With the never-ending onslaught of information in today's world, I am often asked what I am reading, as someone who consumes perhaps an abnormally large amount of financial planning content. Accordingly, I've decided to start a new column for this blog, called "Weekend Reading" - where I'll share a few of the more interesting articles I've read in the current week. The goal is to keep it to no more than an hour's worth of reading; something you can do in a single sitting when you're taking a rest over the weekend and trying to keep up with the financial planning world. Here I offer up the first week's articles. I hope you find it helpful! Read More...
Last month, the CFP Board released proposed changes to the CFP certification experience requirement in order to earn the CFP marks. This weekend the comment period closed; in this blog post, I share the feedback that I submitted. What do you think about the proposed changes?
In mid-August, the CFP Board issued some proposed changes to the CFP Board work experience requirement, including differentiating the work experience requirement for those personally deliver financial planning, from those who work in a supporting, supervisory, or teaching role. Up until now, all experience has been treated the same; but under the proposed rules, those who support, supervise, or teach will need more experience than those who personally deliver planning. Yet at the same time, the proposed changes make the differentiation by reducing the work experience requirement for those who personally deliver financial planning from three years, down to only two years. Is this strengthening the standard, or weakening it?Read More...
Psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky won the Nobel prize in economics for developing a theoretical framework to show how we make often irrational decisions when faced with real life economic trade-offs. As a part of their prospect theory research, they showed that we are naturally loss averse; this means we experience more negative feelings associated with a loss, than we do positive feelings for a comparable gain. For instance, we feel worse about losing $100, than we feel happy for winning $100. Yet despite the recognition that this research has received, are we ignoring it in the financial planning world? Simply put: If our clients feel worse about a loss than they feel good about a comparable gain, shouldn't we be more proactive about protecting them from losses, even at the risk of giving up more gains?Read More...
It is an experience that almost any financial planner has gone through at some point: a prospective client who is totally disconnected from reality. Unreasonable expectations, completely unrealistic goals, and an obsession with the latest get rich quick investing scheme. Sometimes, the prospect can be guided in a more reasonable direction, but often there's just no connection to be made, and we show the prospective client the door, acknowledging that some people we just can't help. We move on to the next prospect, who hopefully won't be such a "bad" future client.
Yet I have to wonder... given the state of financial literacy - or lack thereof - in the United States, many such prospective clients have totally impossible expectations and goals not because they're being irrational, but simply due to financial ignorance. And by excluding such prospective client relationships, are financial planners themselves excluding the majority of Americans as potential clients?
Because if that's the case - that we as financial planners have put ourselves in a position than we can't help the majority of all Americans - then I also have to wonder if maybe it's not the the prospective clients who have the problem... maybe WE are the ones with the problem?
Within the financial planning world, there is often little love for popular consumer "personal finance gurus" like Suze Orman, David Bach, and Dave Ramsey. Whether it's because of their entertainment-style deliver of financial advice (in the case of the former), their bombastic platitudes of overgeneralized advice with little client-specific information (in the case of both), or their controversial views about how to address common problems like debt (in the case of the latter), most financial planners don't seem to think highly of their consumer-popular counterparts.
Yet the success of those like Orman, Bach, and Ramsey - who, in the end, touch the lives of hundreds of thousands if not millions, while the "average" financial planner's impact may only be measured by a mere few dozen or hundred clients - makes me wonder: Maybe there is something we as financial planners could - and should - learn from the success of those like Orman and Ramsey?
Undoubtedly you have, at some point, been exposed to someone from Generation Y (born 1978-2000). It could be in the form of a colleague, an employee, restaurant server or even one of your kids. Gen Y, sometimes referred to as Millienals, Gen Text, and Gen Why have a unique set of characteristics. These characteristics often leave others from other generations, mainly baby boomers, scratching their heads. Since most financial planning firms tend to be owned by baby boomers, and most new financial planners tend to be Gen Y's, conflict and misunderstandings because of generational differences are common. Fortunately, many can be solved with a little intergenerational coaching!
The members of Generation X and Gen Y have had a unique collective experience, including growing up in the age of computers and (especially for Gen Y) with immersive exposure to the internet and the information resources it provides. Questions that might have required a trip to the library or an Encyclopedia Brittanica can be answered in a 10-second Google search. So if clients can look up a financial question in a few moments on the internet, where does that leave the value of financial planning?
Read More...
Recent research on the reaction of investors to the 2008-2009 market downturn has confirmed an interesting tendency of investors that I have long believed - the better our returns, the more we're willing to save. Yet the irony is that theoretically, the better our returns, the LESS we need to save, because we'll have more growth from our investments. Nonetheless, if we don't account for this very human behavior about saving, we can end out with some disastrous financial planning advice.
In light of the ongoing debates and discussion regarding the CFP Board's potential fee increase to support a new public awareness campaign, the FPA last week conducted a survey of their CFP members to poll for views about the proposal. And last night, the FPA has released the survey results in an email to members.
