One of the most common complaints within the industry about the state of financial planning is that it is marred by so many practitioners who say they are financial advisors, but do not really do financial planning... or worse, do it badly, wrong, or outright deceitfully. Yet although so many planners state that they have come across such "bad" practitioners, virtually none state that they have ever reported a bad practitioner, either to regulatory authorities, or to the CFP Board if the individual holds the CFP marks but doesn't do financial planning "right." Yet how will the financial planning industry be cleaned up of its inappropriate practitioners if we do not take a part in it? So there's the question: what is - or should be - the responsibility of financial planners to report the wrong-doing of other people who hold themselves out to be financial planners?Read More...
As financial planning continues its path towards profession, the next major hurdle appears to be the application of the fiduciary standard to the delivery of financial planning advice. For many planners, though, the push for fiduciary is not just about advancing the profession; it's also about cleaning it up, and getting rid of all those people who say they do financial planning when they do not.
In other words, it's about carving out a protected space - as is done with most other professions - where only those who really do it can call themselves professionals, just as only licensed medical professionals can practice medicine, and it's illegal to conduct an unauthorized practice of law. And although establishing such barriers around a profession can also make it more financially rewarding in the long run for those who practice - part of the reason that doctors and lawyers are compensated well is that not just anyone can be one - it may actually have the opposite effect in the nearer term.
The bottom line: it's possible that putting a firm fiduciary legal standard into place could actually cause a dramatic increase in financial planning competition!Read More...
It has long been a criticism of financial planning that it is focused to far up the wealth scale. Financial planning firms at best only start serving the "mass affluent" (typically defined as $100,000 to $1 million in investment assets), and the elite independent firms often have minimums of one or several million dollars. The only exception is typically the younger high income earner, who may not have sufficient assets yet, but earns a few hundred thousand dollars a year, is accumulating assets quickly, and may need significant income tax planning support in the meantime. Yet the statistics show that the average American doesn't even have $100,000 in investment assets, and nearly half of Americans don't pay income taxes at all.
The response from planners is that it's just too difficult to serve clients at those lower wealth and income levels; the business model "doesn't work" and isn't viable/profitable. Yet perhaps the real reason is not that the business model is impossible to design, but simply because it's so hard to get a sufficient volume of clients, due to the sad reality that the value of financial planning hasn't been clearly defined to the public at large, and as a result it's very expensive to "sell" clients on financial planning when there's no real demand from them to "buy" it in the first place.Read More...
Unfortunately, there is no shortage of bad continuing education instructors. Whether it's a boring delivery, explanations that are either too simple or too complex, content that is never made to feel practical and useful, or something else, almost any CFP practitioner has probably gone through the experience recently.
And the challenge is perhaps especially acute in regards to Ethics CE, where many presentations are either dealing with very abstract ethics concepts or very narrow case situations that may not feel relevant, and the number of instructors is already very limited.
In response, the CFP Board has changed the requirements to be an eligible CFP Ethics CE instructor in the future, requiring all such instructors to have held the CFP certification for at least 5 years to be eligible, to ensure that the instructor has the experience to make Ethics CE relevant. The problem? This requirement still does nothing to ensure that the instructor is a good teacher who knows how to make the content relevant for an audience! Read More...
Every practitioner who has been in business for any period of time has had the experience: the continuing education session being attended is bad. Maybe the content is useless or irrelevant. Maybe it's too simple, or too complex. Perhaps the speaker is just a poor teacher, or an ineffective communicator. In some cases, the instructor doesn't even know the content as well as the people who are supposed to be learning more about it!
And of course, when CFP practitioners - as with many professionals - have continuing education requirements, bad sessions perhaps feel ever worse. Not only might they feel like a waste of time, but they're a required waste of time!?
So the question emerges: what can be done to improve the quality of continuing education content?Read More...
It is a hallmark of an occupation seeking to be recognized as a profession that its services must be rendered ethically. In turn, this means that part of the path to becoming a profession includes developing a Code of Ethics, and defining appropriate rules of conduct that apply the ethics to the particular situations faced by those delivering professional services. And the profession's code of ethics and rules of conduct are ultimately only effective if they are taught to those who deliver professional services - so they can in fact act within the guidance of the prescribed code - and if disciplinary actions are taken to enforce the code against those who violate it.
Notwithstanding the importance of having a Code of Ethics, the rules of conduct that accompany it, and the need to teach professionals delivering services about the code and associated rules so they can act accordingly, the latest rules change from the CFP Board may be going a little too far, though. Because starting in October, the ONLY content that will be eligible for satisfy the Ethics CE requirement for CFP certificants will be teaching the CFP Board's own Rules of Conduct and Practice Standards. The other 99.9% of Ethics knowledge that has been developed over the past two millenia? Don't even bother applying.Read More...
As the financial world grows ever more complex - and so too does the financial planning advice delivered to navigate it - it is sometimes difficult to keep a handle on the fundamental guiding principles that are the essence of good financial planning. Yet ultimately, some would make the case that if you can't boil down the value you deliver and the basic tenets of your advice to a very concise statement, you haven't really identified the essence of financial planning. So what would be YOUR basic financial planning advice, if you had to boil it down to only a sentence or two?Read More...
With the explosion of the internet over the past decade, raw access to data and information has exploded for the average individual, made even easier by the effectiveness of search engines like Google to filter through the volume to find the most relevant content. While most of us enjoy having the opportunity to dig into all of this newfound information, it does paint some potentially troubling implications for many professions, including financial planning, that have historically relied on the delivery of expert information as a core value proposition. If access to information explodes further in the next 10 years the way that it has over the past 10, will this force a change in the core value proposition of financial planners? What does it mean to be a financial planning expert if/when the internet makes all the "expert" information accessible to the average person?Read More...
It is an experience that almost any financial planner has gone through at some point: a prospective client who is totally disconnected from reality. Unreasonable expectations, completely unrealistic goals, and an obsession with the latest get rich quick investing scheme. Sometimes, the prospect can be guided in a more reasonable direction, but often there's just no connection to be made, and we show the prospective client the door, acknowledging that some people we just can't help. We move on to the next prospect, who hopefully won't be such a "bad" future client.
Yet I have to wonder... given the state of financial literacy - or lack thereof - in the United States, many such prospective clients have totally impossible expectations and goals not because they're being irrational, but simply due to financial ignorance. And by excluding such prospective client relationships, are financial planners themselves excluding the majority of Americans as potential clients?
Because if that's the case - that we as financial planners have put ourselves in a position than we can't help the majority of all Americans - then I also have to wonder if maybe it's not the the prospective clients who have the problem... maybe WE are the ones with the problem?
Within the financial planning world, there is often little love for popular consumer "personal finance gurus" like Suze Orman, David Bach, and Dave Ramsey. Whether it's because of their entertainment-style deliver of financial advice (in the case of the former), their bombastic platitudes of overgeneralized advice with little client-specific information (in the case of both), or their controversial views about how to address common problems like debt (in the case of the latter), most financial planners don't seem to think highly of their consumer-popular counterparts.
Yet the success of those like Orman, Bach, and Ramsey - who, in the end, touch the lives of hundreds of thousands if not millions, while the "average" financial planner's impact may only be measured by a mere few dozen or hundred clients - makes me wonder: Maybe there is something we as financial planners could - and should - learn from the success of those like Orman and Ramsey?
