I'm not so sure our views diverge with regards to the meaning of financial advisor. Most of what may seem questionable or even argumentative in blogs is just due to the different meanings for words and phrases that the different particiants each think are self-explanatory and well-established. Some of my most heated arguments ended when we discovered that we were each using different terms and language and personal experience to say very similar things.

Until I can find the time to author some articles on the topic, which might give you more evidence to decide if I'm completely off base with regards to the meaning of financial advisor, would you grant some benefit of the doubt? It is very difficult to maintain a real-world client-centered focus that surpasses the suitability standard; each industry has its pressures to fall in love with what's in the toolbox and to deal only with the tools that come from the center of it.

It is an art, but much of the art lies in responsibly quantifying risk and/or uncertainty and then minimizing or offsetting it. I sometimes get in trouble for using figurative speech when others think I assert the literal interpretation; my “math problem” comment is probably a good example. That doesn't mean I don't keep some calculations in the files to show some evidence of a good faith effort to understand, quantify, and minimize the sources and size of downside.

You believe there are far too few sheriffs. It seems like every department, agency, and other government related entity has its own Inspector General but nothing seems to get done. To me there seems to be far too many sheriffs but far too few investigators, detectives, deputies, and prosecuting staff. But I get your point.

You may view your definition of financial advisors and planners as bigger. I think most would call it narrower. In fact it is so narrow it seems only you can define it.

You seem to want to tie financial advising to rules of thumb. Investment strategy is a not mathematical strategy. It is a strategy based on risk tolerance and analysis that many times can be facilitated through a mathematical model. One only has to be involved with independent fee based pension investment advisors to realize how significant economic changes many times require an investment strategy change based on the risk constraints of the board of trustees. It seems you do not want to provide a service but rather a lawsuit proof strategy whether it matches the risk concerns of your customer or not. But that is why it is called financial planning and not investing using financial safe harbors.

Too many times so called financial planners are so steeped in the product lines they sell and how those products are similar to other investment opportunities (which sounds great but generally proves out to be only marginally so) that they lose all sense of the true needs of their customer and the risk tolerance of that customer. Financial planning is not a science; it is an art.

I share your concerns about a lack of guidelines in cross selling but from there our views diverge. Personally I believe that HUD has irresponsibly put off for far too long its duty to provide guidance. Enough said. This is my expressed view and my expressed view alone.