Who Speaks For The Planner?

[lbarrett]

I think we all know that the financial planning profession is drowning in paperwork and the problem is only going to get worse. This vexing -- and increasing -- compliance hassle is generating a certain amount of frustration in the profession, and most of the people I talk with don't know where to turn. So who speaks for the planner?

[the observer]

The short answer is:

NOBODY!

The Financial Planning Association is losing credibility and membership and has been for years as being the organization that has no brain and cannot think for itself. It has morphed from a professional membership organization into a mouthpiece for the CFP Board and FP Coalition.

NAPFA is interested only in the interests of its few members, the elitist crowd and represents no one and nothing of interest otherwise.

CFP Board does not need discussing because they are not a "representative" organization, but rather a private non-profit with desires to become a SRO... something they have no chance of becoming, but they will try nonetheless.

NAIFA has become the go to organization that disgrunteld planners join in protest against the actions of NAPFA, FPA and CFP Board. Do they "represent" though??

The FP coalition managed to scrape together 5000 signatures, not even 10% of CFP® Certificants to support their fiduciary drive, pathetic... but they push on because it serves "their" purpose, not ours.

When I hear the FPA leadership calling for a fiduciary standard for insurance agents under Dodd Frank I laugh out loud... You'd think they'd at least educate themselves to a bare minimum level before spouting off such ridiculous demands. I shake my head and wonder what they'll be demanding next. It's kinda sad that this is the best leadership we can find...

Personally, I believe the FPA Board should resign en masse and allow people who want to "represent" planners to the CFP Board (not the other way around) take over and become a representative organization once again.

I would call on a new FPA Board to leave the FP coalition. How can a professional "membership" organization join together with a private quasi regulatory organization that rules by trademark law and not see how stupid, self serving and hopelessly conflicted it makes them look.

I would call on the CFP Board to resign en masse and get some out of the box thinkers in there who do not believe in an oligarchic and dictatorial approach to governance. To date, too little work has been done promoting "financial planning" as a separate and distinct profession and too much money of ours has been spent trying to influence and change securities and insurance regulations, two industries already heavily regulated by State and/or Federal agencies. I'm wondering if this lobbying effort is deserving of their 501c3 non-profit status.

[Stephen Winks]

Bob,

70% of the FPA membership are brokers whose supporting firms are not supportive of fiduciary standing of their brokers and yet these same firms pay for the broker's FPA membership. Brokers have no control over the support their b/d provides which has crippled the broker's adility to acknowledge fiduciary standing as acknowledgement of fiduciary standing and that the broker is actually rendering advice is a violation of the internal compliance protocol of every brokerage firm. Thus the role of the broker is simply to make the consumer aware of their investment alternatives. It is up to the consumer to determine investment merit on their own, regardless of how limited the consumers investment knowledge and experience may be. The broker literally has no ongoing responsibility for their recdommendations once they are paid and the trade is consumated. Thus brokers are neither responsible or accountable. This is great if you want to circumvent fiduciary responsibility/liability, but places the broker in a position where they can not literally render advice or add value--thus the loss of trust of the investing public. All of this is well documented. So, how does the consumer and advisor give voice to the consumer's best interest and fiduciary standing?

The Financial Planning Coalition and the Institute for Fiduciary Standard have been conflicted by being deferential to the brokerage industry, compromising on industry redefining issues which are in the best interest of the consumer.

The solution is the SEC and DOL creating certainty in regulation requiring brokers to be held to the traditional understanding of fiduciary duty based on 800 years of common law and objective non-negotiable fiduciary criteria of statute, case law and regulatory opinion letters. Simply enforce the law.

Simplification argues for the eliminate the broker exemption to the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

What we are witnessing is the unmanageable disaster of there being a double standard for brokers and advisers. Even though supporting the traditional understanding of fiduciary responsibility is clearily doable, so the the broker has a far superior value proposition in the consumer's best interest, and the industry achieves far superior economic performance, the brokerage industry will never volantarily assume responsibility for tens of thosands of its brokers independely rendering investment advice and being accountable for every recommendation the broker has ever made. As Harvard's Clayton Christensen (The innovators Dilemma) observes, the biggest mistake established industry's make when faced with industry redefining innovation is to look at innovation in the context of its existing business model when a new business model is required. The industry has given no thought to the fat it is in its enlightened best interest to make advicee, safe scalable and easy to execute. It is true, fiduciary standing for brokers renders the old commission sale business model obsolete as rather than simply selling investment products with no ongoing responsibility, advisors address and manage investment and administrative values on behalf of their clients in the clients best interest entailing significant ongoing fiduciary responsibilities. Commission sales become a high cost low value added alternative to advisory services. It is also true advice can be made safe, scalable and easy to execute and manage as a business within 24 months by the industry's best and brightest professional managers, if the SEC and the DOL were simply to extend and enforce existing laws.

The prudent processes, technology, work flow management, conflict management, expert advisory services support for each of the ten major market segments advisors service, necessary to make advice/fiduciary standing safe, scalable and easy to execute all exist. Without the SEC and DOL taking action, there is not cover for professional managers within the brokerage industry to execute. Presently it is politically inexpedient for top managers to have views that are not consistent with those of the firm which write their pay check. The SEC and DOL can immediately resolve this. The DOL has already taken steps when it comes to retirement assets, the SEC must follow suite with individual assets.

I might be wrong, but thinking that the brokerage industry would actually be interested in the consumer's best interest before its own, is probably not a good idea. Thus, innovation must be regulatorily required by date certain.

Does the voice of the consumer count? It should, but not really. Congressmen, who hunger for political contributions, predictabily cite the brokerage industry mantra as we have seen they find it easy to throw the consumer and their very constituents under the bus. This is how powerful the brokerage lobby is. Dodd-Frank would have never passed without the disasterous Goldman Sacks testimony before Congress, establishing it bet against its investors (though it is a prudent and sound macro risk management practice, that sounds terrible). This outraged consumers and compelled Congress to act. Barring high profile consumer outrage, just knowing and understanding the problem is not enough. In 70 years there was no outrage. How does one stimulate consumer outrage as only outrage will move Congress? Thus, the most direct solution is for the SEC to follow the leadership of the DOL and simply force the brokerage industry to literally act in the consumers best interest by enforcing long established law.

Would brokers sign a petition to Congress asking for regulatory reform? Yes, but the industry would manufacture a counter petition. Would consumers petition Congress? Yes, but that takes a massive grass roots effort.

What we need is leadership to actually act in the best interest of the consumer and adviser. Perhaps the best free market solution is for a next generation advisory services firm to actually make advice, safe, scalable and easy to execute which makes conventional brokerage a high cost lowvalue added alternative to advisory services. The superior value propositin wins. There has never been a case where the best interets of the consumer have not prevailed in a fre market. It is time to put that premise to the test when it comes to the brokerage industry acting in the best interest of the consumer.

SCW

[Bradly T.]

Personally, I don't think you or Winks know who financial planners are or what we do......we are NOT advisors, reps, agents, accountants, attornies, etc. Some of us are those things too. Planning is NOT investment advice or allocations either one. I can't believe the lack of knowledge and understanding by Bob V. or this magazine. You don't know your audience or the profession of planning - either one. And to observer's point....no one represents us.

[Bob H]

The Financial Services Institute is pretty good for independent advisors.

http://www.financialservices.org/aboutus.aspx

[the observer]

Bob,

FSI is very B/D, securities industry centric. I think lbarrett's question addressed the fact that it appears no one organization is there for "financial planners".

I resented the fact that while I was still registered as a 7/24 with an indie B/D years ago, they tried to force me to join FSI with an opt out, rather than an opt in option and actually deducted FSI dues from my account until I told them to reverse it when I caught it. (I'm no longer registered with FINRA)

If financial planners cannot differentiate themselves from insurance agents and broker/advisers, if they cannot effectively show that they have something different to offer, then the entire argument for "regulation of financial planners" as a separate and distinct profession falls in the water.

Now, I struggled for years to try and get planners to accept that financial planning is a separate and distinct profession offering unique services. Recent actions by CFP Board and their interference in the securities and insurance industries, both already heavily regulated by governmental agencies at the federal and/or State level, have done irreparable harm to this cause.

As such, it seems pointless to continue arguing the necessity of a separate and distinct profession of financial planning when the FP coalition believes the best way to achieve this is through a unified fiduciary duty for brokers, advisers and insurance salesmen and an additional layer of overly burdensome and costly regulation, supervision and oversight by the SEC... THEREFORE, read my lips (AGAIN)...

"Financial Planning is Dead, or will be shortly!"

All this rhetoric has reinforced and conveys one message:

The ultimate ball game in offering the benefit of financial planning to clients is to a. sell insurance and make lots of money b. take assets under management and make lots of money... while trying to restrict who gets to make lots of money if the FP coalition has their way.

This being the case, no case can ever be made for separate and distinct regulation of financial planning as a stand alone profession. I challenge CEO Keller or anyone else to a serious debate, they will LOSE against me every time.

The term "financial planner" is already defined and regulated under the Investment Adviser Act. It's hopelessly flawed in that it requires not just holding out as, but also offering advice as to the benefit of investing in regulated securities in order to force registration and the imposition of a fiduciary duty and of course, since under the US Constitution, States have been given authority over all insurance activities it never covers insurance agents at all. All this dumb a•• talk is getting us nowhere, the real issues will never be addressed, not by Dodd/Frank, not by any other recommendations or legislation I've seen to date.

Finally, the egoist action of the FP Coalition also undermine other organizations who think a little outside the box like the Garrett Planning Network.

[Lucullus]

Observer,

You can proclaim, over and over again, that financial planning is not the same thing as either investment advice or portfolio mangement, but some people will never hear you - because that proclamation contradicts their belief (sometimes, a belief set in several feet of concrete) that they're the same thing and should be regulated as such.

Many of those same folks will insist that this same "one size fits all" mantra applies to those who sell life insurance. As if an agent, acting solely as a life insurance agent, engages in the same activities and meets the same client needs and expectations as a registered investment advisor managing the client's entire portfolio.

I agree with many (if not most) of your views - notably, that the profession of financial planning has been, and continues to be, hijacked by people who, judging from some of their published statements, have little or no idea of how financial planning is actually done (and should be done). Some of these folks display an unmistakable bias against any model that doesn't look like the one they've manufactured and a persistent intolerance of those who work under such a model.

Attempting to educate these folks is, all too often, as pointless as arguing with a religious bigot. They know what they know and nothin' we can say is gonna convince 'em otherwise.

One organization that does seem genuinely committed to supporting the craft of financial planning is the Society of Financial Service Professionals (the Society of FSP). I've been involved in some of the society's efforts at education and at addressing the legitimate issues that comprise the "standard of care" debate, and I encourage anyone with an interest in rescuing our profession from the self-aggrandizing efforts of those who would be king to look at the society's website (www.financialpro.org).

- John L. Olsen, CLU(R), ChFC(R), AEP(R)

[Bradly T.]

Belong to and support both FSI and the Society of FSPs - FSI is only voice for indies (bd and dualies) and FSP offers most support for planners and ALL related issues to the discipline and is BIG TENT for multiple practitioner models and is FOR the practitioner primarily. Unfortunately, the Noncoalition has left the building on a new mission that does NOT represent the discipline, practitioners, or any potental profession. FPA National represents no one....Chapters have some great impact locally still but.......

[Lucullus]

Bradley,

Did you happen to see the VideoTeleconference on "Standards of Care" that Dick Weber, Ben Baldwin, Burke Christensen, and I did for the Society?

- John

[ConsumerAdvocate]

Mr Veres;

I disagree wholeheartedly with one of your statements, and that is the the FPC lobbies on behalf of the consumer. They lobby Congress on behalf of themselves. The consumer is better represented and protected by states and government. Recognizing the FPC as a consumer's mouthpiece is akin to saying that the Wolf in the Three Little Pigs was simply a building inspector showing the pigs how poorly their homes were constructed.

Perhaps no one should be speaking for "planners" whatever that is, since we will likely come under the umbrella of FINRA which might very well be in the best interests of the consumer.

[Stephen Winks]

Consumer Advocate,

Could your contention that the states are better suited to protect public trust be based on the fact that insurance sales are presently governed by states which do not require fiduciary standing when it comes insurance recommendations?

Based on the comments here, it is pretty clear that general insurance industry opinion is counter to the fundamental and most noble promise of financial planning--that planners act in the best interest of the consumer--unlike present day brokers to include insurance agents.

SCW

[ConsumerAdvocate]

It has nothing to do with insurance Mr. Winks. States regulate many things, including RIAs.

Maybe I missed it but you are the only person to bring up insurance as a stand alone issue. I suggest that you step back and look at the world without your own product pushing agenda in mind.

[Stephen Winks]

Consumer Advocate,

There is a very small but vocal group of insurance centric brokers in this blog who have been slow to acknowledge they are in fact not acting in the consumer's best interest when it comes to insurance sales and very likely not acting in a fiduciary capacity in advisory services based on their own characterization of their work.

Because of the conflicted work of the Financial Planning Coalition in support of the fiduciary standing of the broker, which is the subject of this thread, there are very few if any organized support for planners and their subscription to the fiduciary standard or care--a popsition opposed by the brokerage industry and very timidly supported by the FPC. Thus, I have been very vocal in countering uninformed comments passed off as fact which misinform readers and do not support the fiduciary standing of brokers.

I hope you are indeed supportive of the fiduciary standing of planners and brokers. The status quo of state regulation of advisory services has proven to be ineffective in holding brokers to the fiduciary standard of care and perhaps I have misinterpreted that as your not subscribing to a strong unimpeachable fiduciary standard of care in the best interest of the consumer. If I may have misinterpreted your sentiment toward fiduciary duty, then I extend my apologies, if not, my statement stands.

SCW

[Bradly T.]

How about an apology for not being able to understand elementary issues and facts. This thread is NOT about "the fiduciary standing of brokers...." as you claim. It is about financial planners (you're NOT one and Veres can't spell planner, let alone shape an article or articulate a definition of same) and who represents US. The conclusions of all agree - there's no one. Not even the magazine or organization named for our discipline and certainly NOT the Noncoalition.

[the observer]

Mr Winks writes: "Could your contention that the states are better suited to protect public trust be based on the fact that insurance sales are presently governed by states which do not require fiduciary standing when it comes insurance recommendations?"

WOW... Mr. Winks finally learned something then from this forum... He always contended exactly the opposite, namely, that insurance agents did have a fiduciary duty to clients!

Mr. Winks writes: "Because of the conflicted work of the Financial Planning Coalition in support of the fiduciary standing of the broker, which is the subject of this thread..."

Ummmm... actually this is not the subject of this thread IMHO... neither is "fiduciary gobbledegook" the subject either... But let's be honest, even if someone walked up and slapped Mr Winks with a wet fish at a conference he'd probably accuse the man of breach of fiduciary duty for not ensuring the fish was free of disease before whacking him with it and demand supervision and oversight over all fish whackers with a fiduciary duty to only utilize organic, disease free fish from the deepest oceans and no farm bred fish, or pre-frozen fish either... even if he really had no clue whether the fish whacker had performed due diligence beforehand. It's what Mr Winks does.

NOW, having said that... maybe I'm wrong and only lbarrett can clear that up. But I understood this thread to be about professional "membership" organizations where "members" have no input and nothing to say while the "membership" organizations join forces with private, quasi regulatory bodies and sing the same, self-serving siren song to regulators while claiming to represent ALL of us, when the truth is more like 10% of us.

I think lbarrett was posing the question who is actually representing the planners...

On this topic, I should seriously think about forming a trade union for financial planners!!

[Stephen Winks]

Bradley T and the observer,

If you have to explain fiduciary duty, it is highly unlikely one is fulfilling their fiduciary obligations.

Legal does not mean something is ethical.

Before Dodd Frank, it is perfectly legal to act in a sales capacity where there is no ongoing fiduciary responsibility once a sale is executed and the broker is paid. After Dodd-Frank, it is illegal to represent ones self as an advisor, unless you are fulfilling your significant ongoing fiduciary duties for every recommendation you have ever made.

My disagreements with you, Bradley T and John Olsen aka Lucullus has been one of whether you can ethically say you are an adviser without subscribing to the fiduciary standard of care. You fellows have questioned "whatever acting in the client's best interest means', and whether it is a fiction of my imagination whether there is actually statute, case law and regulatory opinion letters upon which fiduciary standing is based. All this is of course reconciled with Dodd-Frank, which now makes my ethical question a legal question, and establishes fiduciary standing as the threshold consideration of one even being in this busness.

Planners have had no voice in this arguement as the fiduciary standing in the consumer's best interest to which you disagree has also not been embraced by brokerage interests which much prefer to act in the best interest of the brokerage industry rather than that of the consumer. The loss of trust of the investing public is massive, further exacerbated by insurance interests fear of accountability and responsibility for their recommendations.

SCW

[the observer]

Mr. Winks wrote: "After Dodd-Frank, it is illegal to represent ones self as an advisor"

Now, where I come from it was always illegal to hold out as an adviser with only a 6 or 7 BEFORE Dodd / Frank... and it's my biggest beef that the SEC with the Merrill Rule had to be sued out of existence by the FPA to get their attention on the issue of "obfuscating the differences between brokers and advisers". But, apparently, they're still asleep at the wheel and watching way too much on-line porn still...

Other than that Mr. Winks, please, let's try and restrict ourselves to the "topic at hand" rather than going on endless fiduciary rants in every single thread regardless of topic.

Better yet, if no one brings up the word "fiduciary", why not just "not comment" at all in future. After all, you're not registered in any capacity in this or the insurance business, don't have any retail clients and most of all you are not a financial planner or investment adviser.

[Bradly T.]

And even if "fiduciary" were topical (and it's not), Winks has demonstrated no greater grasp on facts or reality on that subject either. But, as a thread about planning and planners, he's without ANY relevancy whatsoever. But what's most amazing - and disappointing - is Veres' total lack of credibility here. He, like his Noncoalition cohorts, is trying - very ernestly - to substitute the word advisor for the term planner....in this, and every, article he writes. No recognition or appreciation of the distinction between the two - some advisors are planners but many/most planners are not advisors - or broker reps, or agents. Bankers, lawyers, CPAs, ChFC and CLUs, PFS and many others apply the discipline of planning on behalf of clients with ZERO asset management. AUM is NOT a prerequisite for planning....never has been.


But it is THIS lie upon which Veres diligently builds his sand castles and publishes his paper tigers. Now that we have college degree programs and many entry level planners with more formalized training, it is more important than ever before to recognize the distinct and unifying discipline of planning to ALL financial, accounting, and legal professional services. Planning deserves its own place. But the Noncoalition and Bob are doing everything they can to sell out to THE MONEY....representing the Bigs once again over the Smalls.



Dastardly chicanery.

[Lucullus]

Anyone who believes that a person who does "financial planning" on behalf of another individual, for a fee, will necessarily manage the investment portfolio of that other individual knows nothing about financial planning.

Some may hold that belief out of sheer ignorance. Others, knowing better, may profess that belief because it is to their own interest to pretend that financial planning and portfolio management are the same thing. Ignorance, while regrettable, is at least curable. Willful self-aggrandizing mendacity is something else again.

I do not believe that Bob Veres is deliberately misapprehending this subject; I believe he's simply so invested in a "asset management" perspective that he cannot see that it doesn't fit the subject of financial planning -which is a very different thing. It's possible that he may eventually recognize his error. I would be happy to help him do that.

The other individual is not merely mistaken; his deceptions, mischaracterizations, false attributions, and inventions are deliberate, fabricated to serve his own interests. He is without honor and deserves only contempt.

[Bradly T.]

I prefer to regard Bob V. as calculated and discerning with an agenda.....but just plain stupid works for me too.

[Bradly T.]

It's odd that Bob V. has determined (somehow) that RIAs own the process of planning. The historical record shows that the discipline and elements of planning actually were formed by the insurance industry (risk analysis for families and business and estate/business transfer strategies) and tax advisors (the code drives many issues and strategies for all things financial) and estate attornies (documentation of ownership and distribution strategies). The popular application of MPT by advisors/allocators came around to planning as an already well defined and developed discipline focused on risk management - risks to wealth creation, wealth preservation, wealth distribution, and wealth transfer - and, eventually, portfolio construction. I say it is odd because ANYONE who is a real planner understands that security selection and portfolio allocation actually encompasses such a small (not unimportant - but SMALL) element to comprehensive planning.


Not only did advisors NOT discover, invent, or perfect planning historically - they were Johnny-Come-Latelies to its application. And when they/we did, it's true value was actually for advisor due dilligence and context creation for allocations of wealth. And then there was the discovery of client engagement and relationship-development potential inherent in the process of planning. Which demonstrates the universal power of planning to all other disciplines. The value and power of planning are certainly not unique to the securities and investing world - but it is profitable to them/us in delivering a client centric experience - as it is in all applications regardless of industry. Historically, planning has never been its own profit center.....to any practitioner in any profession. It does make money....indirectly as a value added benefit to our relationship otherwise. Apparently it works whether you actually deliver competent, comprehensive planning or just promise to.



This chicanery of Bob V's is dangerous to all....planners, clients, AND securities reps and advisors. RIAs are NOT required to provide planning services or expertise - therefore Bob's interchangeable terminology (saying planner when he means advisor in all his writings) is a basic lie, pure deception. The danger to planners and planning is the denegration of the meaning of the word planning. The danger to consumers is this new presumption that advisors are planners and deliver planning (which many do of course - it's the false presumption that RIAs are planners that's the consumer lie). It will become dangerous to RIAs when this deceitful presumption becomes their legal obligation to fulfill that little obligation RIAs claim as their own - the fiduciary obligation. Can one manage wealth for any client as a fiduciary who does NOT provide comprehensive planning?? Legally - yes. Ethically and effectively? No.



Planners should take over the advisory business maybe. But advisors taking over planning? Absurd. Pure chicanery. Bob ought to take a couple of classes to learn how unimportant security selection is to wealth and risk planning for families before he declares a transfer of the discipline to any single industry. The man is a menace and no friend of consumers, planners, or the industry he champions. He has been instrumental in making FINRA the SRO for advisors and new compliance rules and audits and increased costs for all concerned. Good job Bob!!

[B Smith]

Regulation is getting easier with technology. Surprisingly I'm not against having a firm owner be responsible for whats on the web or elsewhere, and pay $5 / month to store their sites.

Can we look at other industries for our future? Yes: We're all numb to radio ads and their silly disclaimers, and yet today I heard one go so fast I couldn't even understand what it said.

The problem is most don't recognize this is the result of their forming committees and approaching congressmen and asking for regulation.

One of the 'clubs over the head' for me was the fact so many people who are involved in this industry parrot that we are 'not a profession' because to them the government needs to regulate us to be called one.

You couldn't ask for a worse group to speak for less regulation. They'll push for more just for the personal pride in accomplishing something in govt; be it destroying the thing that makes our industry great.

These are the people who 'speak for us' and they are the ones that you can thank -- today -- for the supposed fact things will get worse. They will only get worse if we let these people continue to speak for us. We need people who understand how the world works to step up. Bob, why not challenge some of these people's ideas today if you see it getting worse?

[Bradly T.]

Like B Smith's perspective (maybe I'm not the only constitutional conservative libertarian after all). The results of prior federal regulation and enforcement of same prove that the real issue is CAN Uncle Sam EFFECTIVELY administer such mandates - not SHOULD they. It doesn't matter if they should if they can't. Now we can argue about whether they should I suppose but what's the point if they can't? Regarding all retail distribution and advisory ills and failures, the fact is crime is crime and there are and were plenty of laws on the books to find and punish criminal activity - obviously. The SEC merely had to turn off the porn show and actually DO something.....like find criminals for example......on the same or smaller budget than they had when oblivious to finding criminals. More regulations? More money? More porn watchers on staff? More office space? None were needed before the collapse and no more is needed today......related to retail.


The answer to B. Smith's last question is unfortunate. Bob Veres is the author and champion of what's wrong today. His elitist disregard for the vast majority of practitioners AND investors is puzzling for one posturing as informed, enlightened, and objective (all of which are false audience perceptions). His lack of knowledge (apparently at least) of the process and elements of financial planning is astounding and his insistance that all planners are advisors and all advisors are planners and NO ONE ELSE IS reveals a motive and agenda unbecoming anyone claiming to be a journalist.....he's a lobbyist and editorialist, not a journalist or reporter. He has most recently been promoting market timing and fear based investing strategies, debunking the only truly prudent, professional allocation and portfolio management process while promoting irrational and ineffective and imprudent investment voodoo. Mr. V IS the problem or a key element within the problem. Let us hope politicians take journalists as seriously as journalists take them.



Consumer Advocate makes very good points as well. While Mr. Winks immediately accused him/her of jumping in bed with those insurance renegades - the same point has also been articulated by the observer and Mr. Moody here before......almost every profession (or is it EVERY?) is now and has always been regulated by the states - law, medicine, accounting, teaching, et al (including but not uniquely insurance too). If planning is to become elevated to an actual profession, the precedent is well established for it to be delivered by the states too. While this may be cumbersome and non-uniform, the alternative proposed by Bob Veres, Mr. Kitces, and the Noncoalition for the SEC and FINRA to create, register, and regulate planning as a securities related profession is ABHORRENT and TREACHERY beyond the pale!!



Like Smith says....".....things will only get worse if we let these people continue to speak for us." Agreed.

[Bradly T.]

For proof of the validity of my complaint and accusation of Bob's chicanery and sleight of hand voodoo - please refer to the lead sentence below the above titled article....." the financial planning profession is drowning in paperwork....This vexing--and increasing-- compliance hassle...." Geez, as a CFP and ChFC I am unaware of ANY increased paperwork or compliance issues related to ANY financial planner! Please list or describe them. He asks...."So who speaks for the planner?" but he is not talking about ANYTHING related to financial planning! Sneaky with an agenda? Or is Bob really that misinformed? Evil? Or stupid? Does it matter? Yes it does.


Lord, may Veres never ever ever be a spokesperson for true financial planners or their/our discipline. How does he keep a job on a magazine named "Financial Planning"??? It would appear the man has never met a financial planner nor read a summary description of the process or seen a list of its elements. He rants and raves about everything EXCEPT financial planning and issues related to planners, but inserts those words into his inanities as though he knows something about either one. I only wish someone would pay me to offer opinions about things I know nothing about. What a country!!

[Bob H]

Bradley:

It's after lunch. Please switch to de-cafe.

Bob (no, not THAT Bob)

[B Smith]

I don't know why I don't pick up on the above notes from several in the articles, perhaps I don't read them enough.

I was however disappointed in this sentence:

"Do doctors, lawyers or accountants face this kind of day-to-day regulatory hassle? Does anybody? I can tell you from personal experience that we journalists don't. If anybody came into my office and asked for books and records, I would have no idea where to start."

Yes. When you walk into a doctors office and look behind their desk they do not have 1 admin, they have a dozen. For one reason. REGULATION.

There has been so much written on this I'm just kind of shocked someone as knowledgeable would use doctors as an example. Lawyers write the law, why would they give themselves trouble? Doctors in the 50s had as many staff people as your average advisor, and it's multipled by at least 5-10x due to regulations on billing, files, whatever. I found this statement just surprisingly ignorant. I mean, why do we think medical costs can skyrocket above the costs of inflation forever if not for regulation costs? Doctors don't care. They're in demand. They'll pass it on. Planners aren't. We need spokespersons who realize that.

[Bradly T.]

Surely Bob (yes THAT Bob) doesn't pay POS (point of service) charges for actual medical services rendered as needed....he must certainly prefer the quality provided by his local HMO who charges on-going fees for health advisory services!! I mean, what fool would prefer to pay for what you get when you need it when they could just pay and pay and pay whether they need anything or not. I mean, his doctor in a POS environment could recommend tests or treatments he doesn't need. Of course, his HMO won't recommend anything at all since the cost is on them.....and not the patient. The problem with analogy Bob is they almost always suck if you just take them that one little step further.


Bet Bob leases his cars too. I mean owning must be more expensive than perpetual fees/lease payments, right? Wrong again Bob.

[Lucullus]

Bob Veres:

Try telling any doctor that he isn't compelled to deal with an enormous amount of regulatory hassle.

Then duck! Quickly! Or you'll really need that doctor.

You needn't even ask the doc. Just walk into a doctor's office as a new patient. And count the number of forms you're required to complete and sign. Can you say "HIPAA"?

You were kidding when you wrote "Do doctors, lawyers or accountants face this kind of day-to-day regulatory hassle?", right?

- John Olsen

[Lucullus]

Bradley,

Are you suggesting that the Point of Service model for health care delivery is less costly, in the aggregate, than the HMO or PPO models?

[Bradly T.]

No, just another false analogy. However - YES; IF Americans paid for services rendered rather than use/abuse the insurance industry with their (the patients') indifference to the COST of service - THEN, there surely would be SOMEONE the past 40 years who actually CARED about cost. Now, we all care and now, it's too late to care. Employer provided, zero deductible group plans led, eventually, to cost indifference for the employee, the employer, and the insurance company - one reason I support the elimination of benefits from employment relationships. It is NOT the cost of insurance that's the problem, it's the cost of care and services. Prior and historical indifference to cost containment is only one reason for our current fiasco to be sure, but it is not a small reason. HMOs were designed to reduce service costs.....many have done so by reducing services rather than the cost of services. And many have failed in that attempt. Didn't intend any criticism of their model...just another bad analogy.


My first job was health insurance sales back in the 80s. My company, Mutual of Omaha, paid their insureds a 50% cash payment for catching and reporting billing "errors" by hospitals. Medicare could save about $100 B a year if they did the same today. In fact, I'd love the contract (on commission) to eliminate Medicare billing fraud. Since Uncle Sam is about to get smaller, one can only cringe at the prospect of even more fraud and billing abuses to come. What a gravy train. By the way, there use to be dozens, over a hundred maybe, health insurers providing multiple policy forms in a highly competitive environment. How many are left? If you could make money in health insurance there would be more and not fewer insurers fighting for market share. They're merely fighting failure and bankruptcy today - oh yeah, and government mandates and regulations!!

[the observer]

Bob wrote: " I can tell you from personal experience that we journalists don't. If anybody came into my office and asked for books and records, I would have no idea where to start."?????

So journalists can say what they like, lie, cheat, steal, destroy someone's life or career with innuendo and the stroke of a pen but have no supervision or oversight and no one to answer to? That explains Hannity, Obermann, O'Reilly and Veres...

ROTF

And these are the people calling for additional regulation for financial planners... these "journalists and the politicians??? Stop it... yer killin me!!! I mean, liar comes with a politician's job description.

As a financial planner I say it's time to take back Congress and the media, let's all lobby for integrity and a fiduciary duty for all politicians and journalists.

LMAO

[Bradly T.]

spam bounce.