Re: Failure to Properly Manage Personal Affairs After a Divorce
- From: "Morris Armstrong, CFP, ChFC, CDFA" <divorceplanner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 06:12:31 -0000
People can sugar coat the terms that they use when they
give "educational guidance" etc however I think it is imperative that
people understand how regulators may view actions.
Arriving at cash flow numbers does tend to involve the division of
assets and the purchase and sale of others. Investment advice does
not always mean that someone is saying that this is a good or bad
stock. If you said that you could sell 1000 shares of a non income
producing stock and move into a CD which would provide better cash
flow then you have provided investment advice.
What requirements are there in your state to even discuss insurance
needs or analyse a policy? Some states require you to have an
insurance analysts or consultants license before you can discuss
policy features for a fee. This is different then the requirement
when you are selling a policy; and under most CL protocols you will
not be selling any product except your advice.
I have not been involved in any situations where people did not want
to know what they had, consequences of actions and possible
alternatives. That may be educational to the attorneys and MHPs but
that is advice to the clients.
--- In CollabLaw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Cathy L. Daigle" <cathycfp@...>
wrote:
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@...: divorceplanner@...: 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 > > going to be upfront and state that my
belief is that only people > who > > can operate under the authority
of the Investment Act of 1940 as > > amended or its state equiavalent
should be considered. I know > that > > radically differs from the
IACP however that is the approach I > will be > > taking there. (
Comments welcome as well)> > > > Please feel free to contact me
directly at divorceplanner@ > > or post here if people dont mind> > >
Thank you> > > > Morris Armstrong CFP, ChFC, CDFA, AIF, EA> > > >
Armstrong Financial Strategies> > 57 North St > > Danbury CT 06810> >
203 744 9297> > > > www.armstrong-financial.com> >>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Other related posts:
