Competing Opinions vs. Professional Collaboration: They Are Not the Same Thing

Clients should make informed financial decisions.

That often means involving more than one professional. A business owner or family may have an insurance professional, CPA, attorney, banker, benefits consultant, investment professional, and other specialists involved in different parts of their financial life.

I welcome that kind of professional collaboration.

But professional collaboration is very different from seeking a competing opinion from someone who would rather replace the advice, strategy, or product being considered.

Understanding that distinction matters.

The Ford and Chevrolet Analogy

I occasionally use a simple analogy with clients:

What kind of car do you drive?

Suppose the answer is Ford.

If you were having a problem with your Ford, would your first step be to take it to a Chevrolet dealer and ask what they think about your Ford?

Probably not.

The Chevrolet dealer may know a great deal about automobiles. They may even identify legitimate differences between the two vehicles. But there is an obvious consideration: they also have an economic interest in convincing you that you would be better off owning a Chevrolet.

If you have already decided you don't want the Ford anymore, that's different. Go shopping. Compare alternatives.

But if your objective is to determine whether something is actually wrong with your Ford, asking someone whose solution may be selling you a Chevrolet introduces another factor into the decision.

Financial services can work much the same way.

But What About an Independent Mechanic?

There is another possibility.

You might take your Ford to an independent mechanic for a second opinion.

That makes perfect sense.

In fact, consumers do this every day. A dealership tells someone their car needs $6,000 of work, and the owner thinks:

"Before I spend $6,000, I'd like somebody else to look at it."

Maybe they ask one independent mechanic. Maybe they ask two or three.

Why?

Because they don't want to make an expensive mistake.

There is a very understandable psychology behind seeking multiple opinions. If one person can be wrong, asking three people should reduce the likelihood of making the wrong decision—or so it seems.

But there is a problem.

Not all mechanics diagnose problems the same way.

One mechanic may want to repair a component. Another may want to replace the entire assembly.

One may believe preventive work should be performed while everything is already disassembled. Another may say, "Don't replace it until it fails."

One shop may have higher labor rates and overhead. Another may specialize in that particular repair and complete it much more efficiently.

A mechanic may even quote a job unusually high because it is difficult, time-consuming, or simply isn't the kind of work the shop wants.

And, unfortunately, some businesses may recommend work that isn't really necessary.

So now our car owner has three estimates:

$2,800.

$4,500.

$7,000.

Did getting three opinions eliminate the risk of making a bad decision?

Not necessarily.

It may have created another decision.

Which mechanic should I believe?

The Number of Opinions Isn't the Same as the Quality of the Decision

This is where the analogy becomes particularly relevant to financial decisions.

Consumers understandably don't want to make expensive financial mistakes.

A major insurance purchase, retirement decision, business planning strategy, or estate planning decision may affect them for decades. Asking other people for their opinions can feel like a way of reducing that risk.

But accumulating opinions isn't the same thing as understanding the decision.

Different financial professionals may use different assumptions. They may represent different companies. They may specialize in different strategies. They may have different philosophies about risk, liquidity, guarantees, taxes, investment performance, insurance, or debt.

And, just like the mechanics, they may have different economic incentives.

Getting five opinions doesn't necessarily produce certainty.

Sometimes it produces five answers.

At some point, the client still has to make the decision.

A Second Opinion Isn't Automatically an Independent Opinion

There is nothing wrong with seeking another opinion.

The important questions are:

What kind of opinion are you seeking, and from whom?

Suppose I have completed an analysis and proposed a particular strategy. Taking that strategy to another insurance producer and asking, "What do you think?" may sound like prudent due diligence.

But that producer isn't necessarily functioning as an independent reviewer.

They may sell competing products. They may represent different companies. They may prefer a different planning philosophy. And they may be compensated if the client rejects what I proposed and instead implements their solution.

That doesn't make the other professional dishonest.

It simply means their opinion needs to be understood within the context in which it is being given.

If I proposed Ford and the person reviewing my work sells Chevrolet, we shouldn't pretend that economic reality doesn't exist.

Nor am I interested in creating a parade of competing professionals until somebody finally validates my original advice.

I am responsible for explaining and defending my own analysis.

I should be able to explain what I considered, why I reached my conclusions, what alternatives exist, what the tradeoffs are, and what could cause the strategy to change.

Then the client decides.

My Job Isn't to Make Everyone Agree With Me

I don't believe my role is to take my analysis from professional to professional until everyone agrees with it.

Nor do I expect a client simply to accept my conclusions because I presented them.

My responsibility is to help the client understand the facts of their situation as I understand them, the assumptions being used, the consequences I've identified, the merits and limitations of my analysis, the alternatives available, and why a particular product or strategy appears to fit.

If there is information I don't have, I want to know.

If an attorney identifies a legal issue affecting the strategy, we should address it.

If a CPA identifies a tax consequence that changes the economics, we should address it.

If another appropriate professional contributes information or expertise that changes the analysis, then the analysis should change.

That is professional collaboration.

Professional Collaboration Is Different

Suppose the client's CPA says:

"Have you considered how this will affect the client's taxes?"

Absolutely. Let's talk.

Suppose the estate planning attorney says:

"This ownership arrangement conflicts with the trust we are drafting."

We need to know that.

Suppose the business attorney identifies a provision in an operating agreement that changes how a proposed buy-sell arrangement should work.

That matters.

Suppose another professional identifies information I didn't have and, as a result, my original strategy needs to be modified.

Then we modify it.

That isn't competition.

That's collaboration.

The objective isn't to determine which professional gets to "win." The objective is to make sure the client's financial, tax, legal, business, estate, and risk-management decisions work together.

Collaboration Tests the Fit

This is the distinction I find most useful:

A competing opinion tends to evaluate whether someone else would have done my job differently.

Professional collaboration evaluates whether my work fits correctly with the work being done by everyone else.

Those are very different questions.

An estate attorney doesn't need to decide whether they personally prefer the insurance company I selected.

The CPA doesn't need to determine whether they would have designed the insurance policy differently.

And I shouldn't be practicing law or providing tax advice that belongs to those professionals.

Instead, each professional should bring their expertise to the table.

The questions become:

• Does the strategy create an unintended tax consequence?

• Does it coordinate properly with the estate documents?

• Are ownership and beneficiary arrangements correct?

• Does it conflict with an existing agreement?

• Does the business have the necessary cash flow?

• Does the strategy accomplish what the client said they wanted accomplished?

• Are there consequences elsewhere in the client's financial picture that need to be considered?

That is professional collaboration.

The Purpose of Collaboration Isn't Validation

Good collaboration doesn't mean I expect other professionals to rubber-stamp my work.

Quite the opposite.

If the client's attorney, CPA, or another appropriate professional identifies something material that changes the analysis, I want to know.

The purpose of collaboration isn't validation.

It is coordination.

Sometimes coordination confirms that everything fits together properly.

Sometimes it uncovers an issue requiring a small adjustment.

And sometimes new information can materially change the strategy.

That's exactly why collaboration matters.

The client's financial life shouldn't consist of individual recommendations sitting in separate drawers with no consideration for how they interact.

Consider the Economic Incentives

One useful question can help clarify whether we're talking about collaboration or competition:

Does this professional need to replace this piece of business in order to benefit from the conversation?

If the answer is no, we're more likely talking about genuine professional collaboration.

• The CPA can remain the CPA.

• The attorney can remain the attorney.

• I can remain responsible for the work within my scope.

• We can challenge assumptions, exchange information, identify consequences, and coordinate our respective work while remaining focused on the client's outcome.

But if another professional's proposed solution requires replacing the strategy, product, or professional being reviewed—and doing so creates a new business opportunity for that reviewer—that potential conflict should at least be acknowledged.

Again, that doesn't automatically make their opinion wrong.

It makes it a competing opinion, and it should be evaluated as one.

The Goal Is an Informed Decision, Not a Risk-Free Decision

There is no magic number of opinions that eliminates the possibility of making a mistake.

• Three mechanics can disagree.

• Three attorneys can disagree.

• Three CPAs can disagree.

• And three financial professionals can certainly disagree.

At some point, continually seeking another opinion can stop producing useful information and start producing decision paralysis.

The objective shouldn't be:

"How many people can I ask before I feel completely certain?"

A better objective is:

"Do I understand the decision well enough to make it?"

That's the kind of client relationship I want.

I want to work with people who can ultimately make up their own minds.

I'll help them see their present situation as clearly as I can.

I'll explain my analysis.

I'll show them the consequences I see.

I'll explain why I believe a particular strategy or product fits the facts available to me.

And I'll collaborate with the other professionals whose expertise is necessary to make sure the pieces fit together.

Then the decision belongs to the client.

Collaboration Should Make the Client's Plan Better

I want to work with professionals who want to see the client succeed.

That means being willing to communicate with the client's CPA, attorney, banker, benefits professionals, investment professionals, and other appropriate advisors when their expertise affects the client's decisions.

It also means being willing to change course when legitimate professional collaboration reveals something that should change.

No professional should need to know everything.

But somebody needs to make sure all those areas actually work together.

That's one of the reasons I emphasize Business & Financial Decision Architecture™ rather than isolated financial products or recommendations.

The goal isn't to collect enough opinions until everyone agrees.

The goal is to coordinate the right expertise so the client understands the decision and the pieces work together intentionally.

The purpose of collaboration isn't validation. It is coordination.

Don't try to eliminate uncertainty by collecting opinions.

Reduce uncertainty by understanding the decision.

And ultimately:

Good advice should improve the client's ability to make a decision— not make the client dependent upon collecting more opinions.