I worked as one of the admin staff for a local, very well respected CFP. He is 'semi-retired', and has a client base of about 130 clients, many of whom have been with him for two and three generations now. The CFP firm we now use for my MIL's assets, was founded 20 yrs ago by a CFP he trained. With the crackdown by the SEC on the brokerages shading into 'Financial Planning' - which technically can only be done by four categories of Registered Investment Advisors (CFPs, CFAs, CPAs with PFS certification, CLU for insurance purposes only), more of them are encouraging their brokers to obtain CFP certification. It is not, as Donhoff points out, a cure-all for 100% reliability/honesty/knowledge. It is, however, at least a first step in winnowing out those who can't be bothered to study for an RIA designation and aren't willing to expend the additional requirement of annual classes to maintain that RIA status. Once you pass the CFP exam - pass rates fluctuate every year but are usually in the 40-60% pass ratio - you do a 3-yr internship before you are actually allowed to use the CFP title. If you have been working in financial services you can apply to have your past work experience counted towards your internship requirement. It took my boss 25 yrs in business before he could 'fire' the 80% of his clients that weren't worth working with. It is very true, when you are in this type of business, that when you factor in your time, 80% of your profits come from just 20% of your clients. The remaining 80% are more trouble than their accounts are worth. When he did take this drastic step, there were about half a dozen clients who were put on 'probation'. They were told they had to treat his office staff with courtesy from now on, or they too would have to leave. He made sure that anyone he 'cut' was given a referral to at least two other CFPs who were willing to accept new clients. The morale of the office staff rose considerably after this drastic purge, and although his business revenues declined by about 15% that year, the time saved by not dealing with recalcitant clients freed him to go after clients who proved more profitable and a better psychological 'match,' which is always an optimal goal in a service business like financial services. He never did 'hard' advertising; almost all his new clients came from personal referrals. The other independent CFPs envied him for being able to limit his client base. Most of them could not afford to do this, and had a much lower asset minimum for accepting new clients. IOW, it's like any other job where you can work for a large company (e.g., brokerage or other FS firm) and be a cog, or you can try to break out on your own, where you struggle with the difficulties of being a small business owner and wearing 'all the hats' as you try to market your business. It's a hard road, no doubt about it. Brokers who work towards earning their CFP designations are usually day-to-day doing portfolio allocations and stock/fund research. A lot of people think they want to do financial planning, but when they are forced to do the constant ROI number-crunching and endless market analyses, quarter after quarter (those YE deadlines for summary reports are REALLY stressful), find they don't enjoy it all that much, after all. The biggest difficulty in this business is not only are there many niches to the FS industry, but also, the people who need it the most are the least able to afford it. It's like being an independent mechanic: it takes you the same amount of time to service a $20K Chevy Malibu as it does to service a $150K Mercedes. But you can charge a lot more for the Mercedes than for the Chevy, so your return on time expended is more profitable. This means you not only need to be good at crunching numbers, you need good people skills to help grow your asset management portfolio. Being good at two very different skills is not easy for most people.

"has to balance what's best for him and best for you. And sometimes they just aren't going to work. IMO, childs needs come first." See, this is interesting. I think what is so interesting and diverse about this forum (or even when talking to friends in RL) is that EVERYONE is going to have their own opinion; and that opinion is one we have formed based on our own experiences and perspectives. Nivea, you were treated in a really cruel and hurtful manner by your SM, correct? (or am I mixing you up with another poster?) I believe it was you. Anyway, naturally, you are more inclined to empathize and identify with the child (stepchild) and perhaps even project a bit of your own feelings; and that's normal, we ALL do that. Just as I am more likely to identify with someone like Ima or Lamom or Silver, someone who is a SM dealing with difficult situations. Anyway, I know what you mean about the child needing to come first; but I think you are saying this out of your own experiences, which included being emotionally hurt by your cruel and emotionally immature SM who insisted HER needs come first. Correct? That is awful that happened and it's sad that your father allowed you to be pushed aside. (And please correct me if I am mixing up your history with someone else.) Our situation is a little different in that DH had continually made the mistake of doing things to harm our marriage---all under the guise of "it's best for SS." But a lot of what he was doing wasn't even really best for SS. DH wanted me to smooth things over and be nice to BM, even after she attacked me in front of SS. Sure, it might be superficially easier for SS if everything seemed hunky-dory again. But in the long run, what lesson is that teaching him? That violence is acceptable? That it's okay for his mom to behave like that and I will just pretend that everything is okay? Those aren't lessons I want SS or DD learning. So sometimes what IS best for SS isn't necessarily what one might think at face value. Sure, it would be more *pleasant* for him in the short term, but in the long run, I think it does more harm than good. (I don't think this particular weekend issue is even really about anything being "best" for SS, though.) And one thing our marriage counselor has been helping both of us see is that sometimes what's best for the marriage has to come first. And I will say this with 100% conviction: it would NOT be in SS's best interest for DH and I to divorce. Not at all. That would be one of the worst things that could happen for both him and my DD. I may be "just a stepmother" to him but I have been a positive and caring person in his life for almost 7 years. He views my daughter as his sister. He genuinely loves our family and feels a TOTAL part of our family unit...because he is! We are not just some people he spends a few days a month with, he has two families and we are one of them! If that unit were to dissolve, it would honestly devastate SS. It would devastate my DD, as well, but I really think it would be worse on SS. He is very sensitive to these things, and he is the type of child that turns his upsets inward. I know if he were to lose his family, it would really impact him negatively in an emotional sense. So in marriage counseling, one thing DH is having to focus on is sorting out when SS's needs really DO come first, and when it's just BM manipulating "in the name of their son." Obviously, there are times that the child's needs have to come first---heck, that is 95% of parenting! But it is my belief that this is not one of those times. SS's mom is doing well and there is no reason he can't be with her.

Yes, the market is indeed pretty hot. Bad timing. I wanted to be the GC for the project but my husband wisely vetoed it since this is our first time. The current arrangement does feel like a strange hybrid of owner-builder + a fixed fee project manager that is a GC who by contract provides warranty, liability insurance, and technical decision making. He's in charge of full supervision and communications with all subs; but I'm not paying him as an employee by time so he has control over how much time and how he does it (though we did ask for a minimum four days of visit a week in the contract without stipulating how much time spent each visit), and he's not guaranteeing a lump sum though he is supposed to guarantee quality and standards as per our contract. The numbers look like we're splitting the differences in cost between owner-building and full GC.

I have to pay for the materials upfront so my GC can order them but I pay for them as he needs them. Some of the materials are covered in the line items whereas others are a part of the contract (cost of sublayers of flooring) and I pay for those separately with a check to the vendor. I pay for the work in progress stages stipulated in the contract. I actually write different checks as I pay a check to the contractor for the labor and I write separate checks for the flooring materials (for example). I am supplying a lot of the materials which are discretionary such as tiles, actual wood, faucets, fixtures, sinks etc. I pay my designer for those and write a check to her and she purchases them on my behalf. I just checked my contract and I pay 50% of costs for materials upon order unless there is a shortened lead time for delivery - which effectively means I pay 100% for something in stock and 50% for items which have a delivery date in the future. This seems to be what is happening in terms of materials ordered through both the GC and my designer since so far everything I've ordered has been available for immediate delivery so I am paying 100% for the order. Honestly I am not stressing about the GC taking money for materials and disappearing as he has done work for people I know and done a lot of projects with my designer.