But think about it. Why would we be taken seriously within the public dialogues? We don't even know who we are. Without probing conversation and at least nominal consensus about mission and purpose, we lack the base required for legitimate authority.

I suggest that the financial planning profession will continue to stew in the juices of 1970 as long as we continue to be confused about whether our primary loyalties belong to our clients or to the financial services industry.

Meanwhile, our regulations continue as an unholy mess while our academics continue to teach to the test at the expense of wisdom and lineage.

Our conversations are not likely to be pretty. In fact, the two factions don't even like each other very much. For the most part, we don't go to each other's parties or read each other's tweets. I perceive that those who are devoted to the financial services industry think the advisor folks are fools who leave way too much money on the table, whereas the advisor folks think those who define "producer" in terms of sales volumes and "getting their share of the wallet" are not particularly trustworthy or worthy of respect.

This is not a "fee-only" issue but one of personal identity and professional loyalty. Do you work for "Chuck," a "good neighbor," a "green path," a "company that you keep," etc., or for your client? Hint: If you see your sense of identity flashing on television screens or magazine ads, you probably identify with the financial services industry, not the financial planning profession. My view? There is nothing wrong with that so long as you own it. However, I am getting very tired of seeing such folks described as "advisors." Yes, salesmen can "advise," but do they really need to confuse?

Meanwhile, it is time for those of us who claim to be financial planners to claim the advisory turf. How and why did we get here? Where should we be going?

Let me make something clear. I believe this is a collective issue. My notion of mission is just one man's notion. I would love to see a larger conversation within the FPA communities. I believe I am right about this, but take a shot. Who knows where this could take us?

Meanwhile, to parse the profession's mission, I suggest we look at a host of relevant factors ranging from a closer look at the world of financial planning's inception to the world as it exists today and into the foreseeable future to the various issues touched by our work.

From its beginnings, financial planning has had a history of ambiguity. After all, the first financial planners were basically combining financial products sales into one person's primary relationships and planning expertise. Remember, financial planning's initial scope was insurance, securities, income tax, estate tax and retirement planning. What these have in common is the fact that they are financial products that address the financial issues that emerged during the sales processes of 1970.
Theoretically, the financial planner served as "quarterback" to identify everything that needed doing within this framework. Then the relevant products were implemented.

Again, there is nothing wrong with this so far as it goes. It is just that these issues don't go very far if we are looking at an authentic profession of significant stature addressing personal finance in the 21st century. The world is bigger than this. The money forces have become so much more powerful than the sales of financial products. These issues are very much a part of the daily realities of our clients and fellow citizens. Accordingly, my proposed mission statement.