Lewis: Investors hear the terms, and they interpret them in different ways. Simply put, to define them, holistic financial planning applied to the high-net-worth client is, in fact, wealth management. There is more to wealth management than just money management. Asset management fees are still the engine that drives the business. And part of it is the demographic wave-baby boomers having far more complex financial challenges, and our profession is moving along this demographic wave. We had better be working holistically, though, because if a "wealth manager" is only dealing with the investment issues of managing money, they are vulnerable to being picked off by the holistic financial planner.

LeBlanc: Which category-wealth managers, financial planners, consultants, family office experts-do you believe affluent investors trust and rely on the most, and why?

Greenlaw: In my experience, none of the above-they typically will confer with their CPA for a referral to an advisor with specialized expertise. Specifically regarding the family office, even sophisticated clientele and advisors are either unfamiliar or unaware of the concept. Wealth managers are relatively new and misunderstood; consultants are often perceived as lacking the "holistic" approach that most clients' seek and desire; and some financial planners are often viewed merely as product-pushers disguised as problem-solvers.

Lewis: I don't entirely agree with Curt. Basically, at the end of the day, they just want an advisor who is going to be there. They want holistic advice and guidance. If you as an advisor are only dealing with a piece of it, you are vulnerable, as I said earlier. You can't compartmentalize these areas into consulting, or planning; it's too difficult, and you don't have the opportunity to know the client fully. Comprehensive planning is an increasingly sought-after process.

Bott: I believe certifications carry the most trust-for example, CPA, CFP, CIMC-over self-proclaimed labels such as wealth manager.

Davis: I would assume the wealth manager has more high-net-worth clients with large investable portfolios, but given the jumble of terms, I'm not sure if anyone really knows.

LeBlanc: Does anyone feel the regulatory agencies need to step in and control the many designations-self-proclaimed or not-in order to clear the confusion for investors? What about more education?

Bott: I believe most investors are confused about the titles, and it appears to be getting worse. More consumer education is needed. Quite honestly, our industry has way too many labels, and many individuals in the business lack the in-depth skills to give themselves a label at all. As much as I don't like government intervention, I believe the SEC should create guidelines as to what some professionals can call themselves. Currently, outside of the "certified" designations, it seems to be a free for all, and it is becoming very misleading.

Davis: I believe there always has been confusion about what a client wants and needs and what a service provider delivers. A confused client presents a better prospect in the long run-that's how the insurance industry has thrived-but an unhappy one in the long run. Solving the problem requires continued regulatory enforcement on the sell side and better consumer education on the buy side.

Greenlaw: Clients are not merely confused; they are dazed and frustrated by an industry replete with acronyms and jargon.