NON- CPA accountants

[Roberts]

Fully disagree. There is a whole course on taxes. It is pretty intense actually. Thats what led me to presue the EA designation. It was a great tax building block. CFP covers personal and corporate tax pretty well.

We'll just have to agree to disagree. I found the tax section in actual practice to be little more than a dusting of the basics that basically limited itself to investment products (which is reasonable).

I understand why CFPs tend to get testy whenever anyone questions their designation. Then spent thousands of dollars and 2-3 years getting the license, are required to spend thousands each year keeping it and it doesn't actually generate salary oriented jobs. It's a sales designation and if the regulatory organizations and public aren't going to require it, it'll stay a sales designation. Thus why I let it lapse.

[sea-tax]

Seagate, I have had my series 7 for nearly 20 yrs and if I had to do it again, I would have only obtained the Series 6.

Why is that? I have been happy with the series 6 and it has allowed me to help most if not all of the clients that have wanted to work with me. However I have noticed from time to time there are those few who have some single issues that just want one person to help them. Over the years I have lost a couple of clients because of this.

[Uncle Sam]

NON-CPAs

I can understand the position.

I myself have a Series 7, am registered with a broker-dealer, pay the annual fees required for renewal - but only use it as an accommodation to clients that would like to set up an IRA or small investment account.
Since I'm not as knowledgeable about the investment market as a person who does it full time, I'd rather stay away from liability issues.
I do only what I'm comfortable with - and don't invest clients' money hastily merely to get a commission.
That is the curse - IN MY OPINION - of the CFP designation and investment advisory titles - where instead of providing advice to clients and getting paid for advice based on facts, you get a commission on what you sell. That leaves open the opportunity to preferably sell highly paid commisionable products rather than what the client needs and is comfortable with.

[taxxcpa]

You are 100% right

I can understand the position.

I myself have a Series 7, am registered with a broker-dealer, pay the annual fees required for renewal - but only use it as an accommodation to clients that would like to set up an IRA or small investment account.
Since I'm not as knowledgeable about the investment market as a person who does it full time, I'd rather stay away from liability issues.
I do only what I'm comfortable with - and don't invest clients' money hastily merely to get a commission.
That is the curse - IN MY OPINION - of the CFP designation and investment advisory titles - where instead of providing advice to clients and getting paid for advice based on facts, you get a commission on what you sell. That leaves open the opportunity to preferably sell highly paid commisionable products rather than what the client needs and is comfortable with.

People tend to trust the person who prepares their taxes, but there can be a conflict of interest when you are also pushing investments. The problem in dealing with anyone other than a discount broker is that the broker is a salesman who benefits by churning your account to generate fees.

[sea-tax]

People tend to trust the person who prepares their taxes, but there can be a conflict of interest when you are also pushing investments. The problem in dealing with anyone other than a discount broker is that the broker is a salesman who benefits by churning your account to generate fees.

I find the exact opposite to be true for me. Because I have such a large tax and bookkeeping practice which provides me with a comfortable income, I can pick and choose a little more carefully who I work for and what I sell them. I can honestly say I have never once asked myself ="what's in it for me?" If a client chooses to have me help them I spend many hours going over all the options, fees, DIY options and the like.
Also who better to help them than there tax person, anything involving investments has a tax ramification of one sort or another.
I will agree that those who provide investment services only, sometimes are persuaded to sell something that only benefits them. They have a family to feed, I get that.
All I am saying is that most tax preparers make a good living doing taxes, and the fees or commissions generated from investments is simply ancillary income. There are exceptions of course to anything.

[wvtaxguy]

Mba

I add the MBA following the CPA to my business name. Not sure it has helped yet but since I am just developing my practice I didn't feel it would hurt. If I had more initials I would at least put them on my business card if nothing else.

[Roberts]

That is the curse - IN MY OPINION - of the CFP designation and investment advisory titles - where instead of providing advice to clients and getting paid for advice based on facts, you get a commission on what you sell. That leaves open the opportunity to preferably sell highly paid commisionable products rather than what the client needs and is comfortable with.

A lot of investment advisers can charge by the hour or a flat rate. I offer it to the clients whichever way they want to pay me. Generally, it is my opinion that a buy and hold strategy with ETFs, closed end funds and individuals stocks and bonds... they are better off buying with a commission because I don't believe in trading. But I always offer them a flat rate as I'm licensed that way also.

I do agree with you, brokers selling for commissions is ugly regardless of whether they are doing taxes or not. I do the taxes of most of my larger investment clients as a service. Reality is that it's either included in the flat rate or the commissions they earn every year when we do tax loss selling, IRA contributions or whatever.

[taxxcpa]

Investment services

I find the exact opposite to be true for me. Because I have such a large tax and bookkeeping practice which provides me with a comfortable income, I can pick and choose a little more carefully who I work for and what I sell them. I can honestly say I have never once asked myself ="what's in it for me?" If a client chooses to have me help them I spend many hours going over all the options, fees, DIY options and the like.
Also who better to help them than there tax person, anything involving investments has a tax ramification of one sort or another.
I will agree that those who provide investment services only, sometimes are persuaded to sell something that only benefits them. They have a family to feed, I get that.
All I am saying is that most tax preparers make a good living doing taxes, and the fees or commissions generated from investments is simply ancillary income. There are exceptions of course to anything.

If you are only providing investment services for the benefit and convenience of your clients, there is no conflict. However if you only recommend high-load funds when there are low-load funds available, then there is a problem.
If I were to recommend a fund, I would generally recommend Vanguard, Fidelity or T Rowe Price. I rarely make such recommendations since I might recommend a loser and get blamed and maybe sued for bad advice.

[Lion]

Mba

I too put MBA on my cards, etc., along with EA. My MBA is in finance, so it's relevant; and people know what an MBA is. So, I think it encourages them to ask about the EA. I went out on my own this year and didn't get my EA certificate hung on my wall, haven't unpacked all my boxes yet. But, most have seen it in prior years; and I made a big deal of it the first year.