But while they were subtle, some differences remained. During the mid-1990s, three IAFP presidents in a row-Ross Levin, Greg Sullivan and Peggy Ruhlin-came out of a study group of successful practitioners called The Alpha Group. While all were fee-only advisors, they were seriously engaged in asset management and interested in building practices of a certain scale. In contrast, the leadership of the ICFP more often than not came from smaller ensemble offices or were solo practitioners.

In the late 1990s the leadership of the IAFP embraced the CFP mark, urging members who were seriously involved in financial planning to get it. At that point the differences between the two associations were so marginal that they re-entered merger negotiations, almost exactly a decade after they terminated similar discussions.

Although it went unnoticed at the time, a sign of potential future discord surfaced in late 1999 when Undiscovered Managers CEO Mark Hurley released his now-famous report on the future of the profession. He predicted a dramatic increase in competition that would force advisors to become larger if they wanted to compete and survive. Advisors at large firms, including a chunk of the IAFP leadership, were already working to grow their practices, and many embraced the report as a reason to redouble their efforts to grow. Smaller practitioners, by and large, saw the report as threatening, and some adopted a shoot-the-messenger attitude and dismissed Hurley's conclusions.

At the time the merger was consummated, what little opposition existed came from ICFP members. That was understandable, given that ICFP members were required to vote on the merger while the IAFP's board of directors was empowered to approve the deal at the board level.

One of the most influential and articulate opponents of the merger was former ICFP President Henry Montgomery of Minneapolis. In a letter to his fellow members, Montgomery pointed to the corporate and broker-dealer divisions of the IAFP and voiced fears that they would ultimately emerge in control of the organization.

Although these divisions had not usurped practitioners' interests at the IAFP for more than a decade, Montgomery feared that at some point this could change. "You know the golden rule," Montgomery wrote fellow ICFP members. "He who has the gold rules."

Today, Montgomery, who himself owns a broker-dealer with 11 reps, basically agrees with those who say the ICFP's agenda is carrying the day. "It's been very interesting," he says. "Quality rises to the top. The things I feared have not happened."

Sooner or later, the regulatory advocacy agendas of the FPA and independent broker-dealers were bound to collide. "When push came to shove, our interests are not the same," he says. "They [the FPA] made that choice before it was made for them."

Yet Montgomery acknowledges he has another fear-that the association's new focus on financial planning and practitioners could cost it financially. That fear is shared by advisor Alexandra Armstrong, who served as IAFP president in 1987 when its broker-dealer division was created. "I don't think the FPA could represent the interests of planners and broker-dealers," she says. "Where I see a problem is that broker-dealers helped support the FPA, so they may lose economic support."

But as Armstrong sees it, the FPA isn't moving straight toward an ICFP model. "My chapter in Washington is moving more in an IAFP direction," she says. "Integration has been painful. Part of the reason why it's been so painful has been the market."