Financial Planning 1.0 was excellent. It formed the core of our emerging profession. Creating something from nothing, it was the greatest advance in history for helping individuals deal with their money. However, it fell far short of realizing the inherent potential of the financial planning profession. It created better product purveyors but failed to separate advisors from Industry as required by an authentic profession.

Unfortunately, Financial Planning 2.0 cannot take us where we must go. There are many reasons. Most prominently, Financial Planning 2.0 continues unsustainable ties with Industry. Simply put, if clients come first, we cannot as fiduciaries serve non-clients. Face it, the laws of agency serve Industry, not the profession.

That will take Financial Planning 3.0. We are witnessing another generational change. As the pioneers of Financial Planning 1.0 gave way to the baby boomers for Financial Planning 2.0, so, too, will we boomers likely watch our successors build something amazing.

I have my hopes. For one, I trust we can transmit our experiences to these worthy successors freely and joyfully. Of course, we "veterans" have much to share. Yes, we have wisdom. Obviously, we should be proud. And we can participate. But we should also acknowledge that batons are being passed. We can be both critics and fans, but we cannot control.

For another, I hope we can sever our dependencies on Industry. Manufacturing, sales and advice are all honorable undertakings, but they ought not be mixed. Farmers grow food for the grocers to sell to chefs who serve their patrons. The patrons get the best of each, but their roles are clear. Fair enough. Simple enough.

Financial Planning 3.0 is in its infancy. From my perspective, it ought to address issues of theory. We do not yet have it. Why does the profession exist? Whose needs are being served? What is its mission and purpose? Where is its bedrock? How ought specialties emerge? These issues will determine the nature of the profession past the foreseeable future.

We need vocabulary and we need separation from macroeconomics in general. Any group that looks at individuals, i.e. our clients, through the lens of "homo economicus" must be viewed skeptically.

What are our profession's priorities? Is it the financial planner's primary duty to maximize the client's money? Or is it to insulate the client from harm or coach with respect to personal missions? Or is it closer to my personal favorite, "to help individuals and families address their personal relationships with money and the fearsome forces it generates"?

An authentic profession needs strong academics. Frankly, ours have left much to be desired. Accordingly, what areas of knowledge and inquiry ought to inform Financial Planning 3.0? I personally see financial planning as the ultimate liberal arts profession. Shouldn't our gardens of knowledge be resplendent with cross-disciplinary relationships?
What public roles ought we play in Financial Planning 3.0? Do we just serve as informed advocates for individuals in matters affecting their individual relationships with money? Or can we provide counterweights in issues of public policy? How can we help leaders and decision-makers grasp the implications of their work without getting caught in impossible politics?

Can we help grow new, perhaps healthier forms of money? Can we develop better methods for making our skills and knowledge accessible to those who want and need them?