care and fiduciary duty continues to rise!?Read More...
In recent years, the Financial Planning Coalition - comprised of representatives from the CFP Board, NAPFA, and the FPA - have been advocating together for a fiduciary standard in the delivery of financial services. Success, thus far, has been limited - their efforts for financial planning fiduciary regulation to be integrated into the Dodd-Frank legislation led to some mandated studies that do something to move the conversation forward, but the follow-up fiduciary standard that was to be implemented pursuant to those studies continues to lag. In the meantime, the Dodd-Frank results certainly fell far short of bona fide recognition of financial planning as a standalone profession.
Yet at the same time, the Certified Financial Planner designation continues to expand its base at the grass roots level, even while the total number of participants in financial services remains flat (or declining slightly) over the past decade.
Which raises the question: As an increasing number of financial advisors become CFP certificants voluntarily, is the CFP Board winning the fiduciary fight already, from the inside out?
The legacy that Steve Jobs left behind last week as he passed away has been truly astounding; an outpouring of emotion and tribute from the world that is rarely seen outside of the death of beloved religious or political figures, as so many were touched by the technology that he created. And at the same time, criticisms have emerged as well - painting Jobs as a relentless micromanager with an obsession for ensuring that everything was exactly as he envisioned it. Yet the outcome of his process seems clear - a melding of incredible vision, and the execution of that vision which created tools we didn't even know we wanted or needed and made them an irreplaceable part of our lives. Perhaps the most amazing part, though, was the sheer simplicity and intuitive nature of the technology; although the design of Apple devices pushed the limits of what we can build and create and were based on incredible complexity, the customer experience was unparalleled in its simplicity. Which leads me to wonder... what would financial planning look like if we were as obsessed about the client experience as Steve Jobs was?Read More...
Last month, the CFP Board released proposed changes to the CFP certification experience requirement in order to earn the CFP marks. This weekend the comment period closed; in this blog post, I share the feedback that I submitted. What do you think about the proposed changes?
Hanging prominently on the rear wall of the chambers of the Financial Services committee hearing room in the Rayburn House office building is a full-length, tastefully executed portrait of FINRA’s chief lobbyist. That would be Mike Oxley, the former chairman of that committee and a namesake of Sarbanes-Oxley fame during the congressional crackdown on the Enron accounting scandals. Oxley’s job: get his client some sweet new regulatory turf composed of 11,000 of the biggest investment adviser firms in the country before brokerage advice dries up in the marketplace. So far the pay is good -- $125,000 reported in the first half of 2011 -- and more where that came from.
