In the nebulous space where financial services firms decide what to call themselves and how to hold themselves out to the public, there's not necessarily a very clear distinction between a "financial planning" firm and a "private wealth management" advisor. Often, the difference is little more than the perceived marketing distinction of the labels to certain target clients.

Nonetheless, there is some evidence to suggest that the services delivered to very high net worth clients can be quite different than those provided to the average American, and accordingly may require a different set of knowledge and skills to deliver effectively.

As a result, there is an effort underway to try to study the real differences between what it takes to be a successful financial planner versus a private wealth management advisor, in order to develop certification that is unique and appropriate to the distinct specialization.Read More...

Notwithstanding its risk and the painful volatility of the past decade, stock investing is still a cornerstone of financial planning advice. However, investing in equities - even just a little bit - is not for everyone. Some aren't interested in the risk; the trade-off just isn't worth it to them.

Of course, financial planning advice has much value to offer beyond just how to allocate an equity-centric portfolio. There's just one problem... financial planning advice may still be so equity-centric, that people who don't want to take investment risk just don't use a financial planner at all, as a recent Journal of Personal Finance revealed!Read More...

The membership of the Financial Planning Association has been declining for several years. After a peak of over 28,400 members in late 2002, the organization was largely flat for many years, still hailing at 27,805 members by the end of 2007. But the membership tumbled almost 15% from the end of 2007 through the end of 2009, and it is been largely flat at a base of approximately 23,600 members since then.

The FPA has suggested that its declining membership count is a result of its strong and passionate advocacy positions - in particular, its high Standard of Care and its positions on fiduciary financial planning - which have perhaps alienated some current/former/prospective members, but defends its positions (and their membership-limiting consequences) as being a necessary result of its mission to advance the financial planning profession.

Yet the question arises - if high standards of care and fiduciary financial planning are really at the heart of FPA's membership problem, then why is FPA membership declining even while the number of CFP certificants who are already committed to a comparable standard of care and fiduciary duty continues to rise!?Read More...

In recent years, the Financial Planning Coalition - comprised of representatives from the CFP Board, NAPFA, and the FPA - have been advocating together for a fiduciary standard in the delivery of financial services. Success, thus far, has been limited - their efforts for financial planning fiduciary regulation to be integrated into the Dodd-Frank legislation led to some mandated studies that do something to move the conversation forward, but the follow-up fiduciary standard that was to be implemented pursuant to those studies continues to lag. In the meantime, the Dodd-Frank results certainly fell far short of bona fide recognition of financial planning as a standalone profession.

Yet at the same time, the Certified Financial Planner designation continues to expand its base at the grass roots level, even while the total number of participants in financial services remains flat (or declining slightly) over the past decade.

Which raises the question: As an increasing number of financial advisors become CFP certificants voluntarily, is the CFP Board winning the fiduciary fight already, from the inside out?

Read More...