Posts in Financial Planning
When a Nation Sells Itself: Buffett, Tariffs, and the Cost of Imbalance
 
 
 

We live in a world of complex economic forces, but at the heart of many of today’s big-picture challenges lies a simple truth: a country cannot indefinitely consume more than it produces. That is precisely what the United States has been doing for decades through the persistent and growing trade deficit.

This article is meant to educate, not alarm. To help all investors, professionals, and citizens better understand what is happening behind the scenes, why it matters to our long-term prosperity, and how thoughtful policy tools, including modernized tariffs, might help correct course.

Let us start with the core issue.

What is a trade deficit? 

A trade deficit occurs when a country imports more goods and services than it exports. Imagine your household spending more every month than it earns—you would need to make up the difference by drawing down savings or selling off parts of your home. That is essentially what the U.S. does year after year. We purchase foreign goods (such as cars, electronics, and clothing) in excess of what we sell abroad and must finance this gap by issuing debt or selling U.S. assets.

These assets include U.S. Treasury bonds, commercial real estate, stocks in American companies, and ownership stakes in U.S. businesses. That means other countries, such as China, Japan, Germany, and many others, are gradually gaining greater ownership of our economy.

 “Our net worth is being transferred abroad”

Legendary investor Warren Buffett put it bluntly over 20 years ago:

“Our country’s ‘net worth,’ so to speak, is now being transferred abroad at an alarming rate” (Fortune, 2003).

This quote deserves close attention.

Buffett does not talk about some abstract notion of wealth. He is referring to the tangible ownership of American assets—the land, companies, infrastructure, and financial instruments that make up our nation’s economic engine. When we finance our trade deficits, we are often doing so by selling these assets to foreigners or issuing IOUs (bonds) that must be repaid with interest over time.

Imagine a wealthy family that owns a large estate. Every year, to fund vacations and a high standard of living, they sell a few acres of land or take out a bigger mortgage. At first, it seems manageable. But over time, they no longer own the home outright. Their income now goes to paying interest, rent, or dividends to outsiders who bought what used to belong to them.

That is the picture Buffett (and others) paint of America’s trade behavior.

In real terms, this means future generations of Americans will be working to sustain themselves and sending investment returns overseas—to countries that now hold claims on our assets. As foreign ownership increases, so does the investment income flowing out of the U.S., thereby reducing our ability to reinvest in our own future.

The role of tariffs in correcting imbalances

This is where tariffs, when carefully designed and wisely implemented, can play a role—not as a weapon or political cudgel, but as a tool of balance.

Buffett originally proposed a market-based mechanism called Import Certificates, but the underlying principle is simple: If you want to buy more than you sell, you have to fund it—and at some point, that model breaks. A modest, broad-based tariff system could help bring trade into equilibrium, nudging us back toward producing more of what we consume and consuming more of what we produce.

This is not about isolating ourselves from the world. It is about aligning our consumption with our production, and ensuring that we do not gradually erode our national wealth through unchecked deficits.

Yes, tariffs raise prices—especially on imported goods. That is a cost worth recognizing. However, Buffett warns us not to be short-sighted:

“The pain of higher prices on goods imported today dims beside the pain we will eventually suffer if we drift along and trade away ever larger portions of our country’s net worth” (Fortune, 2003).

In other words, the bill comes due. The longer we delay, the more painful it will be to unwind the imbalance.

What does the modern data say?

Recent academic research offers critical insights into how tariffs function in today’s economy.

One study by Furceri, Hannan, Ostry, and Rose (2019) reminds us that, although economists overwhelmingly oppose protectionism, the public is less convinced, possibly because much research on tariffs is outdated or overly theoretical.

Their research examines the macroeconomic effects of tariffs using data from 151 countries over a 50-year period and finds that tariff increases reduce output, productivity, and consumption while increasing unemployment and inequality. These adverse effects are worse in advanced economies and during economic booms.

Tariffs have a limited impact on improving trade balances and can even lead to an appreciation of the exchange rate, offsetting their intended benefits. Overall, tariffs appear to be detrimental to economic welfare.

In another research article by Amiti, Redding, and Weinstein (2019), the authors conclude that in 2018, U.S. tariffs were almost entirely borne by American consumers and importers, rather than foreign exporters. Prices rose for many U.S.-made goods tied to these tariffs, and supply chains were disrupted. Consumers faced fewer product choices, and the overall economic cost was substantial, amounting to approximately $8.2 billion in lost efficiency and an additional $14 billion in costs passed on to consumers. These impacts aligned with basic supply and demand predictions.

The researchers believe their estimates are conservative, as they did not include other significant costs, such as lost product variety, companies reorganizing their supply chains, or the uncertainty caused by changing trade policies. Surprisingly, foreign exporters did not lower their prices to stay competitive, meaning Americans bore nearly all the costs of these tariffs. Why this happened remains a puzzle for future research.

So what do we make of this? Tariffs are not magic bullets. They are levers. Furthermore, like all levers, they require precise calibration. Used strategically and modestly—within a broader framework of trade policy—they may help correct imbalances, such as the persistent U.S. trade deficit. Used carelessly or punitively, they may do more harm than good.

Conclusion: Looking ahead

Warren Buffett’s warning in 2003 was not about politics—it was about sustainability. He argued that a nation cannot afford to consume more than it produces forever without losing control of its financial destiny. His solution was not isolationist, but strategic: to implement mechanisms, such as import certificates or well-designed tariffs, that could restore balance without undermining prosperity.

Today, academic research provides a clearer understanding of the costs and consequences of acting on that vision. Furceri et al. (2019) provide comprehensive macroeconomic evidence: tariffs tend to lower GDP, harm productivity, increase unemployment and inequality, and have little impact on improving trade balances. Amiti et al. (2019) demonstrate, in the U.S. context, that tariffs in 2018 were almost entirely borne by domestic consumers and importers, resulting in billions of dollars in lost efficiency and rising prices. Their conclusion? Tariffs reshaped supply chains and reduced product variety, ultimately burdening American consumers.

Together, these insights remind us that tariffs are not moral judgments—they are instruments. When used bluntly or reactively, they carry real costs. But used surgically, as part of a broader policy framework, they can still serve a purpose.

As we confront record trade deficits and rising foreign ownership of American assets, we are left with essential questions:

  • Are we prepared to prioritize long-term national resilience over short-term consumer convenience?

  • Can we modernize trade policy without repeating past mistakes?

  • If not tariffs, what levers are we willing to pull to protect our economic independence?

Buffett’s voice echoes still: action is required. But today, that action must be informed by data, guided by principle, and measured by impact, not ideology.

References:

Amiti, M., Redding, S. J., & Weinstein, D. E. (2019). The impact of the 2018 tariffs on prices and welfare. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(4), 187–210.

Buffett, W. E. (2003, November 10). America's growing trade deficit is selling the nation out from under us. Fortune.

Furceri, D., Hannan, S. A., Ostry, J. D., & Rose, A. K. (2018). Macroeconomic consequences of tariffs (No. w25402). National Bureau of Economic Research.

 
 

 

Related Articles

The Psychology of Market Patience: Navigating Volatility With a Steady Hand
 
 
 

Volatile markets test more than portfolios—they test patience. It’s easy to feel unsettled when headlines scream, and market volatility ensues. But the most important thing you can do as an investor is also the simplest: don’t let emotions get the best of you. 

In my nearly 30 years of advising clients, I’ve seen over and over again: the clients who succeed are the ones who manage their emotions, not just their money. The smartest thing you can do right now is stay calm and stay the course. The plan is working—even when it doesn’t feel like it. My experience has been that history has a way of rewarding those who stay calm, stay invested, and stay focused on their well-crafted financial plan.

At Human Investing, we believe that behavior, not timing or speculation, is what separates long-term success from short-term regret. For clients who have been with us for over 20 years, you’ve seen firsthand how a steady, disciplined approach can weather storms and grow wealth through them. For those new to our firm, please know that trust is the foundation of everything we do. We don’t just manage portfolios, we help guide people through uncertainty with clarity, care, and confidence.

To better understand the importance of maintaining a disciplined investment approach, it is helpful to examine five common psychological biases that often lead investors to deviate from sound decision-making. Drawing on both empirical research and professional experience, this section explores how emotional responses can override strategic thinking—particularly during periods of heightened uncertainty and market volatility—and outlines methods used to help clients remain focused on long-term objectives.

1. Loss aversion: When pain is louder than logic 

Researchers Kahneman, Knetsch, and Thaler (1991) discuss the psychological factors that drive loss aversion. Loss aversion is not just an investing concept; it’s a fundamental part of human psychology. Research shows that losses are felt about twice as painful as equivalent gains are perceived as pleasurable. In the brain, a $100 loss doesn’t just “sting”—it screams. And when markets drop, that emotional volume can drown out logic, strategy, and even years of sound advice.

This isn’t just a theory. I've seen it firsthand for a few decades—watching clients grapple with fear during the dotcom bust, the 2008 financial crisis, the 2020 COVID crash, and more recent volatility. In each case, the market eventually recovered. But those who let fear dictate their choices often miss the recovery, lock in their losses, and derail their long-term plans.

Here’s what makes loss aversion so dangerous: it feels rational. When the market drops 20%, the brain doesn’t think, “This is temporary.” It thinks, “Get out before it gets worse.” That impulse can feel like wisdom. But in reality, it's a trap.

The dislocation occurs when investors stop viewing a dip as part of the journey and begin to see it as the destination. Their long-term goals fade from view. The carefully designed plan becomes irrelevant. All that matters is stopping the pain.

But that short-term relief often comes at a prohibitive cost. Investors who sell at the bottom lock in their losses and are frequently too emotionally exhausted—or too afraid—to re-enter the market in time for the rebound. And rebound it almost always does. History shows that the market has consistently rewarded those who stay invested through downturns, not those who try to time their exits and re-entries.

2. Herding: When “everyone’s doing it” feels safer than thinking 

There’s a reason why stampedes are dangerous—not everyone in the crowd is running toward opportunity. Some are running from fear. 

In investing, we refer to this behavior as herding—the instinct to follow the crowd, particularly during times of uncertainty. Scharfstein and Stein (1990) were among the earliest to formally investigate and publish on the concept of herd mentality. We are indeed social creatures, hardwired to look to others for cues when we’re unsure. But in the markets, that instinct can be costly.

When prices drop and headlines grow loud, it’s natural to wonder: “What does everyone else know that I don’t?” You see friends moving to cash, analysts shouting about doom, and articles predicting disaster. The pull to join the herd becomes magnetic. But the crowd is often most unified at the wrong time, buying high out of excitement or selling low out of fear.

Here’s the cognitive dislocation: when fear spreads, we confuse consensus with correctness. If enough people are panicking, their emotion starts to feel like evidence. But markets are not democratic. The loudest voices are not always the wisest, and just because many are moving in the same direction doesn’t mean it’s the right one.

3. Recency bias: When yesterday becomes forever 

Tversky and Kahneman (1974) laid the foundational research on recency bias. They determine that “…the impact of seeing a house burning on the subjective probability of such accidents is probably greater than reading about a fire in the local paper. Furthermore, recent occurrences are likely to be relatively more available than earlier occurrences (p. 1127).” 

Put differently, individuals often extrapolate recent market movements into the future, believing that a market decline will persist or that a rally will continue indefinitely. This cognitive distortion, known as recency bias, reflects the tendency to overweight recent experiences when forming expectations about future outcomes.

It’s a mental shortcut that makes sense on the surface. After all, if it’s been raining for three days, we naturally reach for an umbrella on day four. But in the markets, this shortcut becomes a trap.

The dislocation happens when investors confuse a recent event with a long-term trend. They think: “The market’s been down the last two months—maybe this time is different. Maybe it won’t recover.” Or: “Tech has been hot all year—maybe it always will be.” This kind of thinking leads to chasing what has already happened or fleeing from what is already priced in.

Here’s the problem: the market doesn’t move in straight lines. It zigs, zags, and surprises. The best days often follow the worst. Yet, when recency bias takes hold, investors tend to anchor on the latest data point and overlook the broader context.

I’ve witnessed this bias unfold in every major market event since 1996. This ‘cognitive dislocation’ was particularly acute during the downturn from 2000 to 2002, when markets declined by 10%, 10%, and then 20%. But those who were paralyzed by recency bias—those who assumed the storm would never end—missed the sunshine that followed.

4. Sentiment: When moods masquerade as markets

The market is often described as a voting machine in the short term and a weighing machine in the long term (Graham, 2006). That’s another way of saying: in the short term, emotion can drive price more than value. And that emotion, called market sentiment, can be just as contagious and unpredictable as the weather.

Sentiment isn’t about fundamentals. It’s about how investors feel about the future. When people feel optimistic, they see opportunity in every dip. When they feel anxious, even the strongest companies look shaky. This is where the dislocation happens: investors begin to substitute their mood for actual analysis.

In times of high sentiment, people often buy more than they should, take on more risk than they realize, or ignore warning signs. During low sentiment, they often underinvest, sell too soon, or abandon long-term strategies altogether—not because the plan changed, but because their feelings did.

I’ve witnessed this in action many times since 1996, particularly in 2008, when panic dominated sentiment, and many investors fled the market near the bottom. The truth is, markets don’t care how we feel. But our feelings often shape how we interpret the market. That’s why at Human Investing, we spend as much time helping clients manage their emotions as we do managing their investments. We help you separate how you feel from what’s actually happening.

Your plan is designed to withstand emotional swings. It assumes there will be times when the market is overconfident, and times when it’s too afraid. That’s why we don’t react to moods. We respond to goals. Because when you confuse sentiment for truth, your portfolio becomes a mirror of your emotions. But when you trust your plan, your portfolio becomes a reflection of your purpose.

5. Emotional echo chambers: When biases team up to derail you

If loss aversion, herding, recency bias, and sentiment were minor on their own, we might be able to brush them off. But they don’t stay in their lanes. These biases often compound, amplifying each other until an investor is no longer thinking clearly. That’s what we call an emotional echo chamber—a space where your own fears are repeated and reinforced until they sound like facts.

Here’s how it plays out:

  • The market dips, triggering loss aversion—“I can’t afford to lose more.”

  • You see others selling, which activates herding—“Everyone’s getting out. Maybe I should, too.”

  • You assume the recent downturn is the new normal—recency bias—“It’s just going to get worse.”

  • Your confidence drops, and negative sentiment clouds your judgment—“I don’t feel safe, so maybe I’m not.” 

Suddenly, your investment decisions are no longer tied to your long-term goals—a chorus of emotional responses drives them, each one echoing the others. This is the moment investors often make their biggest mistakes: abandoning well-designed plans, selling at market lows, or shifting strategies midstream out of fear.

I’ve seen this cycle emerge during every major downturn. What I’ve learned is this: when fear gets loud, clarity gets quiet. Investors don’t just lose money in these moments—they lose confidence, perspective, and peace of mind.

At Human Investing, our job is to help you break out of that echo chamber. We’re here to re-center you when everything feels off-balance, to remind you of the purpose of your financial plan, and to bring you back to your long-term vision when the short-term noise becomes deafening.

We believe that staying invested is not just a financial decision, it’s an emotional discipline. That’s why we design portfolios that align with your comfort zone and why we lead with planning. Because a sound financial plan doesn’t just grow your wealth, it protects your thinking.

When emotional noise is high, we help you find quiet confidence. When biases clash in your head, we help you hear your goals again. And most importantly, when you start to feel like you’re the only one holding steady, we’re here to remind you—you’re not.

Empirical evidence

If the five behavioral prompts are not enough to encourage you to focus on your plan, a 40-year perspective on market ups and downs can provide an essential viewpoint. 

Please see Figure 1 at the end of this document. In it, you’ll see the average intra-year drop for the S&P 500 is approximately 14%, based on historical data going back several decades.

This means that in a typical year, the market will experience a peak-to-trough decline of around 14%—even in years that end up positive overall.

Here’s a quick breakdown:

From 1980 through 2023, the S&P 500 had: 

  • Positive returns in about 75% of those years

  • But it still experienced an average intra-year decline of ~14%

Why it matters:

Many investors panic during temporary drops, thinking something abnormal is happening. In reality, a 10–15% drop in a given year is a feature, not a flaw, of long-term investing. It’s part of the process, not a sign to change course.

References:

Graham, B. (2006). The intelligent investor: The definitive book on value investing (Rev. ed., J. Zweig, Commentary). Harper-Business. (Original work published 1949)

Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J. L., & Thaler, R. H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion, and status quo bias. Journal of Economic perspectives, 5(1), 193-206.

Scharfstein, D. S., & Stein, J. C. (1990). Herd behavior and investment. The American economic review, 465-479.

Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases: Biases in judgments reveal some heuristics of thinking under uncertainty. science, 185(4157), 1124-1131.


Disclosures: These market returns are based on past performance of an index for illustrative purposes only. Past performance does not guarantee future results. All investing involves risk, including the loss of principal.  Index performance is provided for illustrative purposes only and does not reflect the performance of an actual investment. Investors cannot invest directly in an index.

The information provided in this communication is for informational and educational purposes only and should not be construed as investment advice, a recommendation, or an offer to buy or sell any securities. Market conditions can change at any time, and there is no assurance that any investment strategy will be successful.

Diversification does not guarantee a profit or protect against a loss in declining markets. Asset allocation and portfolio strategies do not ensure a profit or guarantee against loss.

The opinions expressed in this communication reflect our best judgment at the time of publication and are subject to change without notice. Any references to specific securities, asset classes, or financial strategies are for illustrative purposes only and should not be considered individualized recommendations.

Human Investing is a SEC Registered Investment Adviser. Registration as an investment adviser does not imply any level of skill or training and does not constitute an endorsement by the Comission. Please consult with your financial advisor to determine the appropriateness of any investment strategy based on your individual circumstances.

 
 

 

Related Articles

Only 4.92% of advisors are true fiduciaries. Is yours?
 
 
 

An Analysis of Investment Advisor Representatives and Bureau of Labor Statistics Data: Determining the Percentage of Financial Advisors Acting as “True Fiduciaries”

In the financial services industry, the concept of acting as a fiduciary—putting the client’s best interests ahead of all else—has become a litmus test for ethical practice. However, determining how many financial professionals truly operate under a fee-only fiduciary model reveals a significant gap between perception and reality.

Industry Snapshot: Financial Professionals in the U.S.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (2023), the financial services landscape in the United States includes:

  • 513,000 financial services sales agents, encompassing roles such as stockbrokers and commodities traders.

  • 321,000 personal financial advisors, offering financial planning and investment guidance to individuals.

Together, these figures total 834,000 professionals engaged in roles that directly or indirectly affect individuals' financial outcomes.

Investment Advisor Representatives: A Subset

Among these professionals, 77,468 individuals are registered as Investment Advisor Representatives (IARs), according to the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (FINRA, 2022). IARs are often seen as closer to the fiduciary standard due to their regulatory obligations. However, even within this group, a significant portion still earns commissions.

  • A recent analysis by Welsh (2024) indicates that 47% of IARs receive commissions, leaving only 53% as truly fee-only fiduciaries.

  • Applying this percentage, the total number of fee-only IARs is approximately 41,958 individuals.

The True Percentage of Fee-Only Fiduciaries

To contextualize this figure, let’s consider the broader pool of financial professionals (advisors and brokers). Dividing the number of fee-only IARs (41,958) by the total number of financial professionals (834,800) yields a striking conclusion:

Only 4.92% of financial professionals operate as fee-only fiduciaries.

This percentage has seen growth from an estimated 2% in 2018 (Mantell, 2018), reflecting progress but also underscoring the rarity of this practice in an industry dominated by commission-based models.

References:

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2023). Occupational Outlook Handbook. U.S. Department of Labor: Securities, Commodities, and Financial Services Sales Agents.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2023). Occupational Outlook Handbook. U.S. Department of Labor: Personal Financial Advisors.

Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. (2022). 2022 FINRA industry snapshot. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

Mantell, R. (2018, March 19). Is it time to adopt a uniform fee-only standard for financial advice? The Wall Street Journal.

Welsh, J. (2024, October 31). What role do commissions now play for advisors? Investment News.

 
 

 

Related Articles

What is a financial plan and how do you build one?
 

A financial plan is a personalized strategy that outlines where someone’s money goes and how to finance their needs and goals. Who needs a financial plan? Everyone should have a financial plan. They do not all have to be complex. Many are simple.  

Basic financial plans may include the following tools: 

  • Budgeting 

  • Debt management plan 

  • Retirement investment strategy 

  • Tax Guidance 

Complex, or more comprehensive, financial plans can include the above but also add things like: 

  • Real estate investing 

  • Business advice 

  • Estate Planning 

  • Philanthropic pursuits  

Financial Planning is the process of a client working with a financial advisor (like a CPA or a CFP®) to help establish their financial plan. Our firm focuses on developing and implementing comprehensive financial plans for well-rounded advice and coordination with other professionals to help clients accomplish their goals per their distinct values. 

Anyone can create a financial plan

If you have a simple financial situation, you may not necessarily need a professional to help you set up a plan. We do recommend working with a financial advisor to take the complexity out and optimize it for the benefit of the investor and their family.

Here are some steps to help kickstart your financial plan.

STEP 1: Define your Goals

A financial plan is centered on your financial goals. You may categorize your goals into short-term, medium-term, and long-term periods.

Short-term goals can range from a few months to 1 year time. This could be things like going on a trip, buying a car, or paying off debt.

Mid-term goals range from 1-5 years. These goals may include paying off debt, pursuing higher education, saving up for a down payment on a house, planning a wedding, or starting a business.

Long-term goals are goals with periods from 5+ years. Usually, these goals are stretched even further from 10, 20, or 30+ years.  Here are some common long-term examples: investing in college for a dependent, retirement, or paying off your mortgage.  

STEP 2: Create a budget

A solid budget will give you an idea of your monthly cash flow. This means tracking your take-home pay and your expenses every month.

There are many ways to do this like the 50/30/20 budgeting rule, the zero-based method, or the envelop system. The key here is to see where you are overspending and see where you can save more as you work towards your goals.

STEP 3: Build an emergency fund

According to the Federal Reserve, most Americans cannot afford a $400 - $500 emergency bill. As the emergency cost increases, fewer Americans can afford it. As a general rule of thumb, a family should have three to six months of living expenses saved in an emergency fund to protect against the unexpected. We advise that people create a Starter Emergency Fund of $1,000 first.

STEP 4: Pay off consumer debt

This would include credit cards, auto loans, personal loans, and student loans . These debts can often be the most burdensome for Americans and if you find yourself struggling to make ends meet, make an effort to pay these off after you’ve completed the steps above.  

STEP 5: Invest in your retirement

A great place to start is by investing in your company’s 401(k) or 403(b) plan. If they have a match, take advantage of this. Make sure you are getting the match. 

Don’t have access to a 401(k) ? Open a Traditional or Roth Individual Retirement Account (IRA). You have 100% control over where the money goes and how it’s invested. 

Open a Health Savings Account (HSA) for future medical expenses. Contributions, investment growth, and withdrawals are all tax-free (assuming the withdrawals are used for eligible medical expenses). 

Max out contributions to all your accounts if you can. You can have a 401(k) ,IRA, and HSA open at the same time. In 2023, IRA contributions are capped at $6,500.  

If this seems like a lot to handle, it can be. We can assure you, It’s worth the work and the extra effort to have a financial advisor help you and your family throughly address these topics. These are some basic steps to help you get started today. If your life grows more complex, it will be important to monitor your plan on a more consistent basis.

Whom should I hire if I need help with my financial plan?

It is wise to seek counsel from experts in any area of life. Financial advisors can help you choose investments that align with your goals, give you a strategy to pay off debt, lower your tax burden, and so much more. 

Here at Human Investing, we are fiduciaries which means we are legally bound to always act in our client’s best interest. That means no commissions or selling pressure. Professor Kent Smetters of the Wharton School of Business notes fewer than 2% of all financial advisors are fiduciaries.  

Fee structures and fiduciary standards

Before you hire a financial advisor, make sure to ask for their fee structure.

Some advisors charge hourly or a flat rate depending on the service. Many advisors will charge a percentage of all of your assets under management (AUM) and others still will get paid a commission depending on the product you purchase from them. You will want to ensure that the firm you choose to go with is working in your best interest and you are getting the most out of what you are paying them for.  

Financial planners and advisors that abide by a fiduciary standard look out for your best interests first. Financial managers that are not fiduciaries may be highly experienced and skillful, but they can put the interests of their company over the interests of their client. The National Association of Personal Financial Advisors (NAPFA) or Broker Check are great places to start researching Financial Advisors in your area.  

 If you are interested in learning more about Human Investing and our financial planning services, check out our website.  

 

 
 

Related Articles

Kickstarting Your Financial Plan
 
unsplash-image-PVIbUkN_wCQ.jpg

Not sure what questions to ask when you meet with an advisor?

Here are six questions we commonly get asked with some advice from our team.

1. I want to support my child through college. When should I start saving?

The earlier you save, the more time your money has to grow.

rivermark-01.jpg

The benefits of saving early are dramatic, but there's still value in starting now—even if your child is in high school. The dollars you save will not have as much time to grow, but they are dollars you will not be borrowing. You’ll also be in a better situation if you choose an account that gives you tax benefits, such as immediate tax deductions or tax-free withdrawals.

Still not sure if saving for college is right for you? Check out this article by Peter Fisher, co-founder and managing partner of Human Investing.

2. Should I spend my cash paying off high interest loans, or invest it?

Historically, the average rate of return for stock market investments is approximately 10%, while on average, the APR on credit cards has been hovering just above 20%. So, if you are investing when you have credit card debt, you are likely paying a higher interest rate on your debt than you are earning via your investments. Unless you have a huge amount in investments, you end up losing money overall.

3. When do I start saving for retirement?

Again, start saving as early as possible to give your money maximum time to grow. Depending on your employer, you may already have some form of retirement benefits accruing. There are various ways of saving for retirement, including employer sponsored plans like 401(k) and 457b plans, or personal retirement savings like Roth and Traditional IRA’s. A mix of the two is the best way to ensure ample savings for retirement, but deciding which is best for you requires some analysis of your current and expected employment and income status.

4. Is my investment portfolio right for me?

As you age and get closer to retirement, you want to make sure the risk level of your investment portfolio is balanced to match your growth and maintenance needs. While having all of your investments allocated in the stock market may result in a high return on investment, it can also result in high losses. This can be catastrophic for a person planning on retiring soon. On the other hand, if a young person has a few decades before they are planning to retire, but they are only investing their money in bonds, they are losing out on the potential growth of higher risk investment options.

 Investment in both bonds and stocks allows for a mix of potential income and growth, and the best fitting ratio is different for everyone. Reach out to us to speak with our retirement planning team to discuss your current allocations. We care here to help better prepare you for a comfortable retirement.

5. What should my emergency savings look like?

The most common numbers suggested for an emergency fund is 3-6 months’ worth of your current living expenses. These include expenses such as housing, food, healthcare, debts, and so on. You do not need to include things like entertainment, nonessential shopping, or vacation expenses. If you are, you have too much going into your emergency savings fund that could be invested elsewhere. Below is a chart showing example savings amounts and how they compound over the course of two years.  

6. When should I begin utilizing expert tax services?

You may be at a point where using your preferred e-file service to do your taxes is still getting the job done just fine, but at what point do they get too complicated for you to be doing them on your own? Once you begin to deal with things like property taxes, retirement plans, and investments, it may be best to have an expert handle the numbers for you.

Luke Schultz, the Director of Tax at Human Investing, has over 12 years of experience in the areas of tax compliance and planning. With a heavy focus on planning, he spends much of his time working closely with individuals, putting emphasis on proactive planning to help clients make the best decisions for them and their families.

Want to get started?

Schedule an appointment with an advisor here or feel free to call us at 503-905-3108.

Sources:
Vanguard, When should you start saving for college?
The Balance, Rule of Thumb: Should I Pay Off Debt or Invest?
Money Under 30, Should You Pay Off Student Loans Early?

 

Related Articles

What Is a Fiduciary?
 
trust.jpeg

A fiduciary is defined as an individual or a legal entity, such as a financial advisor. The fiduciary takes on the responsibility and has the power to act in the interest of another. This other person is called a beneficiary or principal—we call them member, human, or client.

A fiduciary financial advisor (which is all we have at Human Investing) cannot sell products that charge or pay commissions.

When a member works with a Human Investing financial advisor, the client gives the advisor their trust and expects recommendations to be made with honesty and good faith in keeping with their best interests. This may not always be the case with a non-fiduciary advisor.

The Fiduciary Standard

All Human Investing employees are required to abide by the fiduciary standard. When a financial advisor has a fiduciary duty, they must always act in the beneficiary's best interest.

Financial advisors fall into two buckets: fiduciaries and non-fiduciaries. Surprisingly, not all financial advisors have a requirement to put member's interests first. Worse yet, some advisors and their firms can be dually registered, swapping back and forth between fiduciary and non-fiduciary roles.

Suitability Standard vs. Fiduciary Standard

Financial professionals who are not fiduciaries are held to a lesser standard known as the "suitability standard." What this means is that the recommendation from a non-fiduciary only needs to be adequate.

Other Watch Outs When selecting an Advisor

If an advisor states that they have FINRA Series 7, 6, or 63, that means they are licensed to sell products for commissions. An advisor would only have those licenses for two reasons: 1) to sell commission products or 2) collect commissions from products they (or someone else) have sold.

There are many individuals and firms that say they are financial planners and do financial planning. But did you know that many of the people that say they are financial planners are not trained in the process and profession of being a financial planner? Individuals responsible for member financial planning are CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNERS™. A CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ certification is “the standard of excellence in financial planning. CFP® professionals meet rigorous education, training and ethical standards, and are committed to serving their clients' best interests today to prepare them for a more secure tomorrow.”

 

Related Articles

"If you Fail to Plan, you are Planning to Fail"
 

Benjamin Franklin’s quote applies to many choices we make – including personal finances. If we don’t take his message to heart, then a lack of planning can be costly.

There are traditionally two paths one will take when purchasing a large expense. They will either build a plan ahead of time to achieve a financial goal, or—the more popular path—worry about it when the expense arises. It is important to consider the hidden cost when financing a large future expense.

NOT PLANNING AHEAD MAY cost you more than YOU THINK.

Let’s take the example of a future expense of $25,000 for any situation*.

*Fill in the blank: year of college for a child 👩‍🎓, down payment for a home🏠, wedding 👰🏻, car purchase 🚘, vacation 🌞, etc.

How do you pay for the $25,000 future expense?

In this hypothetical, an individual can choose to (A) make a monthly investment over the next 10 years or (B) borrow the $25,000 and make monthly payments to pay off debt for the next 10 years. See the cost break down here:

Note: This is for illustrative purposes only. Investment returns, interest rates, and loan periods will vary.

Note: This is for illustrative purposes only. Investment returns, interest rates, and loan periods will vary.

SO WHAT ARE YOU PLANNING FOR TOMORROW?

Building a savings plan and starting early provides 27% in savings over 10 years, with a total cost of only $18,240. Conversely, the cost of convenience by borrowing adds to the overall cost by more than 33%, raising the cost to $33,360. This example is at a 6% interest rate, but unfortunately, much consumer debt is often financed on a credit card with an average APR now above 16%. A 16% interest rate on a one-time expense would more than double the cost over 10 years.

This simple illustration provides a two-sided application. As illustrated above, building a financial plan can save someone thousands of dollars. Procrastinating and not building a plan can in turn cost someone thousands. Either way you look at it, it is important to consider the real cost of any financial endeavor in order to make a well-informed decision.

Our team at Human Investing is available if you have questions or would like help building a financial plan.

 

 
 

Related Articles

Blowing up the Compensation Model
 

In our last post, we addressed the most significant anchor that is working against the financial planning industry, how it’s kept from adapting within changing market expectations, and that we need to move towards something better for clients. This anchor is the “Assets Under Management” business model that is the dominant form of revenue generation for financial advisory and wealth management firms. 

In this piece, we will highlight a related aspect of compensation but look at it from the planner/advisor perspective. In other words, our focus will be on compensation structures for planners and the role of incentives. To be sure, these two topics are interrelated and often confounded. These real and heavy anchors are keeping us from a state of optimal outcomes. Charlie Munger could not have been any more right when he said, “Show me the incentive and I’ll show you the outcome.” Let’s take a look. 

An “Agency Problem”

Before we get into compensation models, it is imperative that we identify and define a concept called an agency problem. In its simplest form, an agency problem is one that contains a conflict of interest. It is a situation when someone (called an “agent”) is entrusted to act in the best interest of another party (called a “principal”) but has interests that are different (and often competing). 

Remember that term “fiduciary?” A fiduciary standard is imposed and regulated due to the inherent agency problem that exists between the client and the financial services professional (and/or industry). To review, the CFP Board defines fiduciary through the lens of the interaction between a financial planner and a client. Its fiduciary standard of care “requires that a financial advisor act solely in the client’s best interest when offering personalized financial advice.” 

Think about that for a second

Who else’s interest would they be serving when they offer advice? The very fact that a fiduciary standard is required reveals the problematic state of the industry. It is worth repeating…we can and simply must do better! However, the business models of financial planning firms and the compensation of financial advisors are anchors that necessitate considerable and seemingly insurmountable effort to move beyond the current climate. 

So how are advisors paid? 

In a commission and fee firm (often termed a “hybrid model”), advisors are often paid based on the commissions generated on the products sold. More directly, commissions are charged to buy and/or sell a mutual fund and when selling an insurance product such as a cash-value life insurance policy or an annuity. These commissions are called gross dealer concessions (GDCs) to the brokerage firm and the advisor receives a percentage of the GDC. The percentage that the advisor receives is most often determined by their relative tier based on the volume of sales dollars, meaning that the more products sold, the higher the percentage of GDC received.

In a fee-only firm, it is common for advisors to receive a salary as well as bonuses based on a percentage of their book. That means that the more assets they manage, the greater their additional compensation. More money can be made by bringing in new clients.

So what is the dominant incentive? It is quite clear that the incentive in the former is to sell investment and insurance products, and the incentive in the latter is to build and protect their book of business. But what about the amount and quality of financial advice? What about the degree of service and attention? What about providing an unbiased perspective? These are the conflicts that exist.

Citing these conflicts is not intended to suggest that a particular individual within any of the systems above is not providing high quality financial advice and excellent client service. It is meant to clearly call out the inherent conflict of interests that exists within these compensation models. 

Conflicts everywhere

And since Charlie Munger’s quote has been proven true for decades, we would be wise to pay attention. Truly, it is the case…find the incentive and you will likely find the outcome. So what outcomes are naturally linked to these incentives? At worst, if the incentives are large bonuses that are paid for selling products that generate a (very large!) commission, the interest of the advisor is to sell as many of these products as possible. 

Selling = more $$. The interest of the client is sound, comprehensive, and objective advice and purchasing only products that best meet their needs. If the incentive is bonuses that are paid based on the volume of assets managed, the interest of the advisor is to provide advice that results in more managed assets and allocate time on only activities that build and retain assets.

More assets managed = more $$. The interest of the client is sound, comprehensive, and objective advice and purchasing only products that best meet their needs. This is not about the character or the quality of the advisor. It is simply about incentives. Incentives lead to behaviors, and behaviors lead to outcomes. Or as Peter Drucker once said, “What gets measured gets managed, and what gets managed gets done.” 

The conflicts of interest in a fee and commission model have been highlighted and bantered about for a long time. In fact, the strong movement towards a fee-only business model has been fueled by the increasing visibility of these challenges. So we would like to devote most of our time to the primary fee-only advisor compensation model which is salary plus a bonus paid on the advisor’s book of business (amount of assets managed). 

Even a fee-only structure has its limitations

This might look harmless, but there are conflicts that remain. If a large portion of compensation is determined through a percentage of the assets you manage (“your book”), the incentive is to protect the book. This means employing a time allocation method that first considers the question, “Does this activity help me build and/or maintain my book of business?” Activities that result in a “yes” response to that question are prioritized while the incentive is to minimize or eliminate activities that result in a “no” response to that question. The big problem is that many of the important services that clients are looking for do not involve activities that yield bigger books. For example, conversations around topics like financial literacy education, budgeting, debt management, benefit planning, educational funding strategies, talking through goals and values, and charitable giving rarely lead to more assets under management. So conversations are primarily directed at wealth management, retirement funding, and risk management/insurance needs at the expense of ignoring or minimizing these other vital topics. Why? Because they do not align with the incentive.

Look for comprehensive planning vs. product-focused planning

Further, for some clients the best thing they could do is to pay down debt, invest through their company’s 401(k) plan, invest in real estate, and/or engage in charitable giving. However, none of these activities builds assets under management and all of them could potentially subtract from managed assets. Again, the incentive is aligned toward advisor behaviors/advice that is contrary to the best interests of the client. Anything that takes away from the percentage bonus for the advisor is incentivized to be avoided. This dynamic is what has predominantly contributed to the difference between product-focused financial planning and truly comprehensive financial planning that we discussed several months ago and is reflected again in the graphic at the end of this post.

Truly comprehensive financial planning is such a small portion of overall financial planning due to the inherent compensation incentives. 

Finally, the fee-only compensation model helps illuminate why many individuals and families do not have access to financial planning assistance. Simply and crudely put, they are not worth the time because they do not have enough assets for the planner/advisor to manage. This client may be willing and able to pay for services, but the current compensation method does not incentivize the advisor for spending time with this client. 

Compensation methods need to change. It is not only a matter of preference. Real outcomes are at stake. We can and simply must do better! 

puzzle-04.jpg

Check out the rest of the series with Ryan and Marc:

  1. Financial Planning: A New Mindset

  2. Bracing Ourselves For Rough Seas Ahead

  3. Isn’t Financial Planning a Dying Profession?

  4. What Financial Planning Should Look Like

  5. How Product Sales Is Ruining Financial Planning

  6. How Business Models Created the Culture of Financial Advisory Firms

Ryan Halley, Ph.D., CFP® is Director of Planning Practices and Research at Human Investing. He holds a doctorate in Personal Financial Planning from Texas Tech University and an MBA with a concentration in Finance from The Ohio State University. Ryan has his CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ certification. Dr. Halley is also a Professor of Finance and Financial Planning at George Fox University, where he directs a CFP® Registered Program located near Portland, Oregon. He has co-authored a book and has numerous peer-reviewed journal articles. Additionally, he has been an invited professor and lecturer at various universities in the United States, Canada and China. 

 

 
 

Related Articles

How Business Models Created The Culture of Financial Advisory Firms
 
financial-planning-compensation.jpg

Why not just make the necessary changes to correct what’s broken? 

At this point in our blog series, you might be asking yourself the question, “If things are so bad with the current state of financial planning, why not just make the necessary changes to correct what’s broken?” That is a logical conclusion, but while the problems are obvious, the solutions are challenging (possibly a little like some of the political debate topics you will be hearing for the next few months!). 

There are two real challenges here

One that we have already mentioned: nothing big is wrong. It is a host of smaller pieces that are broken, and those small pieces accumulate into a perception of confusion and mistrust and suboptimal financial planning outcomes.

A second challenge is that the core problems are so deeply rooted in the culture and systems that make up the industry that even obvious needed changes are difficult to address. It is the proverbial turning of the Titanic, if you will. So, a better place to begin might be defining the culture through the lens of how we arrived at where we are currently and identifying some of the elements of the culture that make it so sticky and unwieldy. 

As forecasted last time, there are many weighty systemic issues woven into the culture of financial services that make this move to a better model extremely difficult. These are true anchors working against a migration to something better. In this piece, we are going to start at the top and take a look at the business model of most financial planning firms and set the stage for why things are as they are. 

How financial services make money

As we have discussed, the financial planning profession has its roots in investment services and the insurance industry. Firms make money largely be selling either investment products (stocks, bonds, mutual funds, real estate trusts, options, etc.) or insurance products (whole life, variable life, annuities, etc.). 

Each of these products are sold with a commission and the firm makes money with each product sold. It is quite possible that a firm gets paid $10,000, $15,000 or even $20,000 or more for selling one variable annuity product. So, as you can imagine, this system is full of agency problems or conflicts of interest and has brought about many pieces of regulation to try to control these built-in conflicts. Selling products often comes at the expense of offering services. 

It is for this reason that we ended our last post talking about “fiduciary.” Fiduciary is a legal requirement imposed to make sure that planners/advisors are acting in a way that is in the client’s best interest. And, as we asked last time, who else’s interest would they be serving when they offer advice?

The very fact that a fiduciary standard is required reveals the problematic state of the industry 

This problem and others have led to a slow migration to other business models. Improvement. The commission-only paradigm began to change into a business model that is comprised of both fees for service and commission on products. This has further extended into a model where revenue comes exclusively from fees, with no commissioned products being sold. In fact, the CFP Board recognizes three different categories of compensation for planners:

  • Commission only

  • Commission and fee

  • Fee only

In order to be considered a fee-only advisor (or firm), no commissioned products can be sold. The CFP Board has defined the term “fee only” in the following way: “A certificant may describe his or her practice as “fee-only” if, and only if, all of the certificant’s compensation from all of his or her client work comes exclusively from the clients in the form of fixed, flat, hourly, percentage or performance-based fees.” 

While the definition might seem to align with what you would expect of a fee-for-service relationship, the dominate model looks much different. Instead of being paid to produce a financial plan or paid on an hourly basis, the vast majority of financial planning firms generate most of their revenue through what is called an “assets under management” (AUM) model.

WHAT THE ASSETS-UNDER-MANAGEMENT model MISSES

There are planners who do hourly work or charge by the plan, but that is the extreme minority of revenue dollars produced. The assets under management model assigns a percentage fee to the client assets that are managed by the firm. The more assets managed, the more money made. It is typical for the amount charged to be on a sliding scale so that the percentage applied to assets goes down if you hit certain targets. For example, if a firm charges 1.25% of AUM for assets under $1 million and 1.00% of AUM for assets over $1 million, a client with $500,000 invested would pay $6,250 for the year. A similar fee structure would be used to calculate annual fees during each future year. If the client had $3,000,000 invested, that client would pay $30,000 annually. 

There is nothing inherently wrong with this model, but it does explain why most financial planning firms look like investment service firm silos, or what we have termed “product-focused financial planning.” Other services can be offered and truly comprehensive financial planning can be conducted, but it is most often done without direct compensation. In other words, you are not paid for it. This is the largest and heaviest anchor working against a change from a culture of product-focused financial planning to truly comprehensive financial planning. 

The incentives are stacked too heavily towards products and wealth management. In order to change the incentive, the entire business model would need to change. And as you can imagine, that is a big ask. The more hidden cost is one of being stuck—of knowing what would and could be better, but experiencing the seemingly impossible task of getting there. In life, the one thing more frustrating than not knowing or being able to figure something out is the ability to observe, understand and know what needs to happen but not being able to do anything about it.

Associated costs are a continued and mired state of public distrust, a ridiculous amount of regulation and required disclosure, an opaque world in which terms like “advisor” and “planner” are almost impossible to decipher, and ultimately failing to offer the community the entirety of what they need… truly comprehensive financial planning. 

Check out the rest of the series with Ryan and Marc:

  1. Financial Planning: A New Mindset

  2. Bracing Ourselves For Rough Seas Ahead

  3. Isn’t Financial Planning a Dying Profession?

  4. What Financial Planning Should Look Like

  5. How Product Sales Is Ruining Financial Planning

 

 

Want to talk about your financial plan?
Want to learn more?
Come talk to us or e-mail Jill at jill@humaninvesting.com.

Ryan Halley, Ph.D., CFP® is Director of Planning Practices and Research at Human Investing. He holds a doctorate in Personal Financial Planning from Texas Tech University and an MBA with a concentration in Finance from The Ohio State University. Ryan has his CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ certification. Dr. Halley is also a Professor of Finance and Financial Planning at George Fox University, where he directs a CFP® Registered Program located near Portland, Oregon. He has co-authored a book and has numerous peer-reviewed journal articles. Additionally, he has been an invited professor and lecturer at various universities in the United States, Canada and China. 

 

Related Articles

How Product Sales is Ruining Financial Planning
 
product-sales.jpg

In our last several posts, we have been highlighting the necessary distinction between truly comprehensive financial planning and product-focused financial planning. We deem it necessary because the term financial planning is often wrongly used, which comes at the client’s expense. The term financial planning is regularly used to represent what is solely product-focused financial planning. We proposed that we are largely stuck in an industry of confusion, and we are having a difficult time moving on from this place. There are apparent yet opaque reasons as to why this is the case. These are contained within an earlier list of systemic factors we cited which have impaired financial planning outcomes and distorted the way in which financial planning is done. 

Let’s return to the medical analogy. Imagine being a patient with an illness

A patient would never want to go to a doctor who has a drug or pill already identified and evaluates the condition of the patient by searching for ways to use that drug or pill to treat the patient. Instead, a patient would want a doctor who evaluates the medical situation with an unbiased lens and only uses a drug or pill if it is the most effective way to treat the identified condition. Isn’t that the way you would want your financial life approached as well – to have someone look over your entire financial picture (including your values, goals, dreams, concerns, fears, etc.) and advise from that perspective instead of looking for a way to sell a financial product?

Within the medical context, think about what may be missed and how often the product (drug) would be the wrong form of treatment! The patient is seeking a service, not a product. The product is a potential outcome of the service, but it is not what the patient or client pursues. If so clearly a problem within a medical context (or almost any other professional context), why does this phenomenon of product sales disguised as financial planning remain so apparent within the financial services industry? Sure, financial products (insurance and investments) will be part of most financial plans; however, they should only be used when designed to meet a specific need identified through a comprehensive and unbiased financial planning process. If the product (drug) comes at the expense of a comprehensive evaluation, it compromises the best interest of the patient…or, in this case, the client. 

Why is this happening?

It is the tethering of product sales and commissions to a "financial plan" which is at the core of the challenge. This persistent culture of product sales paraded around as financial planning is a systemic issue. The prevailing practice and system around “financial planning” has weakened the full potential of the financial planning profession. Tragically, for clients, this dislocation has weakened outcomes for the humans we are attempting to serve humanely. The focus needs to be directed squarely on service, not products. While this right move seems obvious, there are many weighty systemic issues woven into the culture of financial services that make this move extremely difficult. The list below identifies the most significant anchors working against a migration to something better, and we are going to use upcoming posts to focus specifically on each of these: 

  • Business models of financial planning firms 

  • Compensation structure for planners 

  • Role of incentives 

  • Career status and prestige based solely on sales achievements 

  • Measures of success and effectiveness tied to a book of business 

  • Conflicts of interest that are not transparent 

  • Academic preparation, credentialing, and pathway to a profession in financial planning 

There is much talk in the financial services industry about the term and concept of “fiduciary.” Besides being an odd word and slightly fun to say, what is it? The CFP Board defines fiduciary through the lens of the interaction between a financial planner and a client. Its fiduciary standard of care “requires that a financial adviser act solely in the client’s best interest when offering personalized financial advice.” Think about that for a second. Who else’s interest would they be serving when they offer advice? The very fact that a fiduciary standard is required reveals the problematic state of the industry. We can and simply must do better. 

Ryan Halley, Ph.D., CFP® is Director of Planning Practices and Research at Human Investing. He holds a doctorate in Personal Financial Planning from Texas Tech University and an MBA with a concentration in Finance from The Ohio State University. Ryan has his CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ certification. Dr. Halley is also a Professor of Finance and Financial Planning at George Fox University, where he directs a CFP® Registered Program located near Portland, Oregon. He has co-authored a book and has numerous peer-reviewed journal articles. Additionally, he has been an invited professor and lecturer at various universities in the United States, Canada and China. 

 

 
 

Related Articles

Isn’t Financial Planning a Dying Profession?
 
demystify.jpg

Let’s return to an observation that we shared in last month’s introductory post. Do you remember the administrator who asked the peculiar question, “Isn’t financial planning a dying profession?” This question caught us a bit flatfooted at first as we wondered how anyone could work in a business context for the past two decades and think that financial planning is a dying profession. 

It’s a growing career field.

There are many ways to measure where an industry might be in its lifecycle, but since we were planning a program whose goal is to place students in jobs after graduation, the closest statistic we could measure this statement against was the projected job growth within the industry. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook (OOH), employment of financial planners is expected to increase by 7% from 2018 to 2028. This is moderately higher than the average for all occupations, which is just 5%. Most professions that are dying do not have a projected job growth rate that is 40% higher than the overall growth rate. 

So why was such an odd question posed? 

It is evident that we were not talking about the same profession. But how could that be? If the respective profession were changed to nursing, it would not be confused with pharmacology. Architecture wouldn’t be confused with lumber production. Those professions (and most all others) are rather clearly defined by name and distinguished from other professionals. Why such confusion involving the work of financial planners? 

In last month’s blog, we proposed a long list of systemic factors that have impaired financial planning outcomes and distorted the way in which financial planning is done. Near the bottom of that list was a perilous factor whose proximity near the end of the list was not indicative of diminished importance. In fact, it’s the focus of this month’s post and one that will provide the foundation on which subsequent pieces will be built. It is an overarching paradigm that has played a significant role in creating the current culture and systems of financial planning—a culture that we believe has weakened the full potential of financial planning outcomes and circumvented most clients’ primary needs. 

Here’s the factor:

Investment services silo while human-centered financial planning is comprehensive in nature. 

In other words, using the term financial planning to represent what is instead solely the investment services function. Historically, most all financial services have been addressed in silos. An individual would have a bank for all savings and cash management functions, go to a stockbroker for non-retirement investing, use a Human Resource office to establish and fund a retirement investment plan, use an insurance agent for all insurance needs, have a Certified Public Accountant for tax preparation, contact a realtor and mortgage banker for housing and property purchases and funding, and hire a lawyer to address any legal matters. Most of these professions still exist and serve valuable market functions.

Comprehensive financial planning uses aspects of most all of these job functions in the implementation steps found within a financial plan, with the critical element being the integration and interaction of all areas of financial management. No financial area stands on its own. 

More misconceptions.

However, the investment services silo structure remains different from all of the others — it has experienced radical transformation, leading us to agree with this questioning administrator if he had in mind a stockbroker when we said “financial planning.” Indeed, the historic profession of being a stockbroker is largely dead. Consider the progression of tax-advantaged investment accounts (primarily for retirement and college funding), the evolution of mutual funds and exchange-traded funds, the broad access to information, the speed of technology, and the automation and machine learning tools surrounding asset allocation. The world of investment management has morphed from being one of stock picking and asset selection to one of managing diversified investments across asset classes in tax efficient ways in order to fund future goals with optimal risk/return profile portfolios.

The confusion surrounding this topic also led to this administrator’s next question, which was, “Don’t robots already do financial planning?” (It should be noted that this is not one person’s perception and inquisition—we are asked a variation of this question all the time). See, the misunderstanding here is based on the same paradigm. If financial planning is defined as asset allocation and building an efficient investment portfolio that considers a client’s risk profile, then, indeed, robots (algorithms and machine learning) have replaced humans to a considerable extent. 

This is good, right?

Well, that’s not really the critical question. It is far less about the industry being right than it is about the involuntary need to stay relevant by keeping up with the break-neck pace of change. In other words, the speed of change has altered the industry right in front of our eyes without much deliberate architecture. The system changed. Go back with us to last month’s post about the state of the industry. In that article, we stated a purpose for the blog series as defining what we see as wrong with the industry. 

A major part of the complexity is that it is not any one thing. Nothing big is wrong. It is smaller pieces that are broken, and those small pieces accumulate into a perception of confusion and mistrust and suboptimal financial planning outcomes. The practice of investment management and investment managers all around the world have provided valuable services to clients as they work towards growing financial assets to meet future financial goals. This is good. But it has created a world where it is now virtually impossible for the marketplace to distinguish between a “financial advisor” and a “financial planner.” No matter what term the industry uses, the profession is filled with financial planners who almost exclusively do investment services work.

This is a long way from comprehensive financial planning.

Investment planning is only one piece of financial planning, and ignoring the other components leads to suboptimal outcomes. Again, it is not about semantics (what we call ourselves), but it is instead about substance and structure. 

In our next post, we will begin to build a picture of how we view the most comprehensive and purest form of human-centered financial planning. Here’s a teaser…if you like puzzles, you’re in for a treat! 

Ryan Halley, Ph.D., CFP® is Director of Planning Practices and Research at Human Investing. He holds a doctorate in Personal Financial Planning from Texas Tech University and an MBA with a concentration in Finance from The Ohio State University. Ryan has his CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ certification. Dr. Halley is also a Professor of Finance and Financial Planning at George Fox University, where he directs a CFP® Registered Program located near Portland, Oregon. He has co-authored a book and has numerous peer-reviewed journal articles. Additionally, he has been an invited professor and lecturer at various universities in the United States, Canada and China. 

 

 
 

Related Articles



Bracing Ourselves for Rough Seas Ahead
 
caution-ahead.jpg

In our introductory post to this series last month, we mentioned that we intend to identify and call out a long list of systemic factors that have impaired financial planning outcomes and have distorted how financial planning is done. We will share what we believe are solutions to these obstacles and ways we think the industry needs to address these challenges to offer clients the most comprehensive and purest form of human-centered financial planning.

Times of disruption create the most significant opportunities for progress.

These moments do not come easily and virtually never come without a cost. But the advancement is the cause that makes it worth it. The world’s greatest transformations and progressions have followed similar patterns. In our effort to push forward, we will most likely step on some toes and create some uncomfortable conversations. It is inevitable, but hopefully it can be done in respectful ways that lead to eventual breakthroughs. Our purpose is not to undermine, isolate, or hurt anyone. We intend to create dialogue, with our ultimate goal of influencing and improving the financial planning process.

The best outcomes will arise from collaboration.

In our effort to ascertain and convey these systematic factors and challenges, we probably have some of it wrong. There are likely better (and undoubtedly) alternative solutions to those we have conceptualized. We also appreciate that there are many perspectives on the same situation. We have asked a bunch of questions of ourselves, and more questions develop as proposed solutions are created. Technology is changing everything. The world changes at a pace that makes it challenging to keep up and stay intentional about everything we do. Even as we process the current state of our industry and share a small list of insights pertaining to what we believe are progressions in our service to clients, we are actively looking to continue to change as things evolve. We do not pretend to have it perfectly illuminated and have the one best operational model in place. What we do know and are driven by is that clients’ needs and interests must be at the center of everything we do, and there is room for improvement in this initiative. The industry can get closer to this ambition, and any step in that direction is a step worth taking (and perhaps a feather worth ruffling). Thank you for taking a seat at this table.

Ryan Halley, Ph.D., CFP® is Director of Planning Practices and Research at Human Investing. He holds a doctorate in Personal Financial Planning from Texas Tech University and an MBA with a concentration in Finance from The Ohio State University. Ryan has his CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™ certification. Dr. Halley is also a Professor of Finance and Financial Planning at George Fox University, where he directs a CFP® Registered Program located near Portland, Oregon. He has co-authored a book and has numerous peer-reviewed journal articles. Additionally, he has been an invited professor and lecturer at various universities in the United States, Canada and China.

 

 
 

Related Articles