Adviser or planner? Billingham slams this 'sterile' debate

Adviser or planner (or something else)

This is NOT a sterile debate. It has gained new impetus in the light of whether independence will be the norm post RDR. Before 1988 the term broker was widely used and generally well understood. Then came regulation in 1988 introducing the title independent financial adviser. This took a considerable amount of time to be accepted despite the best efforts of IFA promotion. Now the independent tag could be lost for the majority of advisers unable to fulfill the regulatory (and PII) demands made to continue this moniker.The need therefore is to unite around a title that will 'do what we say'and 'say what we do',is not pretentious and is quickly recognised by the consumer.However be warned this is likely to mean more than QCF level 4 exams. My money would be ultimately on chartered/certified status which would be instantly recognisable by the public.

Posted by: Duncan Jones

Oy

What about Wealth Manager !!!!!!! Interestingly I have to give a presentation tonight on What I Do. I am many different things to many different people, who don't realy care if I'm chartered, an adviser, planner or broker. As long as I can help them. It reminds me of the old SOFA and LIA days. Clients don't care what your title is they care about how you can help them.

Posted by: Swanny

Adviser or planner

What should a Financial Planner look like? me - I'm very attractive thank you.!

Posted by: Anonymous

IFAs Rule - OK

Phil – spot on. The nomenclature has merely been adopted because many so called planners are not independent. What the hell do planners think advisers do? The IFP won’t get off the fence even though the vast bulk of their members are indeed IFAs. Why? Because they may lose a few quid from the likes of SJP (who of course are planners, wealth managers and financial consultants. We don’t need precious titles – Wealth Manager? Who ever heard of a Poverty Manager (unless it was an insolvency practitioner)? In the end there is only one title that counts and has meaning – even more so once the RDR comes into force. Yes you’ve guessed it – IFA. Independent - deals with finance and provides advice (which invariably includes planning). What else does anyone really need to know? The regulator has bestowed a crown on IFAS after 2012 – so we can use the name with even more pride.

Posted by: Harry Katz

A job title should mean something

I came to a conclusion that what interested my clients was who I was and whether in speaking to me, they were getting to speak to the organ grinder (who could make the decisions)or his monkey. Neither IFA, planner or wealth manager told the client whether they'd be getting an organ grinder or a monkey, so I changed my business card to simply say "Director". It could have said "Managing Director" or CEO, but the latter can give a client an impression that you feel superior, while the just "Director" for my mind gave the impression that they were dealing with a decision maker, rather than someone who was interested in being top dog. For my mind, although Planning is NOT regulated, if anything it is more essential that it it should be and I have always thought it arse about face. As to level 6 being what shoudl be needed for a consumer, I think once again, the argument should be for making the client aware of the difference between level 3,4 and 6 and letting the client and markets decide. i.e. if the Client wants to pay for a level 6 adviser, then whetehr they need one or not, they should be able to and vice versa, but the consumer needs to be given the joice and not shoe horned in to a level 4 adviser (I'm only level 3 3/4 as I've one more exam to do being R01)when they should have had a level 6 adviser. With regard let the markets decide, if a level 4 is mroe risk than a level 6, then their PII should be more expensive which would act as an incentive to get level6. The problem is that until the FSA (wrongly for my mind) decided to make level 4 mandatory, there was actually no incentive to move from level 3 to level 4, let alone level 6. Ironically, the exams which I think will benefit my clients and I after I've finished my level 4 are all certificate level and NOT level 4 let alone level 6, which is why relevant exams adn experience combined should be what the consumer should be encouraged to look for from their adviser.

Posted by: Phil Castle

PAINT POTS!

I agreee with PB. An absolutely sterile debate! The client relationship (even at minute one)should be such that such things are totally irrelevant. In the 1980s I was Marketing Manager at the Bristol Old Vic. The General Manager got it into his head that all staff (bear in mind most are crafts people)should have a title. He asked the long established, highly respected set designer what he wanted to be called. His reply? "You can call me third paint pot from the left for all I care. The quality of my sets will not change". And those sets were really good! PB you are absolutely right! It is the individual and not the title that wins the business.

Posted by: Geof Pollock

Spot the Difference!

Unfortunately the debate is sterile because it is asking a stupid question on a par with : Doctor or Surgeon? Mechanic or Engineer?, Draughtsman or Architect? Those of us who have achieved Certified Financial Planner status know it is different from being an adviser, so its not simply title chosen on whim. Yes a planner can also be a regulated adviser, and most currently are. But post RDR we may see some of the genuine planners offer their services outside of the regulated community. Of course to maintain professional credence they will require the approval of the IFP. Remember, financial planning is not regulated so arguments about tied or independent are totally spurious. Try to look at the financial planning community as a profession in its own right, not tied or affiliated or connected in any way with any financial regulator. Solicitor or Barrister? Auctioneer or Estate Agent? Optician or Opthalmogist? etc. The world is full of professions closely associated with another. That does not mean they are not different, even if some practitioners hold dual qualification!

Posted by: Green Eyed Monster

Adviser or planner

A Financial Adviser is a Financial Adviser full stop. The main issue is if you are Independent, hence 'IFA'. Planner, Wealth Mangager, IFA, does not matter as long as you are doing the right thing for your client. Have as many qualifications and skills as you want and brag as much as you want, acting on behalf of your client advising them on their finances and goals(sorry dreams!)is what the client wants you to do. Be proud that you are independent acting on your clients behalf and don't get hung up or stuck up on alternative titles which mean the same thing.

Posted by: Wayne Slater

Just to clarify...

Thanks for all the comments. I think what I meant to say is that Different is not the same as Better or Worse. As a CFP I am very aware of the differences, as pointed out by most of the comments. It's just I'd rather engage in a conversation about what unites us, rather than what seperates us, and then see what we can do to help more Advisers make the journey to Planning, which can and does add additional value to clients... After that, I want to solve world hunger........

Posted by: Phil Billingham

The difference is in new customer expectation

I think a consumer might infer a difference. Adviser = advice (eg/ I want advise on a single issue or product) Planner = I would expect to work towards a full plan for all my finances. How your qualification reflects in your name will be of less concern to the consumer. Agree however, that if you're good you're good, and existing clients won't give a fig. But my make a differnce to your brand and to potential new clients.

Posted by: AH