FINRA, Bonds"> FINRA, Bonds">

Why Consumers should be Wary of Some Fee-Only "Financial Planners"
(Playing the Financial Planner Name Game - Don't Be Fooled!)
by
Nigel Brian Taylor, CFP®
(Last updated October 9, 2002)

© Copyright 1997-2002 by Nigel Brian Taylor, CFP. All Rights Reserved. No part of this article may be quoted, copied or reproduced in any form, whether by Photostat, microfilm, xerography, electronic or any other means, or incorporated into any other information retrieval system, electronic or mechanical, without the written permission of the copyright owner. All inquiries should be addressed to Nigel B. Taylor, CFP at: nigel@protectassets.com  

I will preface this article by saying that I personally believe all methods of compensation in our profession can be fair and equitable. I accept all forms of compensation depending on the planner / client relationship including fee-only as well as fee-based compensation. I also accept insurance commissions and offset fees against them so I don't get paid twice. I wrote, and regularly edit this article to present a balance against the inflammatory rhetoric that NAPFA, the CFA and NICE disseminates in order to try and gain a marketing advantage based on "method of compensation", rather than competence and disclosure. It's written from an insider perspective from someone who has worked this business for nearly 17 years, I hope it provides a little perspective, that is otherwise lacking.

The term "Fee-Only" has been utilized for many years to denote a particular method of compensation in the financial services industry. In May 2000 The CFP Board of Standards, Inc. (CFP Board) proposed changes to its code of ethics and responsibility under the definitions contained in rule 402 to define exactly what a fee only planner is. Unfortunately and almost certainly because many members of the Board of Governors of the CFP Board were "NAPFA" (National Association of Personal Financial Advisors) fee only planners, they promulgated a NAPFA style definition. I believed this definition to be, at best, misleading, and at worst, downright dishonest. Unfortunately, the past 7 years have seen an explosion of journalists and consumer groups buying into the hype of "fee only" including consumer groups such as the Consumer Federation of America (CFA) and the National Institute for Consumer Education (NICE) which, together with NAPFA, have spent a considerable amount of money promoting this method of compensation above all other methods of compensation. It is a disservice to consumers when emphasis is placed on a method of compensation rather than on the planner's competence and, whether the client understands how the planner is compensated. This is particularly disturbing since any stockbroker with no experience in financial planning and just a few months on the job can register as an investment advisor (or the firm he works for, i.e. one of the big brokerage houses could be registered already) and hang out his shield as a fee only advisor. In fact, all that is required is the passing of the "Uniform Investment Advisor" examination (prerequisite is the series 7) and registration with the State or the SEC (depending on the amount of assets under management) This same person may not be able to join NAPFA without a little more experience, but then, NAPFA holds no right or title to utilize the term "Fee Only" and just as anybody can call themselves a "financial planner" without meaningful licensing or qualification, anybody who is an Investment Advisor can call himself a fee-only planner. The main benefit of NAPFA membership it appears, is their strategic referral partnership with Microsoft, their marketing campaigns which bring many calls each month into their 800 number and the support shown them by misguided organizations such as the Consumer Federation of America, which swallowed "fee only" hook, line and sinker and has done consumers a disservice by promoting it over all other methods of compensation. This article discusses NAPFA and their marketing methods. Please spend the time to read this article, it is important to you as consumers to be armed with relevant information before entering into any compensation arrangement. The articles explain in greater detail how, working with a commission and or fee-offset planner can also be beneficial to you;

First, by way of an update to this article first written in 1997; the term "Fee Only" is not a ® Registered Service Mark owned exclusively by NAPFA to license "Fee-Only" planners, so throw all those old NAPFA brochures away. The registered service mark was rejected by the US Patent & Trademark office. They have had a logo approved which has the word Fee on one side, then an ellipse with FO in the middle, and Only on the other, but they do not "own" the term as their old materials suggest. The ONLY other thing NAPFA currently has registered with the USPTO is their 800 telephone number. It speaks volumes that; while two major press releases where issued in 1997 heralding the arrival of the Fee Only® registered service mark, with NAPFA press releases proclaiming it's growing support and acceptance by the financial community throughout 1998 and 1999, there have been NO press releases announcing that the mark was no longer active due to cancellation by the United States Patent & Trademark office because of heavy opposition by the same industry they proclaimed so much support from. Furthermore, to put things in perspective, NAPFA's total membership numbers INCLUDING full members, provisional members, sustaining members, industry affiliates, academic affiliates and student affiliates have not exceeded 700 people since their establishment in 1983. In 1997, I visited their web site to gather information, download some fascinating propaganda regarding their organization , and read some brochures they make available to consumers on line. I went on line again in October 2000 to research updated information for this article. Here are my conclusions on the subject of Fee-Only "financial planning", the NAPFA way.

NAPFA was formed in 1983, and opened their office in Buffalo Grove, Illinois in 1987. Since 1983 their membership has grown to approximately 695, although by their own admission not all of these are full fee-only members. Some are "provisional", "sustaining", "industry affiliate", "academic affiliate", or "student affiliate" members. (Bottom line, we are probably talking about a little over 400 actual full members) Their mission as stated is to: "Advance the practice of Fee-Only financial planning by: enhancing the skills of its members, increasing awareness of consumers, and interacting with other professional groups, legislators and regulators." They further offer benefits to the consumer by providing "information on Fee-Only planning and education about insurance and securities sales people who masquerade as financial planners". We'll talk about "fee-only insurance planning" and "masquerading" a little bit later on.

Their web site message is perfectly clear; All financial service professionals, EXCEPT of course "NAPFA Fee-Only planners" are a bunch of non-qualified lowlifes with no integrity, who seek to mislead and deceive the public, rob the American consumer of their hard earned dollars while making a fortune on the side, and who are incapable of providing unbiased, competent or objective advice. They further opine that it is impossible for "other" financial planners to serve the client's best interests or to give unbiased opinions because of the planner's relationship with, and loyalty to product sponsors, brokers, insurance companies, etc. Naturally, the most important message they try to get across is that; ONLY a NAPFA "Fee-Only" financial planner can be honest, objective, have integrity, and be of real value to the consumer.

Let's look at membership requirements for NAPFA.

To be considered for membership in NAPFA, a planner:

  • must have a minimum of a baccalaureate degree, or its equivalent

  • must show compliance with federal and state investment advisor regulations;

  • must show evidence of advanced education in the field, or other related credentials; (The CFP license qualifies here)

  • must have a minimum of three years' experience in comprehensive financial planning;

  • must submit a financial plan for peer review;

  • Must complete 60 hours of continuing education every two year period

  • must submit documents that show that the planner is Fee-Only, does not work for a firm that sells financial products, and does not receive any compensation for recommending specific products or services.

NAPFA claims these requirements are "far more rigorous standards" than the CFP designation. (Source: NAPFA press release July 1, 1999)

Certified Financial Planner® designation requirements.

There are currently in excess of 39,000 Certified Financial Planner licensees in the United States. The CFP Board has licensed the usage of the CFP mark currently in Japan, Canada and the U.K., with other financial planning organizations around the world expressing interest in affiliating themselves with the International body of the CFP Board, Inc.. CFP candidates must complete a comprehensive course of education in; The Fundamentals of Financial Planning, Insurance Planning, Investment Planning, Income Tax Planning, Retirement Planning and Employee Benefits, and Estate Planning at an approved University or College. Candidates will normally complete a three hour multiple choice question exam given by the educational institution to demonstrate their mastery of the course curriculum. After completing the approved course of education, candidates are eligible to sit for the certification examination. (The CFP program has been approved for 18 units of upper division credit by PACE) The Certification Examination is a 10-hour examination, divided into one four-hour session, (Friday afternoon) and two three-hour sessions (Saturday). The exam includes three major case problems. The Certification Examination is designed to assess the planner's ability to apply financial planning education to financial planning situations in an integrated format, thereby protecting the public by assuring that they are at the appropriate level of competency required for practice. All candidates are tested by an independent third party testing body. (The Chauncey Group International, a subsidiary of Educational Testing Services (ETS) in Princeton, N.J.) To actually use the CFP® designation, the licensee must:

  • Have a bachelor's degree plus three years experience in the financial services sector, or

  • five years full time experience in the financial planning field without a bachelor's degree.

  • CFP licensees must complete a minimum of 30 hours continuing education each two year period,

  • and sign and adhere to a code of ethics and practice standards which demands full disclosure, integrity, competence, objectivity, fairness, confidentiality, professionalism and diligence in the performance of their duties.

When fairly compared then, the far more rigorous standards seem to be that you MUST, register as an investment advisor (hardly a plus since anybody can with little or no effort) and 60 hours as opposed to 30 hours of continuing education every two year period. While this sounds better, please bear in mind that most, if not all CFP licensees far exceed the required 30 hour continuing education requirement each two year period. As an example, for the period 1994-1996 I reported 130.5 hours of CFP continuing education. For June 1996 - June 1997 I reported 35.5 hours (CFP CEU's) and for July 1997-1999 I reported 79 hours of CFP continuing education. This is not unusual as a CFP licensee, it's the norm I would venture to say. While NAPFA members submit a financial plan for peer review, CFP licensees undergo a ten hour comprehensive and proctored examination to test their knowledge of financial planning. The other difference is that NAPFA planners don't hold any licenses from any regulatory organization other than either the State or the Fed as Registered Investment Advisors, whereas many other planners have various layers of regulations to comply with.

To fee, or not to fee, that is the question!

Throughout NAPFA's web site, great emphasis is placed on fee-only planning as the only honest and ethical method of planning. One wonderful piece of propaganda available through the web site is a brochure, distributed by NAPFA in cooperation with the "Consumer Federation of America" (CFA) and the "National Institute for Consumer Education" entitled "Don't Get Burned By The Financial Planner Name Game". Let's take a closer look at this brochure;

The brochure is authored by one "Barbara Roper", who is Director of investor protection issues at the Consumer Federation of America and has, according to her statements made to me on the phone, been studying abuses in financial planning for the last ten years. She gained most of this expertise by reading 139 Registered Investment Advisor Forms ADV Part II as a part of their incredibly flawed and totally overrated "Mystery Shopper Survey". I heartily congratulate her on this achievement, but reading ADV form part II's hardly qualifies her to proclaim "Fee Only" as being the only way to go. So what does qualify her to protect the consumers from schemers and swindlers? Actually, I really couldn't say! I asked her on the telephone in 1997 and after talking to her for a while discovered that; Ms. Roper has no formal training in financial planning, has never worked in the financial service sector as a financial planner or otherwise, and has no inside knowledge that I could establish. Not exactly the most awe inspiring qualifications for a financial planning guru/swami and protector of the consumer, who seeks to convince the entire population of America that only Fee-Only planning the NAPFA way, is ethical, honest and fair. Most of what Mrs. Roper seems to have written until recently mirrored NAPFA dogma.

Two thirds of the entire CFA brochure is devoted to insulting all other financial service professionals while singing the praises of fee-only planning. The other one third is devoted to the Registered Investment Advisor License (A totally antiquated license desperately in need of an overhaul even after, and perhaps also because of, the '96 investment advisor reform act) and the analysis of an ADV Part II form. By the way, if you want more info on this awful license go to my "Checking up on your financial planner" article by clicking on the menu button at the end of this article. I love the contradictory double speak Mrs. Roper employs to get points across, and it's a pity consumers don't get to read ALL her writings. Example, in this brochure she seems to place great weight and value on the fact that "fee-only" planners are required to provide the consumer with written disclosure through the ADV Form part II. However, in January of 2000 she writes to the SEC that "The Investment Advisors Act of 1940 (The act that requires the ADV Form part II) is a minimalist law. She then goes on to say it does, however, provide the consumer with "some important protections" because registered investment advisors are "fiduciaries". Let us be clear on this issue, stockbrokers who "hold out" as financial planners (advisers or consultants) are fiduciaries as well, and have been since the nineteen sixties. (See TWOMEY, v. MITCHUM, JONES & TEMPLETON, (The classic case) and / or Duffy v. Cavalier and / or the Peterson Case and work down from there) Hardly, then, much of a disclosure bonus for consumers!

I highlighted a few paragraphs in my copy of this brochure and would like to share them with you, with my commentary of course.

"The Consumer Federation of America and the National Institute for Consumer Education have produced this brochure to help consumers distinguish between those "financial advisors" who are really salespeople and those who actually provide objective advice."

This statement is REALLY objective as I'm sure you'll agree. It implies that only fee-only financial advisors are able to offer objective advice. What a crock! This statement alone deserves the "least objective statement of the year" award.

"Advisors" who are also salespeople, however, inevitably face a conflict of interest and will almost certainly be tempted to steer clients into products in which they have a financial interest........In the end this conflict can cost you, both in out of pocket expenses and in the quality of advice you receive.

Rubbish!!! This vague, ambiguous and overly broad generalization is insulting to thousands of serious and QUALIFIED professionals. But then, Mrs. Roper is an Art History major with no personal hands on experience in the financial services sector so frankly, I wouldn't expect a "qualified" opinion.

This next bit is really unbiased and objective:

When a financial "advisor" earns most or all of his or her money as a financial salesperson, the product sales tend to drive the process. In the worst case scenario, the planning becomes nothing more than window dressing to attract clients for the real moneymaking business of selling products. Clients are offered one size fits all plans that inevitably lead to the purchase of a handful of high commission products.

The conclusions Ms. Roper reaches are ludicrous, as is the entire brochure. There are hundreds of thousands of financial service professionals in the U.S. and although there is a percentage that lie and cheat and steal and walk over dead bodies to get the business and the sale, to place all professionals in that one basket and to exempt barely 300+ people based solely on their status as NAPFA members and fee-only planners is probably the most biased and unprofessional statement I've ever read. Some "fee only" planners working for large brokerage houses are merely stockbrokers with a very powerful financial planning software program at their disposal and have no choice but to offer a "one size fits all plan in a can" because they would be incapable of writing their own comprehensive plan. (See the consumer reports article from fall 1997 on the subject) Let's also remember that one of the greatest frauds by an individual advisor perpetrated on consumers to date, with millions being stolen, was a Registered Investment Advisor working on a fee only basis with assets under his discretionary management.

.....as your financial advisor, they also owe allegiance to the product sponsors, brokers, and insurance companies for whom they also work. This makes it all but impossible for the advisor to fulfill his or her fiduciary duty to put client's interests first, and all but impossible for the client to determine whose interests are really being served.

As you can see, NAPFA places immense emphasis on the fact that their members swear a "fiduciary oath". Interestingly enough, the words "I will in all matters act as fiduciary" doesn't appear in the oath, but hey, who cares because we are all fiduciaries anyway here in California. (And in most other states as well) A further indication that Mrs. Roper was not too well informed.

In December 1997 that while NAPFA was disseminating this drivel, it was discovered that NAPFA was quietly making the rounds of everybody from mutual funds to Oil companies offering limited partnerships, soliciting "suggested" nontax deductible donations of between $5,000-$25,000. The generous donors were acknowledged as friends in NAPFA's publications and at their annual conference. When asked, NAPFA president Carole Badger is reported to have said "Nobody is going to recommend a product to a client based on the fact that Fund company X contributed to NAPFA". BUT, isn't that exactly what they accuse the rest of the financial planning world of doing for exactly the same reasons??!! This coupled with their alliances with the No load mutual fund council and Microsoft etc. certainly gives food for thought:

So here you are, a fine upstanding member of a tiny "nonprofit" organization with a lousy budget, trying to promote yourself as being better than everybody by focusing the public's attention on "the way you get paid" instead of "how qualified you are", you can't get your message out because even after lots of talk and almost 15 years there's still less than 700 total, and you realize that the organization of which you are one of the few, the proud, "A member", needs lots more money so they can do lots of promotion and buy neat toys like new computers and telephones and stuff. Then you discover that the organization is out there cap in hand scrounging from "for profit" companies, aka "Friends" to develop new opportunities for you to make you lots of money with the referral business you are going to get with all the lovely dosh flowing in from "Friends" to finance you. Do you throw your hands up in disbelief at this betrayal. Of course not, after all, you're an upstanding, serious and professional person and despite the fact that common sense dictates NOBODY in this world, and particularly not "for profit" mutual funds and LP peddlers with a responsibility to their shareholders, would ever give cold hard cash without an expectation of something in return for their support, you will stand up proudly when asked and repeat in time honored political fashion, "What does; My tiny organization soliciting money from people I would perhaps do business with on a regular basis, so that I can subsequently receive tons more referrals because of the new computers and telephones and neat stuff my tiny organization is buying with this "special interest" cash, have to do with who I choose to place my business with on behalf of my clients? Do you honestly think I, a "fee only" financial planner would stoop so low as to consider doing business with "friends" of the tiny organization just because their money is the practically the only thing that is keeping my tiny organization afloat????

Changing tact for a moment:

The California Dept. of Insurance has taken the position that almost all NAPFA fee only planners in California and many other States have been operating for years, and are still operating in violation of the law. Why, because in order to give advice for a fee regarding Insurance in most States, a fee only planner needs to obtain a Life Insurance Analysts license. In California there are only 44 such Analysts. (August 2002) Whether people really appreciate Insurance or not (based on prior experience with insurance salesmen) it is an essential part of every financial plan. How then can these totally honest, absolutely ethical fee-only planners justify their position while at the same time giving advice for a fee regarding Insurance products without a license(Life, Health, Disability, Long Term Care, Property & Casualty etc.) A misdemeanor in California punishable by up to 1 year in county jail, a $1,000.00 fine or both. If they do not give such advice, how can they justify holding the title "Financial Planner". It strikes me as strange that a fee only planner would give advice on insurance products for a fee in flagrant violation of the law, then send the client to a third party or leave the client to his own devices to find an agent, tell the insurance agent what he wants, and allow the agent to earn a killer commission for doing absolutely nothing but fill out the forms. The assistant Ombudsman for the California Dept. of Insurance wrote an opinion letter in March 1998 in which he clearly stated that such laws as the "Life Analyst license" law are designed to protect the public and the fact that fee only planners are offering life insurance advice for a fee does not beg for a change in the law, it begs for more rigorous enforcement of the law, and this would be done. Next time you speak with a "fee only" financial planner, ask him if he is a life insurance analyst BEFORE he starts giving you illegal advice. (Applies only to States where this license is required, currently 39 States including California)

To Read The July 2001 Financial Planning Magazine Article "Fee Planners + Insurance = Ethics Lapse"

To Read my article in Adobe .pdf format, (November 2002) which contains the relevant CA Insurance code sections, and explains in detail how many NAPFA fee only planners break the law. I perform fee-only financial services, but retain my insurance license and company appointments in compliance with State law. It is my belief that all fee planners should subject themselves to oversight by the Dept. of Insurance.

Despite all the dishonesty in our business, there are still thousands of honest, hard working "salesmen", fee offset and fee only planners out there who are not NAPFA members. Actually there must be, otherwise each and every NAPFA member would have to have to service about a half million clients based on membership! (updated October 2002) Based on comments from contacts within the CFP Board that I enjoy, I am happy to report that, apparently, Ms. Roper has been working and educating herself in various methods of compensation and may be changing her attitude towards methods of compensation to a much fairer stance, which stresses disclosure and competence over "method" of compensation.

I WANT MEANINGFUL REGULATION OF OUR INDUSTRY. I want meaningful disclosure of compensation and a minimum level of competence, as well as proper licensing of planners who provide insurance advice. NAPFA is seeking to distort the definition of Fee only to suit its own narrow purposes, while permitting their members to violate the law with impunity by their inaction. I sincerely hope my report to the CA insurance commissioner, an edited version of which will appear in Financial Planning in November 2002, will bring about change for the better. Focus on service, disclosure of compensation and competence, don't narrow your search based on "method of compensation", you may end up getting illegally offered advice. By the way, some of the most prominent firms in California are the most flagrant violators, so as always, it's buyer beware!

In conclusion, the financial planning industry industry is nowhere near mature or perfect, and any industry that deals with money and investments, and has the potential for high incomes will attract the dishonest and criminal element. However, to lump every "non fee only" agent and planner into one basket, while heaping unlimited praise and blessings on a few hundred plus members of an insignificant organization in Illinois is a disservice to America, and hurts consumers more than it helps.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I recently received a wonderfully witty piece of satire that perfectly illustrates the Fee Only shell game from a CFP® licensee friend of mine:

The Best Way to Buy Tires

Yesterday I became a bit concerned about my tires. I seemed to be skidding a bit around the corners and the car swerved a bit when I braked hard, especially it the pavement was wet. Thinking that I could save time by calling for a tire quote first, I checked the Yellow Pages and dialed the first store listed.

"Good Morning! This is Tire Financial, How may I help you?"

I'd like to get some information about my tires. I'm not sure what size I need, and I really don't do a very good job on taking care of my tires, even though I know that they are very important in helping me get where I am going. Can you help me?

"Certainly! Would you like to talk to a Fee-Only tire consultant, or one of our commissioned tire salesmen."

I'm not too sure which one I want. What's the Difference?

"Well, our Fee-Only tire consultants are purists. They aren't distracted by the greedy goal of commissions. They are qualified automotive consultants, and some are even Certified Tire Specialists (CTS). I can connect you with Gerald now…"

"Hello, I'm Gerald. Let me explain how we work here in the Fee-Only Financial Tire store. First you tell us all about your automotive goals. Where do you drive? Are you especially scared of nails or sharp objectives? Do you plan to drive in the mountains or deserts? What type of car do you have? Do you often carry many passengers? Do you plan to tow vehicles? We take this information, along with the make and model of your car, and prepare a Tire Analysis. We charge a small fee for this service."

Well, I'm driving a Cadillac Seville, I frequently carry four passengers plus luggage, I drive in town and on expressways, but never off the road or on deserts.

"You will need a 7.65 radial, and you could consider fiberglass or steel belted. That advice will be $15."

Which should I select, steel belted, or fiberglass?

"The Fiberglass are cheaper, the steel belted are safer and last longer, but cost more. You probably should get steel belted, unless you're especially thrifty. That information will be $10, please."

Well, what do they cost?

We obtain them for you from the Charles Squab Discount Tire Broker. That's the one that advertises on TV and in Money magazine a lot. They give us the very best prices, even though they must have a huge advertising budget, not to mention the elaborate conventions they invite us Fee-Only Tire persons to attend. The cost for you will be $100 per tire - or just $400. Would you like to order a set delivered to you?"

No, actually what I had in mind was having them placed on my car. I don't want to change them myself.

"Well, we'd be happy to put them on your car for you. Of course there's a fee involved. In fact there's a fee for removing your old tires, remounting the new ones. We compute that as a percentage of your tire value. Now that would be $400 times our tire mounting percentage of 2% or $8."

What about road hazards and tire rotation?

"That comes under our annual tire management contract. We charge 2% of the value of your tires. Considering their growth in value due to your future mileage, that amount will probably increase every year. Over the next five years, another $70.

So, my total costs would be $25 for your advice, then $400 for the tires plus $8 plus $70 for annual service - about $503?

"Well, there may be some fees to the Tire Discount Broker if you make changes in your tires as we go along. But those are small, and they are obviously discounted. Don't forget, there's no commissions. We have some articles from the national media, a press release from the National Treasure Federation and a column from Jane Brian Quill. They all applaud our Fee-Only approach, since it makes us more objective. And remember, there's no commissions!"

I thanked the Tire Specialist, but decided I would check around a bit before making a decision. I called the store back, and when the cheery receptionist answered I asked her for the Commissioned Tire Department.

"Hi! I'm Jake. Can I help you with some new tires?"

Well, I'm driving a Cadillac Seville, I frequently carry four passengers plus luggage. I drive in town and on expressways, but never off the road or on deserts. I think I need a new set of tires.

"For that model you will need a 7.65 radial. You could consider fiberglass, but the steel belted are safer and have a longer road guarantee."

Thanks, Jake, what does that piece of advice cost?

"Oh, we don't charge for advice. If you need your car's front end realigned there's a charge. We try to get you good tires at a good price and earn your future business. By the way, will you be needing tires for other cars in the family?"

Not just yet. What do these tires cost?

"They are $110 each. That's our 'On the Rim and Out the Door' price. You pay nothing for mounting or service. Not now, not ever."

But I understand that these tires should be examined periodically and usually rotated every year - what about that?

"You just bring your Caddy in here as often as you like. You should do it every year or every 8,000 miles. We check the tires, we rotate them. No charge."

But Jake, how do you get paid?

"Oh, I'm one of those greedy commissioned salesmen. The more tires I move, the more money I make. I want to sell you, your family, your friends and your employees. The only way I can get all that business is by getting you the best tires at a very good price."

But Jake, your total cost is $440, and the Fee-Only Tire Specialist was going to get me a discount, but the charges would be about $478 plus an analysis fee. Maybe there's a difference in the tires?

"Nope, we get them all from the same market. We mark them up a bit and bundle in all the services. That's a lot easier for most consumers to understand although the media doesn't like us very much. The other guys add on fees to a slightly lower price. They even use the same tire analysis software and installation equipment. Same tires, different marketing.

Surely there must be some difference?

"Well, they are trademarked as 'Fee-Only' and I guess that must make the total cost a bit higher."

Who do you think I bought my new tires from?

----------------------------------------------------------------

Now, there are some real thieves in the tire business, and there are some real thieves in the financial services sector. Because the term "financial planning" is not yet legally defined and anybody can call themselves a financial planner, it is incumbent upon you the consumer, just as you would shop for the best deal and the most ethical vehicle mechanic, to understand ALL the issues! There are no perfect solutions to "finding and qualifying a financial planner", but I hope that my article on this subject goes some way towards explaining the basics.

CFP®, CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ and the CFP® flame logo are federally registered services marks of the CFP board of Standards, Inc. CO.