FINANCIAL PLANNERS: Part Time Employment Difficulties

Posted on October 18, 2025 by Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™

By Staff Reporters

SPONSOR: http://www.CertifiedMedicalPlanner.org

***

***

Why It Is Difficult to Be a Part-Time Financial Planner Today

In theory, part-time financial planning offers flexibility and work-life balance, making it an attractive option for professionals seeking reduced hours. However, in practice, the role of a financial planner has evolved into a demanding, full-time commitment. The complexity of financial markets, client expectations, regulatory requirements, and technological advancements make part-time financial planning increasingly difficult to sustain.

One of the primary challenges is client relationship management. Financial planning is deeply personal and trust-based. Clients expect consistent communication, timely updates, and proactive advice. A part-time planner may struggle to maintain the same level of responsiveness as full-time counterparts, especially during volatile market conditions or life-changing events like retirement, divorce, or inheritance. Delayed responses or limited availability can erode client confidence and damage long-term relationships.

***

***

Another obstacle is the rapid pace of financial change. Tax laws, investment products, insurance regulations, and retirement planning strategies are constantly evolving. Staying current requires ongoing education, certifications, and industry engagement. For part-time planners, keeping up with these changes while managing clients and administrative tasks can be overwhelming. Falling behind risks offering outdated or suboptimal advice, which could lead to compliance issues or client dissatisfaction.

Regulatory compliance adds another layer of complexity. Financial planners must adhere to strict standards set by organizations like FINRA, the SEC, and state regulators. These include documentation, disclosures, fiduciary responsibilities, and continuing education. Compliance is non-negotiable and time-consuming, regardless of hours worked. Part-time planners face the same scrutiny and liability as full-time professionals, but with fewer hours to manage the workload.

Technology, while a powerful tool, also presents challenges. Clients increasingly expect digital access to their portfolios, real-time updates, and virtual meetings. Managing these platforms requires technical proficiency and regular maintenance. Part-time planners may find it difficult to keep systems updated, troubleshoot issues, or provide tech support, especially if they lack dedicated staff.

Business development is another hurdle. Building and maintaining a client base requires networking, marketing, and referrals. Part-time planners often have limited time to attend events, follow up with leads, or cultivate relationships. This can hinder growth and make it difficult to compete with full-time advisors who are more visible and accessible.

Finally, there’s the issue of income and scalability. Many financial planners earn through commissions, assets under management (AUM), or fee-based models. Part-time work often means fewer clients and lower revenue, which can make it hard to justify the costs of licensing, insurance, software, and office space. Without scale, profitability becomes a challenge.

In conclusion, while the idea of part-time financial planning may seem appealing, the realities of the profession make it difficult to execute effectively. The demands of client care, compliance, education, and business development require consistent attention and availability. Unless the industry adapts to support flexible models, part-time financial planners will continue to face significant barriers to success.

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

EDUCATION: Books

SPEAKING: ME-P Editor Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd will be speaking and lecturing, signing and opining, teaching and preaching, storming and performing at many locations throughout the USA this year! His tour of witty and serious pontifications may be scheduled on a planned or ad-hoc basis; for public or private meetings and gatherings; formally, informally, or over lunch or dinner. All medical societies, financial advisory firms or Broker-Dealers are encouraged to submit an RFP for speaking engagements: CONTACT: Ann Miller RN MHA at MarcinkoAdvisors@outlook.com -OR- http://www.MarcinkoAssociates.com

Like, Refer and Subscribe

***

***

Filed under: "Advisors Only", "Ask-an-Advisor", Career Development, CMP Program, Financial Planning, Glossary Terms, Portfolio Management | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

ASSETS UNDER ADVISEMENT: Doctors Only

Posted on June 29, 2025 by Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™

By Dr. David Edward Marcinko; MBA MEd CMP™

A.U.A IS ALL WE DO!

***

SPONSOR: http://www.MarcinkoAssociates.com

Assets under advisement refer to assets on which your firm provides advice or consultation but for which your firm does either does not have discretionary authority or does not arrange or effectuate the transaction. Such services would include financial planning or other consulting services where the assets are used for the informational purpose of gaining a full perspective of the client’s financial situation, but you are not actually placing the trade.

Assets under advisement could also be those which you monitor for a client on a non-discretionary basis, where you may make recommendations but where the client is the party responsible for arranging or effecting the purchase or sale.  A common example of this AUM scenario is when an advisor reviews a participant’s 401(k) allocations. If the adviser does not have the authority or ability to effect changes in the portfolio, these assets are likely considered assets under advisement rather than regulatory assets under management.

Assets under advisement are permitted to be disclosed on Form ADV Part 2A as a separate asset figure from the assets under management.  There is no requirement to disclose the assets under advisement figure, but some advisors opt to include the figure to give prospective clients a more complete picture of the firm’s responsibilities.  If you choose to report your assets under advisement, be sure to make a clear distinction between this figure and your regulatory assets under management.

***

D. E. Marcinko & Associates Core Operating Values

9.   We act with honesty, integrity and are always straightforward.
8.   We strive to be innovative, creative, iconoclastic, and flexible.
7.   We admit and learn from mistakes and don’t repeat them.
6.   We work hard always as competitors are trying to catch up.
5.   We treat others with dignity and respect.
4.   We are the onus of consulting advice for the fiduciary well being of others.
3.   We fight complacency as former success is in the past.
2.   The best management styles are timeless, not timely.
1.   Our clients are colleagues and always come first.

***

COMMENTS APPRECIATED

EDUCATION: Books

SPEAKING: Dr. Marcinko will be speaking and lecturing, signing and opining, teaching and preaching, storming and performing at many locations throughout the USA this year! His tour of witty and serious pontifications may be scheduled on a planned or ad-hoc basis; for public or private meetings and gatherings; formally, informally, or over lunch or dinner. All medical societies, financial advisory firms or Broker-Dealers are encouraged to submit an RFP for speaking engagements: CONTACT: Ann Miller RN MHA at MarcinkoAdvisors@outlook.com 

Like and Refer

***

***

Filed under: "Ask-an-Advisor", "Doctors Only", Ask a Doctor, CMP Program, Ethics, Financial Planning, Funding Basics, Glossary Terms, Health Economics, iMBA, Inc., Marcinko Associates | Tagged: , , , , , , , | Leave a comment »

On the Department of Labor “Fiduciary Rule”

Posted on September 3, 2017 by Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™

Join Our Mailing List

Rick Kahler MS CFP

By Rick Kahler MSFS CFP®

Both fee-only financial planning firms and companies that sell financial products are beginning to see some unintended consequences from the recent Department of Labor fiduciary rule.

The rule requires that all financial advisors who deal with an investor’s retirement accounts, including those who sell products, be held to a fiduciary standard. In the past, only RIA’s who are regulated by the SEC were held to such a standard.

The DoL intended the rule to discourage financial salespeople from placing high fee and commission products in retirement accounts. For fee-only advisers, one unintended consequence is an increase in documentation and paperwork, which increases the cost of doing business.

Another unintended consequence that could actually end up hurting consumers may be on the issue of churning.

Churning

Churning describes a broker excessively and needlessly making a lot of trades in a client’s account to generate extra commissions. FINRA, the agency that oversees the sale of financial products, has long discouraged churning, though often the practice only comes to light when a consumer files a complaint.

Still, regulators’ success in discouraging churning has given rise to fee-based brokerage and wrap accounts. These accounts do not compensate brokers on the number and frequency of transactions, but on an ongoing management or advisory fee. It can be a flat fee or one that is determined by a percentage of the assets in the account. This mode of compensation takes away a broker’s incentive to churn accounts. That has to be a good thing, right? Well, not necessarily, if you are a regulator.

***

dol

***

Now, according to financial planner and writer Michael Kitces, the regulators are concerned they have been “too successful” in motivating brokers to charge management fees. Kitces notes the new DoL fiduciary rule will continue to spur a massive shift towards various forms of fee-based brokerage and advisory accounts, giving rise to an emerging new problem: reverse churning.

Reverse Churning

He says reverse churning “is where an advisor charges an ongoing investment management fee … but fails to provide any substantive ongoing investment services.” The broker places a consumer in an investment, collects the annual fee, and never touches the account again. Regulators are worried that brokers have gone from too much activity (churning) to not enough (reverse churning).

With the rise in popularity of passive investing, there is growing interest in the use of ETFs, index funds, and other passive investment vehicles. Passive investing is often framed as a “leave it and forget it” strategy that needs little attention. A lot of research validates that a passive investment strategy is usually superior to an active strategy with more buying and selling of securities.

Kitces notes that while the regulatory concern about reverse churning is appropriate, it “raises troubling concerns when paired with the growing popularity of using index funds, ETFs, and passive investment approaches. How is an advisor supposed to justify an ongoing advisory fee when the right thing for the client to do might really be to do nothing? And what if the bulk of the advisor’s AUM fee is actually for other non-investment (i.e., financial planning) services, paired together with an otherwise passive investment portfolio?”

Assessment

Regulators will probably need to address the difference between reverse churning and implementing a prudent passive investment strategy. That won’t happen before there is a lot of confusion that demands clarification. In the meanwhile, fee-only advisors who embrace a passive investment strategy will have to add another layer of busywork by documenting what they actively do for clients on an ongoing basis. Clearly, this will be easier for fiduciary advisors who also provide financial planning than for those who only provide investment advice. 

Conclusion

Your thoughts and comments on this ME-P are appreciated. Feel free to review our top-left column, and top-right sidebar materials, links, URLs and related websites, too. Then, subscribe to the ME-P. It is fast, free and secure.

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Medical Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com

OUR OTHER PRINT BOOKS AND RELATED INFORMATION SOURCES:

 Comprehensive Financial Planning Strategies for Doctors and Advisors: Best Practices from Leading Consultants and Certified Medical Planners™

***

Filed under: Breaking News, Ethics, Retirement and Benefits, Risk Management | Tagged: , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Advisors Fees vs. Brokerage Commissions

Posted on November 14, 2008 by Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA MEd CMP™

Join Our Mailing List

Beware Assets-under-Management [AUMs]

[Dr. David Edward Marcinko MBA, CMP™]

dem-thinking

I don’t think that doctor-colleagues realize how much more a fee-based financial planner – or financial advisor – might take from a physician-client using an assets-under-management [AUM] subscription business model; than a traditional commission-based stock broker? Of course, commissions are what stock-brokers earn; and “broker” is a bad word today. The more politically correct term seems to be “planner” or “advisor” or “vice-president” or ‘wealth manager”; and these folks earn “fees” along with their confusing nom de plumes. But should they?

Example:

Look at 1% of $100,000 which comes to $1,000 per year. If a doctor-client is in it “for the long haul,” we can see why financial advisors want this money for the “long haul.” Twenty years of this model comes out to nearly $20,000 in fees [assuming zero growth]. If a financial advisor was going to stick the doctor in some investment and leave him alone, would it not have been better to take a one-time $5,000 commission, say at 5%? This way the doctor-client keeps the remaining $15,000. If the money actually grows over time – which it should in the long run – the advisor earns even more.

False Arguments

Now, don’t try to accept the false argument that this puts financial advisors “on the same side of the fence”, as the physician-client or that it allows advisors to take better care them. First off, clients should be taken care of, well. But, it also encourages the advisor to “risk-more to earn more”, and/or to goad the doctor-client into putting more money into the subscription-based account, rather than paying off the mortgage, for example. In fact, the recent mortgage crisis and stock market meltdown suggests that this deceptive argument may have been more common than realized. So, why not ask your advisor/broker to explain both ways s/he gets paid; and then decide for yourself – fees versus commissions?

Assessment

Of course, in today’s world of “assets-under-management,” the word “commission” is taboo. No “real financial planner” takes commissions; he or she would rather manage investments for a “fee” that lasts forever.

PS: Financial advisors really don’t mange most of these accounts, anyway. They are aggregated and outsourced to other firms, for a small sub-fee [a bit less than the original 1%]. The advisor then sends a nice quarterly report to the doctor, as if they did all the work!  Now, do you realize why the best name for these folks is “asset gatherers”; they often do little more than market and sell.

Conclusion

Your thoughts and comments on this ME-P are appreciated. Feel free to review our top-left column, and top-right sidebar materials, links, URLs and related websites, too. Then, subscribe to the ME-P. It is fast, free and secure.

Speaker: If you need a moderator or speaker for an upcoming event, Dr. David E. Marcinko; MBA – Publisher-in-Chief of the Medical Executive-Post – is available for seminar or speaking engagements. Contact: MarcinkoAdvisors@msn.com

OUR OTHER PRINT BOOKS AND RELATED INFORMATION SOURCES:

Product Details  Product Details

Product Details

 

Filed under: Ethics, Financial Planning, Investing, Op-Editorials | Tagged: , , , , | 6 Comments »