Who Owns “Financial Planning”? Lessons from the US, UK, and Canada

The meaning of financial planning has been contested for decades. Is it simply another name for regulated investment advice, or is it a broader discipline that integrates tax, estate, cashflow, and life strategies beyond product distribution? The regulatory landscape shows a consistent theme: financial planning is wider than investment intermediation, and it should not be monopolised by product providers.

---

United Kingdom: The FCA’s Perimeter

In the UK, the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) regulates advising on investments under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA) and the Regulated Activities Order (RAO).

The FCA’s Perimeter Guidance Manual (PERG) makes clear that financial planning per se is not a regulated activity. Regulation is triggered only when a planner makes a personal recommendation about a particular investment. As PERG 8.26 explains:

“The investment must be a particular investment” in order for the advice to be a regulated activity. Generic or strategic planning—such as recommending asset allocation or cashflow strategies—does not of itself fall within Article 53 RAO.

This distinction matters. A life-centred planner can help a client articulate goals, align resources, and map cashflows without stepping inside the FCA perimeter—unless they cross the line into recommending a specific regulated product.

---

United States: The Financial Planning Association v. SEC (2007)

The U.S. provides a cautionary tale. In 2005, the SEC issued a rule stating that a broker-dealer’s advice would not be “solely incidental” if the firm:

1. Held itself out as a financial planner;
2. Delivered a financial plan; or
3. Represented that its advice was part of financial planning.

Under this rule, anyone using the title “financial planner” would effectively be required to register as an investment adviser, subject to fiduciary duties under the Investment Advisers Act of 1940.

The Financial Planning Association (FPA) challenged the rule. In 2007, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the regulation in Financial Planning Association v. SEC, 482 F.3d 481 (D.C. Cir. 2007).

The outcome was pivotal: the SEC could not reserve the title “financial planner” for registered investment advisers. Instead, financial planning was recognised as a multi-disciplinary field that might include investment advice, but is not reducible to it.

---

Canada: Québec and Ontario Take the Lead

Canada illustrates a patchwork approach.

• In Québec, the title Financial Planner (Pl. Fin.) has long been regulated under the Act respecting the distribution of financial products and services (CQLR c. D-9.2). Practitioners must qualify through the Institut québécois de planification financière (IQPF) and be certified by the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF).
• In Ontario, since March 28, 2022, the Financial Professionals Title Protection Act, 2019 has restricted the use of the titles Financial Planner and Financial Advisor to those holding approved credentials, overseen by the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA). This is title protection, not activity regulation.

Elsewhere in Canada, financial planning remains largely unregulated in law, though professional designations (e.g. CFP, RFP) provide quality signals.

---

Why This Matters in the UK

The U.S. precedent demonstrates that regulators sometimes attempt to narrow the definition of financial planning to product distribution—and that such attempts can be resisted. The Canadian developments show that title protection is one route to distinguishing planning from intermediation.

For the UK, the message is clear:

• Financial planning is not synonymous with regulated advice.
• The FCA perimeter (PERG 8.26) ensures that planning remains unregulated unless it involves a personal recommendation about a specific investment.
• There is an opportunity for the profession to reclaim financial planning as a life-first discipline, integrating human capital, cashflow, and wellbeing alongside money.

---

Conclusion

Financial planning is bigger than products. The FPA v. SEC case in the U.S., Québec’s regulatory framework, and Ontario’s title protection all reinforce the same principle: planning belongs to clients, not to intermediaries.

If the UK profession embraces this, it can finally separate the value of life-centred planning from the mechanics of financial intermediation—and that would be a victory for clients, not institutions.

---

Join the M-Power Movement

What’s in it for you?

• Empowerment: Learn how to manage your money and grow your wealth with confidence.
• Entrepreneurship: Discover tools and support to turn your ideas into thriving businesses.
• Community: Connect with like-minded individuals and organisations dedicated to financial freedom for all.

How to Get Started:

• Join Our Community: Access free resources, workshops, and networking opportunities.
• Book a Call: Speak with an expert to explore how we can support your journey to financial independence.
• Spread the Word: Help us build a global movement by sharing this vision with your network.

---

Together, we can redefine what financial planning means, transforming it from a service of dependency into a tool of empowerment. The M-Power Movement is not just about creating wealth; it’s about creating a fairer society where everyone has the opportunity to thrive.

Are you ready to take control of your financial future?
Join us today and be part of this transformative journey.

---

Steve Conley
Founder, Academy of Life Planning | Architect of the M-Power Movement.