Do you need a Financial Planner

This question must first be broken down to its key words, which are: How; You; Decide; Need; Financial; Planner.

An initial suggestion for approaching a solution to this question is one which focuses primarily upon the force and field dynamics which shape finance as both an institutional and as a transferable group of entities.

Once an understanding of financial operations and structures is gained, the focus should then turn to the individual’s financial situation. Viewing this perspective of a small quantity within a series of much larger financial quantities (such as share markets, investor pools, equity funds etc.) can immediately become daunting to the individual, especially if the individual has not yet identified their needs versus wants. For example, one may desire a relatively high success rate regarding monetary returns on investments, but may indeed have overlooked some key components of their personal portfolio which, if set up correctly, could have returned greater yields at minimum cost and effort.

This seemingly common occurrence among modern human investors can be traced back to inherent flaws in human consciousness and cognitive processing. The process of decision-making is a complex one, much more so in the modern world. The higher order consciousness of the human brain, when compared with the next lowest level of cognition (eg. apes), clearly displays heightened activity when referring to the dedication of brain matter to such complex processing of equations (rich in input variables), followed by ongoing solution-based outcomes of such processess.

The hugely significant difference between “need” and “want” is the crux of the matter, for it is one’s acceptance of things “needed” which outweighs all things “wanted”. This is a recognisable condition which has influenced the evolutionary path of all things which exist. The need to be secure, stable and healthy as a biological being can only be properly attained through broad awareness of external influences on one’s life. Therefore one should best define their needs at a personal level, then balance this smaller system with outside influences.

As for the “want” aspect of human nature, this too is an inbuilt trigger mechanism brought about by change in environment, but is essentially of a more superficial (possibly emotionally triggered?)nature, and requires far less brain processing. To want is to desire; to need is to willfully accept. This statement can be aptly described in mathematical terms as the difference between ideal (want) and real (need) numbers when used in model construction. Ideal numbers are never quite 100% attainable (eg. perfection in physiography), as it is always the case that real numbers occupy the observable building blocks of all things, and these real numbers have a multitude of scales available to them for modeling and theory-building. Hence in an ideal world, perhaps money and fiscal trade wouldn’t (indeed, couldn’t) exist due to a lack of differentiation and change in life dynamics. We NEED realistic models (and subsequent structures based on those models) to allow for rates of change in open and dynamic systems.

This brings forth the necessary recognition of decision-making. A decision is an operation performed by its provider, to momentarily apply variation on an otherwise steady-state system. This intrinsically vital process can only be properly applied by a being who holds a reasonable to very strong awareness of self and surrounds. The process of planning is second nature to such an individual (or collective), thus such a being would tend to be self-assured and efficient in regards to the daily management of personal and external affairs (to a point however, as such critical points spell the limits of biology within a much larger cosmological setting – ie. a global-sized natural disaster is beyond anyone’s control).

So this brings the discussion to the first separator in the question – HOW does one decide…..? Clearly this question stores many hidden implications for method approaches to decision-making. In the case of financial planning, the whole purpose of financial planners being available to the public has been borne out of the core breakdown of the individual’s functioning in an efficient monetary management sense. These planners provide tailor-made guidelines for each individual, based on their ability to identify each being’s needs and wants. As virtually all humans are highly intelligent in nature, why then is there a steadily increasing financial planning industry linking many parts of the commercial world together? The one remaining key element (and a very strong link agent in this question) to the field of finance is RESOURCE.

Resource, by definition, is a quantifiable entity which acts as a source of one’s needs for fueling a project aimed to create wealth and prosperity. Moreover, the re- in resource implies the recyclable nature of such a source of power. This double definition (and increased outcome potential) of such a precious quantity is the very link which enhances awareness (once it is evaluated correctly). The inverse effect is manifested in the observer’s inability (or lack of desire) to see the larger potential on offer via recycling of such power. Material power is almost the appropriate definition of resource, to the less keen observer. Money is a very identifiable material resource, but like any resource, it has more than material power when treated properly.

In summary, the vast array of complexity that arises from a question such as that above, is proof of human awareness and its place in the world of progressive development. The simple answer to the question is “It truly depends upon the individual’s ability to understand the nature of resource economics and the balance between orderly (local level) systematics and larger, more chaotically active systems.” However, allowing for the variety of methods and input variables that are entered into a fairly compact equation set to yield fixed outcomes, only emphasizes the power of differentiation (measured rate of change) and integration (recycled end re-engineered) in everyday decision-making. After all, to decide is to alter momentum of some dynamic, but to reach that decision requires integrating all aspects of the system based on their possible outcomes.

The complex answer to the above question is (through either/or concatenation) EITHER “To decide to hire a financial planner once the personal management system is superceded by too many complex structural props”, OR “No financial planner is needed, despite equally complex structure but an overall stable management practice based on will to change (and avoidance of desire-driven complacency)”.

Bottom line – do we all need to be wealthy? Do we actually define ‘wealth’ correctly? Wealth doesn’t just mean “rich”, but it more broadly represents a crude index of one’s ability to tap into the well of potential. So…………..

YES – we need true wealth to evolve successfully!

However, WEALTH DEFINES MORE THAN MATERIAL POWER IN ITS TRUE SENSE. Thus, unless your wants exceed your needs, therefore there must be an equally compelling argument for…………………

NO – our requirements for wealth are beyond adequate now, as such massive excesses only confuse us!

It takes a financial planner to ease our burden. If only a large proportion of us were intent on understanding the nature of that burden, and its importance as a SOURCE of power generation………….would we then not be our own financial institutions in a more harmonious existence with our surroundings?