(WSJ Illustration) |
But I'm not impressed by this latest dual credential, the financial therapist: [bold added]
The goal of financial therapists ultimately is to help people make good financial decisions, typically by raising their clients’ awareness of how their emotions and unconscious beliefs have affected their sometimes messy experiences with money...Because of recent well-publicized policy mistakes, "experts" have lost the deference that their credentials used to afford them. However, credentialing and licensing do have their place in verifying that a person has a certain level of knowledge to practice often-complex professions.
Financial therapists tend to come from mental-health and financial-planning disciplines, and there are signs that their ranks are rising: The Financial Therapy Association has 430 members, up from 225 in 2015. Still, according to the group, fewer than 100 financial therapists have completed its certification process, introduced in 2019. You can be an association member without being certified by it...
Still, there are possible pitfalls when hiring a financial therapist. One major drawback: Anyone can claim they are qualified to practice financial therapy.
No government agency regulates the young profession. Candidates for certification by the Financial Therapy Association must take online courses designed by the association covering financial and therapeutic techniques, counsel clients for 250 hours and pass a 100-question test. But you can call yourself a financial therapist and not be certified by the association.
Meanwhile, the cost of financial therapy varies widely—from $125 to $350 an hour, [Financial Therapy Association President Ashley] Agnew estimates. Insurance rarely covers the tab.
The fact that there are zero certification requirements in "financial therapy" will result inevitably in scandal, defalcation, and possibly worse outcomes for clients. I wish it weren't true, but sad experience teaches otherwise.
No comments:
Post a Comment