I’ve often wondered why financial advisors need a license. Perhaps the government believes that this regulations protects the public from making bad financial decisions. But what is a bad financial decision? Is buying a managed stock mutual fund a bad decision for the average person? How about an indexed fund?
Perhaps the government is worried that unregulated financial advisors might offer poor advice, such as encouraging people to believe that buying lottery tickets is a good way to get rich. On the other hand, if that were the motive then why would government officials be offering this sort of advice:
Lottery officials announced Monday that it will cost $5 to play Mega Millions, beginning in April, up from the current $2 per ticket. The price increase will be one of many changes to Mega Millions that officials said will result in improved jackpot odds, more frequent giant prizes and even larger payouts.
“Spending 5 bucks to become a millionaire or billionaire, that’s pretty good,” said Joshua Johnston, director of the Washington Lottery and lead director of the group that oversees Mega Millions.
Is Joshua Johnston offering good investment advice? Is he a licensed financial advisor?
On a more serious note, I suspect that the actual motive behind the licensing requirement for financial advisors is the same as the actual motive behind all other occupational licensing restrictions–the protection of incumbents against newcomers.
Some would argue that the Bernie Madoff scandal showed the need for licensing requirements. Actually, that case showed the exact opposite; licensing requirements do not address the central problem in the financial services industry, which is moral hazard.
Based on what I’ve observed, the primary problem in the financial services industry is not unlicensed professionals recommending the wrong stocks, it is licensed professionals encouraging their clients to invest in a way that benefits the financial advisor. Requiring financial advisors to be licensed does nothing to fix that problem. Indeed it might lull ordinary investors into overconfidence, “If this guy is licensed, then he must be qualified.”
READER COMMENTS
Ahmed Fares
Oct 20 2024 at 9:21pm
re: The Law Of Conservation Of Stupidity
First, a stating of the law:
source: The Law Of Conservation Of Stupidity
Managed money is dumb money at one remove. Some people think that investing is hard because of how many smart people you’re up against in the investment industry. The thing is that you’re not trading against them, you’re trading against their clients, who are making the decision of when to invest in the market and in what sector to invest in. They’re buying when they should be selling and selling when they should be buying. That’s when they’re not chasing the latest fad.
Managed money does not turn dumb money into smart money. Thus, stupidity is conserved.
As an aside, the law of conservation of stupidity applies everywhere, including politics.
Mark Barbieri
Oct 21 2024 at 8:38pm
I agree that choosing the right investments isn’t that hard. For most people, it’s just a broad-based stock index fund with something like a bond fund mixed in for stability. The challenge is understanding the tax complexity of your investing. When should you do tax loss harvesting (or tax gain harvesting)? Should you put your money into a regular 401k or a Roth 401k? Is an HDHP with an HSA a good option for you? How do you do make a backdoor Roth contribution (I remember Scott complaining about this years ago) or a mega backdoor Roth? When do I have enough money to retire? What is the best trade-off between early Roth conversions in retirement vs waiting and taking out larger RMDs? There is a lot of complexity beyond knowing what to invest in.
Thomas L Hutcheson
Oct 24 2024 at 12:16am
Questions that just evaporate with a progressive consumption tax. 🙂
Pierre Lemieux
Oct 22 2024 at 11:09am
Your lottery example is delicious. One wonders why the federal government does not buy, say, $100 billion in lottery tickets (part of which from the Iowa lottery) to pay off the public debt?
David Seltzer
Oct 23 2024 at 4:15pm
Pierre: A bit cheeky. Love it. Answer to your question; because that would be too rational!
Thomas L Hutcheson
Oct 24 2024 at 12:18am
Not a bad idea if the purchase were finance with progressive consumption taxes.
Comments are closed.