Most planners doing financial planning reviews with clients have witnessed the phenomenon: when markets go up, clients look at their growth rates; when markets go down, clients look at the dollars they have lost. What can behavioral finance tell us about why we have such an asymmetric view of the market's ups and downs?
Recent research on the reaction of investors to the 2008-2009 market downturn has confirmed an interesting tendency of investors that I have long believed - the better our returns, the more we're willing to save. Yet the irony is that theoretically, the better our returns, the LESS we need to save, because we'll have more growth from our investments. Nonetheless, if we don't account for this very human behavior about saving, we can end out with some disastrous financial planning advice.
Citing an array of classic problems - including interest rates, morbidity, mortality, and persistency - long-term care and general insurance behemoth MetLife announced this week that it will be leaving the long-term care marketplace completely. And coming on the heels of recent announcements last month by GenWorth and John Hancock of significant premium increases on large blocks of their policies, it would seem that the long-term care insurance marketplace is in a bit of turmoil. Does this mean the industry is in trouble, or is this actually a sign of stabilization?
After taking up the issue at their board meeting yesterday, the CFP Board officially announced this morning that the 80% fee increase for CFP certificants to support a public awareness campaign for the CFP marks has been approved. So now the only question is: Will it work? Will this mark the start of a new dawn for the growth of financial planning as a profession, or an(other) expensive failure in the annals of CFP Board history?
In light of the ongoing debates and discussion regarding the CFP Board's potential fee increase to support a new public awareness campaign, the FPA last week conducted a survey of their CFP members to poll for views about the proposal. And last night, the FPA has released the survey results in an email to members.
As financial planning fights for its standing as a full-fledged profession, we try to demonstrate its core value to society - that going through the financial planning process has a positive impact on achieving a client's goals. Yet for all we proclaim about our beliefs in the value of financial planning, why is it that virtually none of us think financial planning is valuable enough to pay for it ourselves?
Are you a "good" sleeper, able to fall asleep as soon as your head hits the pillow, or to take a nap at a moment's notice? As it turns out, if this describes you, it is almost certainly a sign that you are severely sleep deprived, to the point that it is adversely impacting your alertness in client meetings!
It seems that the common wisdom in the financial planning world to improve client referrals is either "ask more often for referrals" or "do a better job when you ask for referrals." However, it may be that the single greatest reason why most planners don't get very many referrals is simply because... well, they're not actually that referrable.
Earlier in the week, this blog posed a number of questions to the CFP Board in response to the Fact Sheet that the organization had issued, seeking to address a number of issues the planning community has raised that still appeared to be unanswered. Yesterday, I had the opportunity to speak with several staff members at the CFP Board, and wanted to share the information that I received.
Many planners report that the primary reason their clients choose to work with them is a foundation of trust built with that individual client, which subsequently blossoms forth into a bona fide planner-client relationship. Accordingly, many planners have recently begun to ask: why the CFP Board fee increase to support public awareness of the CFP marks, if that’s not how clients select their planners anyway?