WATERTOWN, Mass. (MarketWatch) — It’s official; your financial adviser, broker or “wealth adviser” is not a professional.

Oh, they may act like one — having every element you ascribe to a pro when you seek “professional help” — but a government agency confirmed it this week.

The Financial Planning Coalition — a consortium of three of the most influential groups of financial advisers — had been hoping for more, thinking that the best thing for the industry and the general public would be the creation of higher regulatory standards that would imbue the business with real professional standards. In short, they were hoping for their own “Miracle on 34th Street” moment, where a national agency that’s part of the federal government recognizes the existence of Santa Claus.

Instead, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report that essentially said that the status quo is fine, and that additional levels of oversight are not necessary.

From a regulatory standpoint, that makes sense, but from a consumer standpoint, it means that confusion continues. It’s why consumers need to recognize that no matter how highly they think of an adviser, they’re not dealing with a pro.

A New Northwest Passage

Advisers of all stripes like to compare themselves to doctors, based on the idea that you would not want to perform your own brain surgery. They are loathe to compare themselves to auto mechanics, even though many people would be every bit as averse and ill-prepared to changing their own oil as they would be to operating on themselves.

The difference is more than just that one specialist gets to keep his hands clean and work in a nice office while the other works in a garage, it’s salesmanship. One job sounds and feels glamorous.

The truth lies in the standards behind each job. Technically, a “profession” requires some type of specialized schooling and education, plus standards that a practitioner must pass in order to enter the field. Thus, a lawyer can’t practice without passing the bar exam, and that doctor must go to med school and amass experience in order to get their license. (By this definition, journalists are not professionals either; unlike financial planners, I believe most people in my business actually concede the point.)

By comparison, a plumber or auto mechanic needs specialized knowledge — and many go to vocational training to get it — but they do not have the same baseline set of standards. And, in dealing with a consumer’s house or car, the plumber or mechanic is working on some of the customer’s biggest assets, which makes them a much more appropriate comparison for financial advisers.

Mind you, many people operating as financial planners exhibit every element of professionalism. They have the education, the credentials, they regularly maintain their training and more.

But there’s a segment of the financial planning business that operates under other rules. Brokers from large firms, for example, frequently act like a “financial planner” but they live under the rules of “broker.” The same can be said for many insurance agents, whose products typically don’t even qualify under regulatory rules as being “investments.”

The difference is more than semantic. Financial planners, effectively, are supposed to be working under a fiduciary standard, meaning they have a legal responsibility to put the client’s best interests first. Brokers and others in the industry live by a suitability standard, meaning their advice must be “suitable” for the client.

“Suitable” isn’t the same as “in your best interest.”

Congress has been waffling on requiring financial advisers of all stripes to live up to a fiduciary standard. Meanwhile, consumers have a tough time telling whether the guy they just met who called himself a “financial planner” is an adviser or a broker. The services can be the exactly same, even though one is supposed to be selling advice and the other is pushing product.

If the GAO had concluded that existing regulation was insufficient, the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards — part of the Financial Planning Coalition along with the Financial Planning Association and the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors — would have pushed Congress and the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission to set standards for the competence and ethics of planners. In other words, they would have tried to turn the planning business into a profession, putting meaning into the term “financial planner,” the same way that there’s oomph behind the term “doctor.”

Clearly, the 61,000 planners who already have the CFP mark believe they are professionals, but industry estimates are that there are anywhere from 90,000 to 240,000 others who work in the business and call themselves planners too. There are so many financial planning credentials and designations — some valuable, others marketing shlock — that consumers really have no way to know what they are getting when they walk into a financial services office seeking help and guidance.

The GAO left the door open — noting that some consumer-protection issues will be tough to eliminate under the current system — just enough for some future steps that could move the planning business toward a culture where everyone is trained and dedicated to the customer’s best interests.

Don’t hold your breathe for that, however. It does not exist now, and it won’t for the foreseeable future; the door was left ajar, but the GAO pretty well closed it on this debate.

With that in mind, consumers need to find advisers they can trust, vetting any would-be counselor to make sure they are getting someone who can truly help them handle the financial chores they are unable or unwilling to do on their own. There are plenty of good advisers out there — and very few real crooks — but regulators and politicians are not dedicated to weeding out the mediocre and incompetent advisers, or raising entry standards to help keep the rogues and scofflaws out. As a result, consumers should treat everyone like an amateur and make them prove that they are skilled and professional, rather than assuming that when they talk to a financial planner they are talking to a pro.