I agree with your comment concerning taxation of the home, and if you are a long time reader of Scott’s column concerning the federal income tax deduction for mortgage interest and ad velorem taxes, he agrees also.

I am not sure, however, that his interview addressed that issue. What I think he was referring to was the lack of a tax liability in capital gain (or loss) incurred when the home is sold. Lack of a home capital gains tax liability has led to extensive speculation. Check the accelerated increase in the value of the stock market when capital gains taxes were reduced in the mid 1990′s.

Concur with JLPs comments on CFPs. I am a CFP, and I think most of them got it so they could use the credential to push inappropriate product. Of the 70,000 CFPs, I bet 1/4 are really worth their salt. The others are salespeople. I remember eating lunch with a planner from Merril. He had been in the business for 25 years. He said since studying for the CFP, he, for the first time in his career, felt comfortable discussing tax and estate issues with clients. Made me feel bad for the clients he worked with for the past 25 years. What kind of advice did they get?

As far as DFA funds, they are solid. I prefer lower cost ETFs, but I do believe in the value tilt that Fama/French advocates.

I totally agree with Scott’s point about taxation of the home. The interest write off is another reason so many people want to buy a house. How many times do people say you are throwing money away on rent when you could be getting a tax break by owning. Total hogwash in some cases.

Very interesting interview by the way!

I guess in my comment I put too much emphasis on having a “special investing” designation. I agree that many certified investment advisors are slimeballs, I would group many brokerage firm employees in that category. The point I tried (and failed) to make was that I question their qualifications as asset managers. The fact that they chose to exclusively offer DFA funds, I think, proves my point. They are severely limiting the asset allocation of their clients. Yes, DFA funds come in a wide range of asset classes, but not being able to choose other funds only limits any portfolio’s return. My intial impression of the website was WOW, but after digging through the information it is 95% flash, 5% researched substance. Again, I think exclusively choosing DFA also proves that. It’s almost like saying there are a million investment choices out there, instead of researching them all and choosing the best, we are going to pick one “brand” and stick with it because it’s less work for us. They are making investing simple and cheap, both for the investor and for the client, and that’s great, but I struggle with handing my assets over to a PF writer and a computer programmer. The public just needs to be careful, do extensive research, and not get caught up in flashy websites when choosing an asset manager.

And he did. He sold variable annuities almost exclusively, regardless of the client’s situation. The same annuity, with the same expensive funds, and usually tacking on some riders for a few more basis points.

His credentials did nothing more than attract more potential clients, and trick them into thinking that whatever he told them to do was in their best interest.

The professional designations can certainly help, but by themselves, are nearly worthless. They have to be considered in context since great advisors can go without one, and others who take the time to pass the tests can be complete slimeballs.

Good point. However, there are lots of CFPs running around that are masked salesmen. In other words, lots of salespeople use designations as marketing tools.

I don’t think it is necessary to have a professional designation in order to help people invest their money.