"An' I wanna pony, an' a GI Joe, an' a bicycle, an' a ..."
-Stereotypical young boy's Christmas wish list

"The unexamined life is not worth living."
-Socrates

Take out a piece of paper. This is a test.

1. Describe the first step in the "six-step" financial planning process.

If your response included "goals" or "objectives," give yourself two points.

Now, draw a line. Below the line, put the number of continuing-education hours you have earned over some ascertainable period of time. Let's say, oh, the last three to five years. Above the line, put CE hours earned over the same period of time addressing viable, useful methodologies for determining an individual's "goals" or "objectives" with substance. Convert into a percentage. If the resulting percentage exceeds 15%, give yourself two points. More than 30%? Two more.

For two more points each, discuss:

What is a "goal"?

Is it the same as an "objective"? If not, why not? (No fair reading ahead.)

What individual or entity has the right to determine a "goal"? (Hint: think "Client.")

Bonus round for infinite extra points: How do you spot one? Simply explain a fail-safe methodology for discerning the real deal. Especially expand upon distinguishing between the shallow and the profound. How should we respond to "goals" akin to my young friend's Christmas list? Would this differ from those encompassing an individual's most heartfelt concerns and dreams (per Socrates' notions of an examined life)? Is either approach legitimate, or is there some prismatic continuum for determining which light rays most effectively illuminate a client's most reflective motives? Is this an appropriate part of the first step in the six-step process? How do we know? How can we know? How should we conduct ourselves?

Big problem: We think we know what clients want. Attorneys are notorious imposers of value systems and personal goals. "Of course, you want to maximize your tax savings." Alternatively, "Naturally, you will want all of your children to receive equal shares of your estate." Really? Who said so?

Of course, this sort of assumption happens in our world as well. For example, when it comes to estate planning, aren't we prone to assume that "family dynasty" creation (aka "leave it to the kids") is an emotional driver? Don't we subtly assume folks avidly seek the day they don't "have to" work? Truthfully, do you make these assumptions? Honestly? Though ascribing our own motives to others is constantly tempting, don't they deserve better?

What are our responsibilities for goal-setting assistance? Obviously, our work is fraught with ambiguity. We bear frequent witness to financially self-destructive behavior. Can we expect people to grasp long-term financial implications of transient short-term indulgences? Yet, the interface of money, hopes and dreams within our daily life activities must rise as at least one version of ascertaining goals and objectives. Is this not fundamental to the advisory function?

"How high is up?" Or, "What is justice?" These are questions perhaps more reasonably measured. Unfortunately for the analogy, these questions are not universally accepted aspects of our "six-step process." "Goals" and "objectives" are.

These issues are serious role-defining challenges. Within the continuum of legitimate possibilities, our responsibilities may range from mere order takers to wise, intimate personal advisors. Obviously, there are no precise formulae. Functional qualities depend upon contexts and expectations. Sometimes, our responsibilities vary based on different situations with a single client. Sometimes, a client just wants something functional to happen. Sometimes, a client seeks life-transforming magic. How can we tell?

Now don't complain that "goals" or "objectives" can't be defined or articulated-but you just know them when you see them. That would just be a lame throwback to Justice Black's "definition" of pornography. First, you are not a Supreme Court justice. Accordingly, you have no jurisprudential slack in your rope and nobody cares how you might strain logic and still look intelligent. Second, not good enough. Not good enough at all. This is one of the non-Web, non-tech arenas in which we ostensibly earn our livings. Clients trust us to get this part right.

Even if this is giving you trouble, please stick with the program. This goals and objectives business may just be the most critically complex yet vitally important work on our plate.

Some of us may rely upon client-provided numbers. Query: Do these articulate goals? Or do they mask goals? Or are they simply unexamined wish lists only slightly removed from a 6-year-old child's list for Santa Claus? How many layers must be stripped away before we know we have landed on the real deal? Again, how do we spot one?

Who cares? What's the fuss?

I do not mean to be harsh. Nor do I have magical answers. I am just trying to make a simple point. If we do not really know what we mean by the very first step in our very own mostly unquestioned process, how in heaven's name, can we complain about being misunderstood? How can we understand our purpose, place or function? How can we grow?

At best our collective understanding of "goals" and "objectives" seems lame. All too often, we allow our own biases and prejudices to seep unconsciously into the mix to impose our values into the lives of these others, our clients. If we are to be more than mere order takers, perhaps we owe the topic more than a cursory examination.

For objectivity, let's turn to that eminent source of wisdom and perspective, Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary. The most relevant definition of "goal" is "the end toward which effort is directed." For "objective," the most relevant definition is eerily similar: "something toward which effort is directed; 'an aim, goal or end of action.' "

Disdaining redundancy, I suggest the two words are effectively synonyms for our purposes. Specifically, within each, we find the concepts of "effort," "end" and "directed."

Upon further inquiry: "Effort" contains concepts of endeavor, exertion, struggle, power, strength, attempt and force. Specifically, this means our efforts within the planning relationship when we perform these acts with aspirations of helping our clients achieve their goals and objectives. Effort describes process. Undertaking. Energy. Effort is subsumed within the act of work.

In Brother Gates' thesaurus, the word "directed" leads us to notions of heading for, bound for, going to, aimed at and intended for. It is a word of purpose and function that leads us, in turn, to the object of work or the "end."

"End" is the object of any undertaking-that to which our efforts must be directed. "End" demands we answer the questions: "What is the point of it all?" "What is the point of our work?" In other words: "What is the nature of the 'end' toward which our efforts are directed?"

Now, I suggest, this is the point. This "end" may range from something simple as, "I want a pony" to a seeming imperative, "I want 'enough' to be confident I will never run out of money" to the spiritually complex, "I want to live my life with meaning, purpose, joy and spiritual satisfaction." Alternatively, the "end" could mean, "I want my kids to get it all" or "I want my children to be happy, functional, mentally and spiritually healthy adults." At the end of the day, I suggest that it is fundamentally up to the client to define her own "ends." More specifically, at this end of the day, it is not up to us as advisors to finish this piece of the work. At best, we can facilitate. At best, we can solve the problems as presented. Clients get to define their goals and objectives, not advisors. Nonetheless, since many clients can't easily articulate their real goals and objectives, advisors must probe and peel the layers to determine the message behind the music.

These are delicate acts of balance, art and vision. "I want to retire at 65," by definition, includes notions of living, saving, investing, protecting, health, future-think, skill maintenance and a range of collateral intangibles. "I want my children to be happy, functional, mentally and spiritually healthy adults" may require sophisticated preparation and the engagement of collateral professionals. This is where advisory practitioners must play little games and make assumptions, while salesmen probe for vulnerabilities. This is where we work in the dusky regions between sunshine and the abyss. This is where we ascertain and record our clients' goals and objectives and then work to establish a plan, entailing an end toward which our efforts are directed. This is where we proclaim our understanding or sell them the solutions from our own particular samples case.

Obviously, these are issues of nuance, not precision. These issues can easily grade from the shallow to the profound. They can range from survival, to enough to full-blown self-actualization.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a shallow goal. However, isn't something seriously amiss if we settle for the superficial goal, even when we actually discern more and have the permission to seek it? Is it not inherently wrong to hear more from a client, overlook the heart of his aspirations and then proclaim our own will paramount?

The point is not whether we are merely facilitators of financial transactions or self-elevated spiritual counselors. Goals and objectives are more than wish lists, but less than salvation. Understanding, identifying, accepting and actualizing the goals and objectives for clients are crucial and amazing skills. If we are to pass the test that matters-our clients' success at achieving what is most important to them within the boundaries of their personal financial realities-then shouldn't the identification of their goals and objectives get our very best?

Richard B. Wagner, JD, CFP, is the principal of WorthLiving LLC, based in Denver.