Every month since December of 2010, I have had a column published on the Financial Advisor website or in the magazine. This will be my last one for a while. A confluence of increased professional and personal obligations necessitates I take a leave for a spell. If I’m lucky and they’ll have me, I’ll be back in 2024.

I’ve loved writing for this publication. The staff has been wonderful. Over the years, I have come to know and respect the work of Evan Simonoff, Eric Rasmussen, Dorothy Hinchcliff, Jeff Schlegel, Ray Fazzi and Tracey Longo in particular.

Most of the columns are about advising retirees. I love working with retirees and always have. Working with older folks requires a particular type of patience that I am blessed to possess, apparently.

Retirees have life experiences that are fascinating, troubling, magical, terrifying and inspiring among other things. My retired clients have been helpful to me personally as I learned to be a husband, father, and now empty nester. My clients have collectively seen it all and they have been kind enough to share lessons they learned with me. The advisor became the advised.

I’ve learned a lot by writing these columns about retiree issues too. I’d like to share some of those things with you.

First, writing is difficult for me but worth the effort. When tax code changes come along, for instance, I’m not sure there is a better way to get up to speed fast on those changes than writing about them. You should consider writing more. You can do this as a cheat sheet for yourself or internal use with co-workers, an “explainer” for clients or as a blog post for your firm. It’s even more effective when writing for an audience of people with expertise in the topic.

Financial planners hold strong opinions. Almost every column I have written has resulted in email feedback, most of it good. The one piece that drew the most praise was “With or Without You.” I think every planner with some experience has met an Archie and Ethel and the story reminded many of just how valuable a good planner can be to clients.

I enjoy getting supportive emails and hearing the stories of my colleague’s clients but I’m also thankful for most of the emails received from people that disagree with me. My grandfather taught me to look for the truth in criticism because if you do, you often learn something. He was right.

Grandpa also warned me that some critics make doing that difficult. He was right about that too. This will come as no shock, but some critics are nasty trolls devoid of civility or logic. Fortunately, those types are a small minority. Some are so odd, they are entertaining, even comical. Others are not funny at all. One of my most recent pieces, “The Racial Wealth Gap in 2064,” resulted in one of the nastiest phone calls I have ever received.

If he hadn’t had his number blocked, I’d give it to you here. Maybe you could figure out what his point was. All I wanted to do was bring attention to a paper I found fascinating and worthy of discussion. He wasn’t interested in discussing anything. He just wanted to vent. If you think our profession is more enlightened about racism and racial issues, a snippet of that call would make you rethink your position.

Anyway, most comments are focused more on the substance of the columns. I’ve learned a lot from readers that come at issues from different angles. It keeps me grounded, humble and hungry to learn more. There is always more to learn.

Thirty years in this field and I still find it amazing sometimes how what seemed simple, like a retiree’s tax profile can become quite complex in the blink of an eye. Frankly, the idea that retirees have simple tax profiles is largely a myth.

The public is in desperate need for good financial planners. Investments get most of the attention and that area is just as fraught with peril as ever, but there is more to it. Taxes, distribution planning, gifting, estate planning, elder care and insurance among other issues can all be complex.

Every time, I sit through a program on Medicare, I get a headache. To grasp the choices retirees have, they essentially must learn a new language and apply it to a complex system. When I reviewed the hospital bills for my mom, they were almost completely non-sensical. There are millions of seniors relying on Medicare that have little or no clue what is going on. Elder care issues are even more confusing.

From a business standpoint, complexity is good for real financial planners. Demand should continue to grow but I cannot be happy about that. Demand may be high but so is the cost to those that don’t get good help. Retirees are targets and as I wrote in “Our Senior Clients Are Under Siege,” it pisses me off.

Fortunately, regulators have responded some to the plight of the elderly. We have trusted contacts and some ability to bring suspicious activity to the attention of others. Unfortunately, one of the recurring themes in my columns is the failure of regulators to be of much help to consumers looking for good financial advice.

I’ve been involved deeply with the development of the financial planning profession over the last 25 years. I can make a very strong case I know what’s what and who’s who when it comes to financial advice. Still, when I hear someone is a “financial advisor,” I can honestly say I do not know what they do for a living. 

They could work for a brokerage, an insurance company, a bank, directly for clients or a combination of any, all or none of those. I know what questions to ask and what to look for to figure it out but if I can’t tell right away based on that title, or many similar sounding titles, the average consumer has little chance of figuring it out.

The public shouldn’t need a glossary to be protected. Personal financial advice is of such importance that regulations should already have this sorted out for them. Yet, here I am, after 30 years as a financial planner, still lamenting the same name game.

Nonetheless, one of the most significant things I’ve learned writing these columns and practicing financial planning this long is that the vast majority of real financial planners are good people doing good work. Who is a real financial planner? To me, it is anyone who holds out as a financial planner, actually provides quality financial planning services and behaves as a fiduciary even when they won’t be held to a fiduciary standard by regulators or the law. I find these people in many different business models and compensation structures. Most are CFP professionals but many hold other credentials or no designation at all.

While I believe that if you fit my definition of a real financial planner you should become a CFP professional, I understand for some of you that’s a big ask at this point of your career. I encourage you to do so anyway or at least help someone else earn the right to use the marks. For example, support your staff’s efforts, mentor others, or fund a scholarship.

Regardless of designation, if you believe financial planning should be a profession in the eyes of the public, I urge you to join the Financial Planning Association (FPA) and (not or), if you are fee-only, join the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors (NAPFA). I’ve been an FPA member since the '90s with a predecessor organization and a NAPFA member since 2000. I’ve benefitted in more ways than I can count.

I’ve also disagreed with something either organization has said or done virtually every year I have been a member, yet I have never considered dropping the memberships. If these groups did nothing else but advocate for making financial planning a true profession, the dues would still be a bargain.

The work that you real financial planners do for clients is more important than ever. No matter where debates about models, compensation or credentials go, don’t ever forget that. You can transform lives though your work. Change is an inevitable part of life. Keep serving your clients well and both they and you will thrive and not merely survive whatever is to come.

Dan Moisand, CFP, practices in Melbourne, Fla. You can reach him at [email protected].