Bob Goss a Second Rate CFP® Certificant? (the “Extra Step controversy”)

Article Dated: 5-2001

By Gib Kerr, CFP^®, ChFC, CLU

www.IAQFP.org / email: info@IAQFP.org

The CFP^® Board Of Governors has indicated that Bob Goss is a second rate CFP^® Certificant. Bob, the highly reputed former President of the CFP Board is included in a group of CFP^® Certificants that the CFP Board is disrespecting and indicating as inferior to other Certificants.

CFP Board literature published on their web page and in printed materials being distributed to the public, to the government, the media and all interested parties suggests that Goss and all other CFP^® “non-practitioners” are inferior to CFP^® practitioners.

The claim made in their literature is that ONLY “CFP practitioners have taken the ‘EXTRA STEP’ to demonstrate their professionalism by voluntarily submitting to the rigorous CFP^® certification process.” They go on to claim that ONLY CFP^® Practitioners “In addition to significant education and experience requirements, must pass a comprehensive exam that tests their personal financial planning knowledge and skills, continually update their abilities and abide by the CFP^® Board’s Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility (Code of Ethics) and Financial Planning Practice Standards (Practice Standards).”

Since Bob Goss is NOT a “CFP^® practitioner” it is apparent that they are accusing him of being a “second rate CFP^® Certificant”.

I am on record for years as one of Bob’s harshest critics but never have I criticized his knowledge, ability or dedication to the competency and standards of our CFP^® community. It has taken the CFP Board to do this. The CFP Board that he served so diligently for so many years. I believe that they owe him and all others that they are so insulting an apology. I say “all others” because they are suggesting that ONLY “practitioners” have taken this EXTRA STEP when in fact every CFP^® Certificant has done and is doing exactly the same thing.

The ONLY difference between a Certificant listed as a “practitioner” and one who is not is that the practitioner requested to be listed that way. There is no other difference. Why is the CFP Board so insistent on divisive procedures? Note. There is nothing particularly wrong with identifying those of us open to receive contact from prospective clients and those not wanting such approaches. There is nothing wrong with identifying one group as “practitioners” as compared to the others. There is something acutely wrong with suggesting that one group has taken this “EXTRA STEP” as opposed to the others.