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.