Looking for New Financial Planner
Brian K.
Can anyone give any recommendations?
brian
Ed Zollars
wrote:
>I'm in the NJ/Phila. area and I'm looking for a New Financial Planner.
>Can anyone give any recommendations?
Skip's question is somewhat important, because people often mean
different things when asking for a financial planner.
The "traditional" definition of a financial planner would be a
party that helps arrange the use of specialists and looks at your
overall financial picture. However, that "limited purpose"
planner has not really caught on in a big way--rather, what
usually happens is that someone specializing in a particular area
attempts to handle the broader picture.
So that means we have CPA/Financial Planners, Broker/Financial
Planners, Insurance Agent/Financial Planners, Money
Manager/Financial Planners and Attorney/Financial Planners. The
only hitch is that each of these groups tend to rate their
specialities as the most important--note that this isn't really
intended as a criticism, since I've never met a medical
specialist who didn't believe his specialty was truly the most
important <grin>, but it does mean that there will generally be a
bias involved in what the planner comes up with. It's also
pretty certain we will know for sure where you'll be referred for
one specialty <grin>.
---
Ed Zollars, CPA (AZ)
http://www.hmtzcpas.com
Brian K.
"HW \"Skip\" Weldon" <wheat....@alfalfa.edu> wrote:
>On Mon, 20 Aug 2001 07:34:22 CST, "Brian K." <bkus...@snip.net>
>wrote:
>
>>I'm in the NJ/Phila. area and I'm looking for a New Financial Planner.
>>Can anyone give any recommendations?
>
>What do you mean by "Financial Planner"?
>(Insurance agent, stock broker, CPA, etc.)
>
>-HW "Skip" Weldon
> Columbia, SC
David H. Rothman
well-articulated viewpoints here. The group's FAQ certainly is a start
for people looking for planners. I'm impressed by the time that Ed
Zollars and others have devoted to enlightening the Net about the
various specialities, and his medical analogy is right on the mark!
Each specialist thinks that the earth, moon and stars revolve around
him or her.
For a Fee-Only CFP's perspective on the issue of finding the right
advisor or planner and for links to SEC-recommended questions, you can
read our detailed article at:
http://www.windsorwealth.com/findadvisor.html
We also cover such topics regularly in our free weekly newsletter, The
Fee-Only Investor <http://www.windsorwealth.com/signup2.html>.
See "Looking for Mr. or Ms. Goodplanner (More Advice)" at
<http://www.windsorwealth.com/fo25.html>.
For some Fee-Only-related guidelines from Washington Post/Newsweek
columnist Jane Bryant Quinn, you can check out:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/longterm/quinn/columns/012897.htm
For the thoughts of Post columnist Michelle Singletary on finding the
right planner, see:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28100-2001Aug18.html
The bottom line as we see it? Look for credentials and for a business
model that leads to objective advice. And don't just go by "Trust your
guts." Some of the worst planners and advisors are the best salesmen
with the best bedside manners and funniest jokes.
At any rate, lots of luck to you in your search!
David Rothman - rot...@windsorwealth.com / rot...@clark.net
Managing Editor, Windsor Asset Management, Bethesda, Maryland
A CFP Firm Serving Clients Both Inside and Outside the Washington Area
President: Thomas S. Greeves, CFP
Web site: http://www.windsor25.com
"Brian K." <bkus...@snip.net> wrote in message news:<qjg1otcr6h555qgom...@4ax.com>...
Ed Zollars
wrote:
>The bottom line as we see it? Look for credentials and for a business
>model that leads to objective advice. And don't just go by "Trust your
>guts." Some of the worst planners and advisors are the best salesmen
>with the best bedside manners and funniest jokes.
I would only add a caveat--remember that all of us, including those
who are fee-only advisers, are in the business of selling * SOMETHING*
and that something includes our advice. The quality of advice does
not correllate by necessity with the social skills of the adviser
<grin>.
But advisers need to be aware of the fact that, fair or not, they
*will* be evaluated that way by a significant number of their clients.
And, frankly, being a "poor" salesperson (or, to be more appropriate,
communicator) generally means you often confuse your clients, as well
as cause them to become suspicious of your advice. That is, you don't
seem to *care* about them, so they are less likely to follow your
advice (even if it is technically perfect). So it's important to
remember that ignoring those "marketing" issues are a problem for the
adviser and that he/she that ignores them actually does a disservice
to his/her clients.
Similarly, I also would caution consumers that any credential tells
you merely the minimum skills that a person has demonstrated, and that
normally those skills were only rigorously tested *once* (you don't
sit for any of these exams generally except for the initial
certification for licensing) and that continuing education is supposed
to assure they are up to date. I'll simply comment on that by saying
that there are many ways to meet a continuing education requirement,
and there are advisers licensed by all entities that tend to look for
compliance in form rather than actually attempting to improve their
skills. I would say the *lack* of any appropriate outside credentials
may tell you a lot more than the *presence* of any will.
For advisers, I would again point out that consumers will look to
credentials, especially ones they *recognize* to screen professionals.
Obtaining the well known credentials for your specialty (or
specialties) is both an important marketing move *AND* an important
move to assure that you really do possess the minimum knowledge level
of those practicing in the area. More importantly, to me, is that you
look towards continuing education not as a cost you have to bear, but
rather as an opportunity to improve your skill level and via that
investment to improve both your ability to serve clients *AND* your
ability to earn a living in the field.
David H. Rothman
of a job if Tom Greeves didn't believe in an informative approach that blended
marketing and education. We're simply saying that a slick salesman routine,
with the jokes and the other fun stuff, can distract from more important
things. And of course social skills do count.
As for credentials, Tom believes that the time spent in preparation for a CFP
and on maintaining it is a way to weed out some of the quick-buck artists who
can find more efficient ways of separating folks from their money. Even then,
however, he would agree that there are no guarantees. A recent Fortune told
how a CFP in Maryland allegedly pulled an annity-related scam on a couple in
bad need of the money.
Related to this can be the business model. A pure Fee-Only approach of the
kind required by the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors (note
the capital F and the cap O since NAPFA treats it as a trademarked term) means
that the advisor or planner can't get commissions or other hard or soft money
payments of the kind that may have swayed the judgment of the CFP in Maryland.
Of course the bottom line in terms of ethics is: What's happening with the
individual advisor--regardless of the credentials involved?
> More importantly, to me, is that you
> look towards continuing education not as a cost you have
> to bear, but rather as an opportunity to improve your skill
> level and via that investment to improve both your ability to
> serve clients *AND* your ability to earn a living in the
> field.
True, true, true!
Thanks,
David Rothman
Managing Editor, Windsor Asset Management, Bethesda, Maryland
A CFP Firm Serving Clients Both Inside and Outside the Washington Area
President: Thomas S. Greeves, CFP
Web site: http://www.windsor25.com
Ed Zollars
<rot...@clark.net> wrote:
>Related to this can be the business model. A pure Fee-Only approach of the
>kind required by the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors (note
>the capital F and the cap O since NAPFA treats it as a trademarked term) means
>that the advisor or planner can't get commissions or other hard or soft money
>payments of the kind that may have swayed the judgment of the CFP in Maryland.
Well, I wouldn't say they *can't* take such money. If they are
dishonest and willing to commit malpractice (as will be the case for
those on commission who only look at what goes in their pockets), what
they would be doing is violating the rules of an organization they are
a member of. The most the organization can do is remove this person
from membership. And the client would have to take the adviser to
court to get damages from misrepresentation (which is basically what
they have to do now).
That is, I think the CFP in question clearly violated the standards of
that organization <grin>, so organizational membership only goes so
far on such mattes.
Also, even fee-only planners and financial professionals (note the
lack of capitalization <grin>) have some biases at work--and I'm in
that class. The bias in the fee-only realm is to sell services, as
the bias in the assets under management realm is to increase gross
assets under management. In all cases, there are instances (in fact
most instances) where those interests are not going to be aligned
perfectly with the client's interests.
I think the most important thing is that the adviser be willing to
disclose fully the compensation method in question--and that he/she do
so without playing the "ask me exactly the right question" game that a
certain former President loved to play <grin>.
>Of course the bottom line in terms of ethics is: What's happening with the
>individual advisor--regardless of the credentials involved?
Ultimately that's going to be the real issue--you want an *ethical*
adviser, first and foremost.