Nerd's Eye View blog

When It Pays To Pay Social Security Taxes

January 3, 2018 07:01 am 31 Comments CATEGORY: General Planning

While being a tax-paying citizen of the United States does provide for certain benefits and protections, and several organizations are responsible for helping to oversee and ensure that tax dollars are used in a reasonably productive manner, most people don’t think of their tax dollars as something that provides a specific and tangible “return on investment”. Yet the irony is that when it comes to FICA taxes on wages or self-employment income, which are used to fund Social Security and Medicare benefits, it actually is possible to have FICA taxes produce a long-term Return On Investment (ROI).

The reason that Social Security FICA taxes can generate a positive ROI is that ultimately, any wages or self-employment income that is taxed for Social Security purposes is also income that will be considered when calculating Social Security benefits. And since Social Security itself is functionally an income-replacement formula – based on an individual’s highest 35 years of inflation-adjusted earnings, with means-tested replacement rates based on their income levels – the more income that is included for FICA tax purposes, the higher Social Security benefits will be.

In fact, those eligible for the lower and middle FICA replacement rates – up to $64,788 of lifetime inflation-adjusted average earnings – the ROI of paying FICA taxes can generate real returns that are actually competitive with current TIPS bond yields, potentially rising even higher for those in the lowest income tier, especially for individuals who are also older (in their 50s or early 60s) but very healthy (with a long life expectancy to continue receiving Social Security benefits in retirement itself). Although for upper-income individuals, even though with above-average health, the ROI on Social Security FICA taxes is generally negative.

The significance of the potential for Social Security taxes generating a positive ROI is that, at a minimum, paying FICA taxes for many is less of a “tax” and more of a forced-savings investment with a bond-like return (albeit not available as a liquid account balance and only as a lifetime Social Security annuity payment). And for those in more flexible situations to control their income reported as wages – from S corporation owners, to those with spouses or other family members who might be paid through the family business – the potential for a positive ROI from FICA taxes can substantially alter intra-family business tax planning strategies!

#FASuccess Ep 053: How Compassionate Communication Makes Us “No Longer Awkward” With Grieving Clients with Amy Florian

January 2, 2018 07:01 am 4 Comments CATEGORY: Financial Advisor Success Podcast

Welcome, everyone! Welcome to the 53rd episode of the Financial Advisor Success Podcast!

My guest on today's podcast is Amy Florian. Amy is the founder of Corgenius, a consulting firm that teaches and trains financial advisors about how to work better with grieving clients.

What's fascinating about Amy, though, is that she actually is a trained Thanatologist – one who studies death, loss, aging, transitions, and the various forms of grief. A path that first started for her when she unexpected become a young widow herself at the age of 25 with a 7-month-old son after a tragic car accident, and ultimately evolved into running a support group for widows, getting a Master's degree and becoming a Fellow in Thanatology, and over the decades has expanded into conference presentations, workshops, a master class, and a series of books, with a primary specialization in working with us as financial advisors.

In this episode, we talk in depth about the real challenges as a financial advisor when trying to work with clients who are grieving, why the grieving process isn't just about death and dying but any time someone has a break with an attachment – which can even include the break from the attachments of existing social relationships and personal identity when someone retires – and how in the end our job as advisors working with grieving clients isn't about trying to make them feel happier, but simply to comfort them as they go through their own healing process. Even if that means there's a lot of crying.

Unfortunately, though, in practice this isn't what most of us tend to do when faced with situations of death, dying, and grief. Because these are situations that most are never trained to handle in the first place. Accordingly, Amy shares her expert perspective on how to be "No Longer Awkward" with grieving clients, what we should do and say to really comfort them, why saying "How are you holding up?" or "Is there anything I can do?" is not actually helpful for those who are grieving, why it can be even worse to try to hand a box of tissues to a crying client in your office, and why it's better instead to ask "What do you wish people knew about what this is like for you?" or simply "What kind of a day is this for you?".

And be certain to listen to the end, where Amy talks about how even though we as financial advisors aren't meant to be professional grief counselors, that ultimately we can be "grief companions" that provide our support... beyond just trying to help with the financial issues that arise in times of grief.

So whether you have been curious about how you can be less awkward around grieving clients, the specific challenges financial advisors should expect when working clients suffering a break with some type of attachment, or curious about the role advisors can play beyond just addressing financial issues that come during times of grief, I hope you enjoy this episode of the Financial Advisor Success podcast!

The Latest In Financial Advisor #FinTech (January 2018)

January 1, 2018 07:01 am 2 Comments CATEGORY: Technology & Advisor FinTech

Welcome to the January 2018 issue of the Latest News in Financial Advisor #FinTech – where we look at the big news, announcements, and underlying trends and developments that are emerging in the world of technology solutions for financial advisors and wealth management!

This month's edition kicks off with the big news that the Center for Research in Security Prices (CRSP) is working with Vanguard to put its Total Stock Market Index (along with several others) on a publicly available blockchain… which makes it feasible to instantly (and evenly) distribute updated index information to all market participants at once, and facilitate index implementation and maintenance at a far lower cost than today. For all the buzz of blockchain, this may be the start of an actual wave of new applications to put the cost-reducing technology to use in the advisory industry.

From there, the latest highlights also include a number of interesting advisor technology announcements, including:

Quovo launches PFM modules to make it easier for financial institutions to quickly deploy client-facing account aggregation tools
Risk tolerance assessment provider RiskPro is gaining traction with mid-sized broker-dealers by focusing on the compliance monitoring aspects of ensuring that client portfolios remain in line with client risk tolerance
Fi360 launches an expanded version of its Fee Benchmarking tool for retirement plan advisors
RetireUp announces that it is finalizing a patent on its real-time collaborative retirement projection tools… raising the question of whether the company is trying to patent a technique that is already in common use anyway, and the spectre of a years-old lawsuit between Wealthcare and MoneyGuidePro over a similar type of patent infringement case

This month’s Advisor FinTech news also includes a look at several new categories of emerging advisor technology, including industry-specific social media and digital marketing tools from Hyperchat Social, account-aggregated business intelligence tools from AdvisorClarity, and custom white-labeled chartbooks for advisors from Clearnomics.

And be certain to read to the end, where we take a retrospective look at just what a big year 2017 was for Financial Advisor FinTech from the perspective of new venture capital inflows, and what are likely to be some of the hot trends of 2018, including Direct Indexing 2.0 solutions, the rise of advisor technology as a product distribution channel, and the increasingly disparate demands of planning-centric versus investment-centric advisory firms when it comes to technology solutions.

I hope you're continuing to find this new column on financial advisor technology to be helpful! Please share your comments at the end and let me know what you think!

*And for #AdvisorTech companies who want to submit their tech announcements for consideration in future issues, please submit to [email protected]!

Weekend Reading for Financial Planners (December 30-31)

December 29, 2017 02:50 pm 0 Comments CATEGORY: Weekend Reading

Enjoy the current installment of "weekend reading for financial planners" – this week's edition kicks off with the stunning revelation from a Wall Street Journal investigative report that a substantial number of the Public Comments submitted against the Department of Labor's fiduciary rule (and supporting its delay) were actually fake comments posted in the names of real people who didn't even know their names had been used (and more often than not were actually in favor of the fiduciary rule as written). In the meantime, with the DoL fiduciary rule is delayed, New York's Department of Financial Services has released its own proposed regulation to subject insurance and annuity agents in New York to a state-level fiduciary rule instead (after Nevada implemented a similar rule a few months ago). Also in the news this week was the release of updated "guidance" from the IRS clarifying that deducting a prepayment 2018 property taxes in 2017 is only permitted if the county had actually assessed (i.e., the homeowner had become liable for) the tax.

From there, we have investment related articles this week, from a look at the rise of "digital marketplaces" for alternative investments like iCapital and CAIS that aim to make it easier for independent uses to use alternatives, to a discussion of technology tools that are being developed to allow "direct indexing" (where clients own an index by using software to manage a portfolio of the underlying components of the index, without needing to pay a mutual fund or ETF), and a comparison of some of the most popular "model marketplaces" that gives advisors the opportunity to use third-party models by retain control of (and responsibility for) implementing the trades themselves.

We also have several retirement planning articles, from an interesting discussion on the hazards of investing in the markets with the plan to buy "safe" (e.g., annuity) income later, Wade Pfau on strategies to manage sequence of return risk in retirement, and a discussion from Bill Bengen on how to monitor retirees' ongoing current withdrawal rates to identify those who may be in trouble.

We wrap up with three interesting articles, all around the theme of the way our economy is being reshaped: the first looks at the rise of robots and automation in sectors that were previously thought to be less exposed (e.g., restaurants and hotels), finding that while some jobs may be eliminated, new ones are also being created, and the net job impact could actually still be positive; the second is an interesting 10-year retrospective look from the Cleveland Fed at the factors that led to the financial crisis, the impact of the aftermath, and how the Fed looks differently at the banking system and its risks today; and the last is a fascinating discussion of how in the past, local areas of economic opportunity could create "boomtowns" that attracted those in search of jobs and higher wages (e.g., Chicago grew from 30,000 people to over 2 million in just a few decades), but in today's world interstate mobility is actually down, and the reason appears to be local housing policies in major metropolitan areas that have made it so expensive to move that people are not able to take advantage of the job opportunities there... which ultimately may help to explain why the U.S. has experienced more sluggish GDP growth in the aggregate over the past two decades!

Enjoy the "light" reading, and have a Happy New Year!

Are Broker-Dealers Drowning In Their Own Lowest Common Denominator Compliance Standards?

December 28, 2017 02:01 am 11 Comments CATEGORY: Planning Profession

Earlier this month, TD Ameritrade did a survey study of breakaway brokers – specifically asking those who were breaking away why they were leaving – and overwhelming, the top challenge that breakaway brokers cited for the broker-dealer world is the current regulatory environment. In essence, the compliance and regulatory burden of working at a broker-dealer is slowly but steadily driving advisors to the independent RIA channel. Which is interesting given that the broker-dealer community maintains that a fiduciary rule (e.g., from the Department of Labor) is unworkable due to the regulatory and compliance burdens it creates... even as leading advisors at broker-dealers continue to leave and transition to the fiduciary RIA model!?

In this week’s #OfficeHours with @MichaelKitces, my Tuesday 1PM EST broadcast via Periscope, we look at the interesting trend of advisors leaving broker-dealers to become fiduciary RIAs, why fiduciary regulation is actually easier to comply with than broker-dealer suitability, and why the real problem at broker-dealers is not the compliance burden of a fiduciary rule but the lax recruiting standards at many broker-dealers (which have brought them reps that don't have the requisite training and experience to be fiduciary advisors!

There has been much discussion in the industry in recent years about how the fiduciary standard is a higher standard than "just" suitability. There’s more scrutiny on conflicts of interest, and an RIA’s Form ADV has a lot more required disclosures and cost details than typical broker-dealer agreements. And the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule outright bans a lot of conflicted compensation arrangements. But indirectly… that’s the point of why it's actually easier to comply with a fiduciary rule! When firms are required to disclose more details about their conflicted compensation, many simply stop doing it, and the result is business model that is much simpler to comply with the regulations. In fact, under principles-based fiduciary regulation, it's not exactly clear where the line is between appropriate and inappropriate behavior... so advisors tend stay far away from that line, which ironically leads to fiduciary advisors often having lower E&O insurance costs than brokers. By contrast, under rules-based suitability regulation, in which FINRA lays out a clear line, brokers are invited to get really close to the line, and even allowed to be incentivized to step over the line. Which then means FINRA must focus a huge amount of its regulatory energy in trying to keep people right on that line, and punishing them whenever they do respond to incentives and step over the line.

In the end, there are actually two problems with this kind of regulatory approach. The first is that the industry is inevitably going to have a lot of people who do step over the line, which means a lot of regulatory fines, lawsuits that go to arbitration, and higher E&O costs. The second problem that crops up with this kind of regulatory approach, though, is what I call the lowest common denominator (LCD) compliance problem. In the broker-dealer context, lowest common denominator compliance means the compliance department writes all their rules and regulations for the lowest common denominator. Basically, whatever the one biggest idiot under the entire broker-dealer umbrella could possibly do to cause harm… the broker-dealer writes compliance rules to ensure that one person is "properly" overseen. Which means for everyone else – all the normal, high-quality honest and ethical advisors – are stuck complying with the rules written for the biggest idiot in the organization! And this problem is exacerbated by the fact that as the best advisors are driven away by LCD compliance standards, the quality of the average rep that stays behind is reduced, which means the broker-dealer has to tighten the compliance screws even further, and the problem just spirals downward.

Fortunately, I don’t think this necessarily means we’re at the beginning of the end of the broker-dealer model. While historically (and from a legal perspective) broker-dealers only exist to serve as an intermediary to facilitate the sale of commission-based brokerage products, broker-dealers have increasingly provided a second value proposition as well – they’re essentially "advisor support networks". Many advisors are not interested in building their own business from scratch, and broker-dealers can continue to fill this void by providing tools, resources, and a platform. However, it will require broker-dealers to improve their recruiting standards, so that LCD compliance standards don't make it so miserable for good advisors to stay in a broker-dealer!

But the bottom line is just to recognize that the regulatory woes of the broker-dealer environment aren’t really about the potential for a fiduciary standard to apply to them. What it’s really about is the fact that many broker-dealers have cast such a wide net in their recruiting process, that they’ve brought in some very low-quality reps. Which compels their compliance department to make lowest common denominator compliance rules, that make the lives of their best advisors miserable, and leads those advisors to leave and find “advisor support networks” that don’t come with the broker-dealer’s regulatory baggage. Which means broker-dealers need to find ways to screen out low-quality reps, get rid of bad ones, and lift themselves to a higher standard, so that they can retain good advisors who don’t like to be dragged down to LCD compliance standards!

Volatility Drag And Its Impact On (Arithmetic) Investment Returns In Monte Carlo Analysis

December 27, 2017 07:01 am 15 Comments CATEGORY: Investments

In the investment world, it’s common to discuss average rates of return, both in a backward-looking fashion (e.g., to report investment results), and in a more forward-looking manner (e.g., to project the average growth rate of investments for funding future goals in retirement planning software). However, the reality is that because returns are linked to each other – the return in one year increases or decreases the available wealth to compound in the subsequent year – it’s not sufficient to simply determine an “average” return by adding up all the historical returns and dividing by how many there are.

Instead of this traditional “arithmetic mean” approach to calculating an average, in the case of investment returns, the proper way to calculate average returns is with a geometric mean, that takes into account the compounding effects of a series of volatile returns over time. Which is important, because in practice the geometric average return is never as high as its arithmetic mean counterpart, due to the fact that volatility always produces some level of “volatility drag”, which can be estimated by subtracting ½ of the investment’s variance (standard deviation squared) from its arithmetic return.

Fortunately, the reality is that most investment returns, as commonly discussed by financial advisors, are already reported as geometric returns, typically stated as either a Compound Average Growth Rate (CAGR), an annualized return, or some similar label. Which means, intended or not, most financial advisors already project future wealth values in a retirement plan using the (proper) geometric return assumption.

However, the variance drain on a sequence of volatile returns still matters when financial advisors use Monte Carlo analysis, which by design actually projects sequences of random volatile returns (based on the probability that they will occur) to determine the outcome of particular retirement strategies. Because the fact that volatility drag is already part of a Monte Carlo analysis means that the return assumption plugged into a Monte Carlo projection should actually be the (higher) arithmetic return, and not the investment’s long-term compound average growth rate. Otherwise, the impact of volatility drag is effectively counted twice, which can understate long-term returns and overstate the actual risk of the prospective retirement plan!

The good news is that some Monte Carlo software tools, recognizing that most financial advisors report returns using the industry-standard geometric averages, already adjusts advisor-inputted return assumptions up to their arithmetic mean counterparts. However, not all Monte Carlo software automatically makes such adjustments. Of course, in many cases, financial advisors may wish to use lower return assumptions in today’s environment, given above-average market valuations and below-average yields. Nonetheless, advisors should be cognizant of whether they are unwittingly entering lower-than-intended return assumptions into their Monte Carlo retirement projections, compounding geometric returns in a manner that double-counts the impact of volatility drag!

#FASuccess Ep 052: Why Today’s Technology Tools Are The Golden Age Of Advisor FinTech with Joel Bruckenstein

December 26, 2017 07:01 am 2 Comments CATEGORY: Financial Advisor Success Podcast

Welcome, everyone! Welcome to the 52nd episode of the Financial Advisor Success Podcast!

My guest on today's podcast is Joel Bruckenstein. Joel is one of the industry's leading advisor technology gurus, publisher of the Technology Tools for Today newsletter, and runs the popular T3 Advisor and T3 Enterprise technology conferences for the financial advisory industry.

What's fascinating about Joel, though, is his nearly 20-year history of writing about and covering advisor technology trends, from publishing regular columns in Horsesmouth, Morningstar Advisor, Financial Advisor, and Financial Planning magazines, to his own newsletter and now his latest platform the T3 Tech Hub... which gives him an incredible perspective on the evolution of advisor technology tools over the years, and where the gaps still remain.

In this episode, we talk in depth about recent trends in advisor technology, the results of the latest Advisor Software Survey that Joel administers along with Bob Veres' Inside Information, why Joel views today as the "Golden Age" of advisor technology, and what kinds of new trends in advisor technology we're likely to see in the coming years.

We also talk about the real-world challenges of implementing advisor technology in the typical firm, why data migrations from one piece of software to another are so painful, and why many advisors may actually be trying too hard to find the best technology for their firm... when the real problem is a need for the firm to focus and systematize what it does just to make it possible for technology to help more in the first place.

And be certain to listen to the end, where Joel talks about the biggest areas where advisors can get better ROI from their technology... particularly when it comes to better utilizing CRM software for business intelligence purposes.

So whether you have been curious about the latest trends in advisor technology, are curious why Joel thinks we are living in the “Golden Age” of advisor technology, or have been wondering how you can better utilize your CRM and get a better ROI from your technology, I hope you enjoy this episode of the Financial Advisor Success podcast!

2017 Highlights – The Top 20 Nerd’s Eye View Blog Posts You Might Have Missed

December 25, 2017 07:01 am 0 Comments CATEGORY: Nerd's Eye View

As 2017 comes to a close, I am once again so thankful to all of you, the ever-growing number of readers who continue to regularly visit this Nerd's Eye View blog, and have been kind enough to share the content with your friends and colleagues as well (which I greatly appreciate!). Over the past year, the cumulative readership of the blog has grown yet another 25%, with more than 200,000 unique readers coming to Nerd's Eye View last month. And we're gearing up for a number of major new upgrades in early 2018 as well, from new CE opportunities, to back-end changes to our platform that will help to further improve your own reader experience.

Yet notwithstanding how many of you have made reading the Nerd's Eye View a weekly habit, I realize that the sheer volume of articles can feel overwhelming at times, and that it's not always possible to keep up with it all. And once published, blog articles are usually quite quickly left in the dust as the next new one comes along.

Accordingly, just as I did last year and in 2015 and 2014, I've compiled for you this Highlights list of our top 20 articles of 2017 that you might have missed, including some of our most popular episodes of the Financial Advisor Success podcast. So whether you're new to the blog and #FASuccess podcast and haven't searched through the Archives yet, or simply haven't had the time to keep up with everything, I hope that some of these will (still) be useful for you! And as always, I hope you'll take a moment to share podcast episodes and articles of interest with your friends and colleagues as well!

In the meantime, I hope you're having a safe and happy holiday season. Thanks again for another successful year in 2017, and I hope you enjoy all the new features we'll be rolling out in 2018, too!

Weekend Reading for Financial Planners (December 23-24)

December 22, 2017 02:58 pm 6 Comments CATEGORY: Weekend Reading

Enjoy the current installment of "weekend reading for financial planners" – this week's edition kicks off with the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (which was formally signed into law by President Trump today), which will brings substantive corporate tax reform, and a slew of tax changes for individuals... many of which impact financial advisors directly, from the potential for a new deduction for pass-through advisory businesses (as long as their income remains below a certain threshold), to the repeal of the deduction for investment advisory fees.

Also in the news this week was the release of the 2nd version of the CFP Board's proposed changes to the Standards of Professional Conduct (which would keep the "fiduciary at all times" rule, but removes the presumption that consumers can even rely on a CFP professional to actually be providing financial planning), a new TD Ameritrade study on breakaway brokers finding that they are increasingly forsaking the idea that broker-dealers will be able to successfully navigate the DoL fiduciary rule (and thus are opting for the RIA channel instead), the latest Fidelity RIA benchmarking study that finds advisory firm growth rates, profit margins, and fees are all under pressure, and a new Investor Bulletin from the SEC warning about hybrid B-D/RIA firms that may be inappropriately using (and/or failing to fully disclose) the costs of their wrap fees.

From there, we have several practice management articles this week, including guidance on why it's so important to find a business focus in the face of declining profit margins for advisory firms, why RIAs need their own "Zillow" platform that can reasonably estimate a true value of the advisory firm in an increasingly unbalanced market of one-time sellers and experienced serial buyers, what advisory firms should be doing now (while times are good) to prepare for the next inevitable bear market (whenever it may occur), and the reasons why Millennials require a fundamentally different approach to engaging financial planners (because they don't need advice on how to manage their accumulated resources... they need help developing policies that will allow them to accumulate those resources in the first place!).

We wrap up with three interesting articles, all around the theme of sexual harassment and diversity issues within our own financial advisory world: the first notes that recent sexual harassment revelations from Morgan Stanley's Harold Ford, and Sallie Krawcheck's #metoo story, may only be the tip of the iceberg in what is still a very male-dominated advisory industry; the second raises the question of whether sexual harassment in advisory firms may be even worse in the small-firm environment (where the harasser may be the boss and founder, and there's no HR department to file a complaint with); and the last looks at how to better have these conversations about diversity and inclusiveness, which can be challenging and awkward even for those who are well-intentioned.

And be certain to scroll down to the end, for a light-hearted video on the ongoing Bitcoin crazy, as the cryptocurrency experiences yet another highly volatile week.

Enjoy the "light" reading, and have a happy holidays!

First Look At CFP Board’s Revised Proposal For Professional Standards Of Conduct

December 21, 2017 01:27 am 9 Comments CATEGORY: Regulation & Compliance

Beginning with the CFP Board's formation of the Commision on Standards back in late 2015, the CFP Board has been in the process of updating our Standards of Professional Conduct for CFP certificants for the first time since 2007. After an 18-month process, in early summer of this year, the Commission on Standards released its first proposal of the new Standards of Professional Conduct. Due to the complexity of adopting new standards for nearly 80,000 CFP professionals, the CFP Board put the newly proposed standards out for a 60-day comment period. During that time, the CFP Board received a lot of feedback (over 1,300 public comment letters), which was incorporated into a newly revised version of the Proposed CFP Standards of Professional Conduct. Yesterday, December 20th, the CFP Board released the 2nd version of these proposed standards, and announced that a second comment period will open on January 2nd and run for 30 days, until February 2nd of 2018.

In this week’s #OfficeHours with @MichaelKitces, my Tuesday 1PM EST broadcast via Periscope, we look at at the changes made in the 2nd version of the Proposed CFP Standards of Professional Conduct, including the things the CFP Board got right in the revisions, some things they unfortunately walked back on, and some areas of focus for those drafting comment letters for the second comment period beginning on January 2nd of 2018.

First and foremost, when you subject a 17-page standards document to 1,300 hundred public comment letters, there are a lot of small tweaks that get made. Fortunately, the CFP Board is taking feedback seriously and should be commended for this. In the latest revision, important adjustments include: clarification was provided to the gifts and other "benefits" CFPs cannot receive from clients if it will compromise their objectivity; the requirement that CFP professionals cannot use the term "fee-based" to imply they're fee-only was expanded to stipulate that CFPs cannot use any other not-fee-only term to imply they are fee-only either; clarification that salary-based advisors who receive bonuses for product sales must still disclose this compensation as sales-related; and a new exclusion allowing advisors who use TAMPs to not run afoul of the fee-only rules simply for outsourcing investment management functions. Overall, these are good and reasonable changes.

However, there are a few areas in the new revised Standards of Professional Conduct that are more concerning. The first is that under the original proposal, the CFP Board significantly expanded the disclosure requirements for CFP professionals. Not only at the time the client engages the advisor, but also with a new “Initial Disclosure Information” document that would have to be provided to prospects, detailing the nature of the CFP professional’s services, a description of how they are compensated, and a summary of their conflicts of interest (basically an RIA’s Form ADV Part 2). But here, the broker-dealer community pushed back very hard in their comment letters, claiming that this new initial disclosure requirement would simply be too onerous for them. Which, in reality, really is hard to supervise, as this kind of upfront information document would likely itself be treated as “advertising” communication with the public under FINRA Rule 2210. And so the CFP Board backed off the upfront disclosure requirement, albeit while still keeping the requirement for disclosure at the time the client actually engages the CFP professional. Overall, it’s very unfortunate that the CFP Board backed off this initial disclosure requirement, but understandable, as higher standards do need to be administratively feasible.

The other, perhaps more concerning change that came through under the revised Standards of Professional Conduct, is a shift in the presumption of when a CFP professional is actually doing financial planning or not. This distinction has actually been a major issue under the CFP Board’s Standards of Conduct for a long time. Under the current rules, there is effectively a “loophole” that allows CFP professionals to escape their fiduciary duty under the CFP Board’s Standards, because the current rules state that a CFP professional only has a fiduciary duty to clients when doing financial planning or material elements of financial planning (which meant CFP professionals could avoid their fiduciary obligation by just not actually doing financial planning). Accordingly, it was a big deal that under the new Standards of Professional Conduct the new rule would become “fiduciary all the time” as a CFP professional, with a presumption that any time a CFP professional engages with clients, they are doing financial planning (unless proven otherwise). In the revised standards, though, the CFP Board has dropped this rebuttable presumption. As it stands, all CFP professionals will still be fiduciaries when providing financial advice – which includes product sales – but there’s no presumption that they’re actually doing financial planning just because they’re CFP professionals (which means they don’t have to adhere to the full Practice Standards for delivering financial planning). As a result, there are now basically have two types of CFPs: those who provide financial planning advice, and those who provide non-financial-planning financial advice and don’t have to adhere to the Practice Standards for financial planners. Confusing? Exactly.

In other words, all marketing to the contrary, the CFP Board's revised standards are effectively telling the public "it's not even safe to assume that engaging a CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER professional for financial advice will result in any actual financial planning." Which is problematic both for the weakened consumer protection, and the fact that it's not even clear how to apply a fiduciary duty to non-financial-planning financial advice, or what standards such a CFP would be held to.

If you agree that this is concerning as well, I hope you’ll submit a public comment letter next month. The point is not that every CFP professional must do financial planning for every client, but to emphasize to the CFP Board that when a CFP professional holds out to the public as a CFP, that the consumer should be able to safely assume they will be getting financial planning subject to the full standards that apply to financial planning, unless a clear advisory agreement and scope of engagement stipulates otherwise and the CFP professional clearly discloses this is not financial planning advice. Otherwise, the CFP marks risk simply becoming a misleading marketing label that implies to consumers a breadth of financial planning expertise and advice that the CFP Board doesn't actually require of those CFP professionals in the first place.