Tom and all:
The topics of licensure, competency and professional boundaries are important
ones with regards to our work in Collaborative Practice. "The IACP Ethical
Standards do not preempt the ethical standards of various disciplines; rather,
they supplement them by addressing unique challenges posed by Collaborative
Practice."
A thread I am hearing relates to whether Financial Practitioners are providing
advice and financial planning and if so, should they be Registered as Advisors
under Act 40? As a Collaborative Financial Pracitioner of over ten years, I
have come to learn that the role of the neutral financial is one of
facilitative and educational. This is an important distinction to note as it
is my understanding and practice mode to not give advice. Financial neutrals
are not telling clients what to do or what they should do in the case. We are
educating and facilitating financial discussions. This method has proven
success and the clients do reach their own decisions.
It is my understanding that the numerous CPAs working in CP, too are not giving
advice and are facilitating and educating. A role they too have evolved to.
One of the main paradigm shifts for financial practitioners.
Many of the Collaborative Trainers do make reference to Financial Professionals
as financial planners because that may be the model they were first introduced
or may currently find accessible in their neighborhood. As a Collaborative
Trainer, I do not tout a single designation, but do tout the broad based role
of the financial neutral. The professional must determine whether they are
qualified by license to engage in the role.
This topic of "giving advice" is an important and relevant one in light of the
regulatory changes and heightened awareness taking place within the financial
industry. This is a critical topic and pertains to the role of the Financial
Professional. It becomes more keen in our own backyards as we work with
various teams of professionals. Just what is our role and how do we work more
effectively within the Team?
The role of the financial neutral continues to evolve. High standards of
ethical conduct is our goal. There is great need to work as a community to
ensure the integrity of the role. Together the role can be strengthened and
someday we may find greater role consistency among us. The idea is to be
inclusive while raising the bar.
2cents more,
Cathy D., CFP, CDFA, Associate Person RIA
:)
To: CollabLaw@yahoogroups.comFrom: divorceplanner@earthlink.netDate: Fri, 5 Oct
2007 14:47:47 +0000Subject: [CollabLaw] Re: Failure to Properly Manage Personal
Affairs After a Divorce
TomOne of the core requirements of Collaborative Practice and of the IACP is
that practitioners be licensed in their field. A reading of the 40 Act and many
state statutes seem to indicate that if you are discussing securiities for a
fee, or using terms such as financial planning that you should be
registered.There are some exemptions to the 40 Act and as a CPA you are exempt
if the advice given is incidental to your normal practice. Should you be
retained to work on a divorce I am not sure fits into the normal practice of a
CPA, which is usually attestaion of documents.Many of the commercial
designations are simply that, commerical designations. In addition Washington
State is considering legislation that anyone referring to themseles as
financial planners be registered as an RIA.Now, some people that I have spoken
with have said " we arent finacial planners, we are financial neutrals" and
that may be well and good however I attended a meeting where Rita Pollak was
the speaker and the only term that she used was financial planning or
planner.Once you get by the base requirement of being registered then other
designations may show some expertise.Then there is also the argument that could
be made that the fact that the AICPA came out with the PFS designation is
indicative of the fact that they beleived that the CPA did not have the
appropriate training in personal fiancial issues and needed the
specialization.--- In CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Tom Norton" <tom@...>
wrote:>> So are you saying that a CPA/CDFA/CVA who does not sell product, and >
who therefore does not operate under the Investment Act of 1940, is > not a
qualified financial advisor?> > > --- In CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Morris
Armstrong, CFP, ChFC, > CDFA" <divorceplanner@> wrote:> >> > I am working on a
presentation under the above heading and I was > hoping > > that people may
supply some examples of where people err royally > in the > > post divorce
phase. I imagine, but have no evidence that the > errors > > are more likely to
occur in litigated divorces; so I dont mind > hearing > > stories from the
past.> > > > I also need to address using qualified financial advisors and I am
can operate under the authority of the Investment Act of 1940 as > > amended orgoing to be upfront and state that my belief is that only people > who > >
