Last Updated: 7/04

IAQFP Suggestions to the CFP Board for Joining in Uniting the Profession

We hold that the CFP Board does many fine things for which we commend them, however, changes are needed in areas that will benefit our Members, fellow professionals, our developing Financial Planning Profession, and the public we serve, and it is among the purposes of IAQFP.org to point out and work for at least the following much needed changes:

1. bring about open nominations and elections of all voting members of the CFP Board of Governors, by the community of CFP^® Certificants.
2. have the CFP Board require that every voting member of the CFP Board must be either a CFP^® Certificant or an active QFP. Non-Certificants may serve on the CFP Board, but without voting rights.
3. have the CFP Board cease and desist from referring to themselves, or having CFP^® Certificants or the public think of them as, “Financial Planning’s Professional Regulatory Organization”. What they are is owners of the CFP^® mark(s), now a federally registered certification mark, and while it is true that they regulate the use of their mark(s), and are technically “a regulatory organization” over their CFP^® Certificants use of those marks, they certainly have no such claim to make over the entire Financial Planning Profession or community of financial planning professionals. Their use implies they regulate the entire profession, and in doing so misleads, and we want them to stop this misleading usage in favor of a more clear statement and position.
4. have the CFP Board publicly state they will cease and desist from any and all efforts at becoming the SRO (Self Regulatory Organization), and will instead put their resources and efforts into helping serve the needs of their “certificants”, improving & distinguishing “Financial Planning” as a profession, and promoting the CFP^® mark & CFP^® Certificants important role in the Financial Planning profession.
5. have the CFP Board bring an end to Practice Standards and modify the present CFP^® Code of Ethics (that are essentially indistinguishable from Practice Standards), in favor of a more general, and less public “Code of Ethics & Professional Conduct”, substantially equal to that which applies to all IAQFP / QFP.

   The CFP Board has openly stated that their need and reason to trademark their CFP^® designation, to have Practice Standards and to have their particular version of a “Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility”, is to better ensure their becoming an SRO, the SRO of financial planners and/or the Financial Planning Profession. These “Standards” subject planners, and more specifically CFP^® Certificants, to substantially heightened degrees of legal liability that are not only largely unwanted, but are also not understood well by either planners, groups, and certainly not clients of planners. Lawyers understand them quite well, however, and this is the danger to all parties in their otherwise very unnecessary existence.

6. have the CFP Board require all persons, including related professionals like CPA’s & Attorneys who may wish to challenge the subject matter, to first have to take the full study curriculum, along with any related modular exams, prior to any “Comprehensive Exam”.
7. have the CFP Board formally grant use of the CFP^® designation to qualified ChFC’s (i.e. those who have met the minimum 3 year experience requirement, since the CFP Board has stated, in writing to our Group, that ChFC’s have already met seemingly equivalent education & examination requirements of CFP^® certification). Click HERE for additional details.
8. bring an end to the CFP Board required special 2 hour Code of Ethics course and in connection with point “e” above – the adoption of a newly revised and simplified Code.
9. have the CFP Board encourage & require all CFP^® Certificants to complete continuing education courses in all 6 areas of the financial planning curriculum each 2 year renewal cycle (i.e. Overview of the 6-Step Financial Planning Process; Risk Management; Investments; Taxation; Retirement Plans & Employee Benefits; Estate Planning).
10. have the CFP Board reposition the CFP^® mark in the pubic eye (i.e. what it “means or represents”), as well as through its approved educators & CFP^® Certificants, as a “generalist” and pre-requisite for those who wish to practice within the Financial Planning profession, thereby better allowing for and also encouraging “specialization’s” (i.e. a “certified” financial planner with specialization in Estate Planning, or Investments, or Insurance, etc.).
11. have the CFP Board change its basic tone & relationship to its Certificants to help end the attitude of confrontation & mistrust, in hopes of bringing about a much more constructive, sharing, helpful & productive atmosphere between the CFP Board & Certificants.
12. have the CFP Board correct their misleading definition of the term ‘ CFP^® practitioner’, since they define such practitioners as Certificants who have taken “an extra step”, which is erroneous, since all Certificants have taken the exact same steps. Click HERE for details.
13. have the CFP Board prove they are meaningfully listening to, and acting on the concerns and opinions of CFP^® Certificants, in the acts and decisions they take effecting or regarding Certificants (i.e. to hold them, primarily accountable, to Certificants).
14. have the CFP Board cease and desist from all activities that use compensation, or any other methods, to divide Certificants.
15. have the CFP Board reduce CFP^® Certificant Mark usage fees while also pursuing avenues of increasing Certificants along the lines we have suggested here in regards to ChFC’s.
16. At the present time the CFP Board has transferred all referrals for a CFP^® Certificant to the FPA; however, the FPA only provides referral names to those practicing CFP^® Certificants who are also Members of the FPA, thereby discriminating against thousands of non-FPA CFP^® Certificant Members, as well as other qualified financial planning professionals. Therefore, both the FPA, and the CFP Board who allows them to do so, are discriminating against thousands of equally qualified financial planning professionals. IAQFP stands in opposition to the damage the CFP Board does by not requiring the FPA to also make referrals to Non-Members of the FPA who are also CFP^® Certificants.
17. IAQFP seeks to have the CFP Board pull back the referral function from the FPA entirely unless and until the FPA agrees to list not only FPA Member CFP^® Certificants, but all CFP^® Certificants who are also in the business of providing financial planning services.
18. Have the CFP Board accept all those that we accept under the QFP Designation as equal to CFP^® Certificants, and join IAQFP.org in its unification of the profession under the ideal of: One Profession – One Designation.

A Case for IAQFP as the Preferred Choice Over the FPA (Financial Planning Association)

We hold that the FPA does certain things well, for which we commend them, however, many changes are still needed. We are not convinced that the FPA is either interested in, or capable of, making these much needed changes. Is there a positive alternative?

We distinguish our organization from the FPA in many important ways, and we do this for the central purpose of helping our Members, financial planners generally, and the public know exactly how and why IAQFP really is the best choice for advocacy and support of both planners and the needs of the public, then any other group or organization. Furthermore, we offer the best place for the public to seek and acquire referrals to qualified & accredited financial planners.

The following is a partial list of positive aspects present within IAQFP that are either fully absent, or only partially found in the FPA:

• IAQFP has a proven and positive history of standing up for Certificants interests on all issues of controversy that have arisen since the Groups formation, and previously by the independent actions of the founders & past & present Board Members of the Group.
• IAQFP is the only Membership Organization actually approaching the CFP Board to attempt to openly work out and resolve issues of concern to its Members, as well as the broader Certificant & financial planner communities.
• IAQFP continues proving itself as the primary organization addressing and serving the more meaningful concerns and needs of all qualified & accredited financial planners.
• IAQFP has open nominations and elections of all of its Board of Directors, both nationally and locally, by all of its Members.
• IAQFP is a truly representative Membership Organization that proactively seeks the opinions and input of its General Membership on matters of importance to them and their practices, via frequent Member Surveys as well as open Voting.
• IAQFP has no financial or other ties to the CFP Board, and can therefore better, and more objectively, represent the concerns of Certificants and planners alike.
• IAQFP provides referrals not only to its own Members, but also to non-Member CFP^® Certificants & other qualified planners in geographic areas where there are no IAQFP Members.
• IAQFP Membership Dues were non-existent for the first 1 1/2 years of its existence as the Concerned Planners Group(sm), and became only $50 annually as of 01/01/2003, and later $75 -100 with the introduction of 2 levels of Membeship; namely, Basic and Premier. This makes the FPA more than 3-4x more expensive to professionals. IAQFP is therefore providing more affordable advocacy to potentially many more financial planners.

May 2001

What? CFP practitioners Have Taken the … ‘Extra Step’?

By- Paul M. League, QFP, CFP^®

www.IAQFP.org / info@IAQFP.org

The CFP Board continues to distinguish “Certificants” from “practicing Certificants”, practitioners from so called “non-practitioners”, in ways that are professionally demeaning & misleading, and that results in their creating “classes of Certificants”; namely, superior / inferior, “elite” / “lite”.

Copied herein below, from the CFP Board web site at http://www.cfp-board.org/, is the proving text…read it and come to your own conclusion (underlining added for emphasis):

“CFP^®, CERTIFIED FINANCIAL PLANNER™, and are marks owned by the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards (CFP Board) which help you identify financial planners who are committed to competent and ethical behavior when providing financial planning services.”

“CFP^® practitioners have taken the extra step to demonstrate their professionalism by voluntarily submitting to the rigorous CFP^® certification process. In addition to significant education and experience requirements, they 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).”

Do you get the inference here…doesn’t this say to you, and the public for whom this brochure is intended, that ONLY, “CFP^® practitioners” have taken this “extra step” and are more qualified then non “CFP^® practitioners”. Also, how do you account for many Certificants who do not list themselves as “practitioners”, yet still perform financial planning activities. They have their own reasons for not being listed as “practitioners”, perhaps because they have a “full book”, nonetheless they do planning. The CFP Board may take the position that this is the very distinction they are trying to make through the use of this “term”; however, if so there is a correct way to do it and it is NOT by implying that someone listed as a “CFP^® practitioner” is somehow better than one who is not so listed.

Also, isn’t the taking of the comprehensive exam essentially the same thing as completing a “rigorous CFP^® certification process”… ALL CERTIFICANTS do this, don’t they?

For those of you who do not know the history on the original problem surrounding the “term” “CFP p/PRACTITIONER”, let me fill you in a bit since I am the party who uncovered it, exposed it, and is credited with the outcome resulting in the CFP Board withdrawing it as a pended Trademark:

First and foremost, upon my original discovery of this “term” (4/2000 – FPi post & “Open E-Mail Letter: ‘CFP-Lite…It’s Already Happened Again!’ “), it became clear that what we were really dealing with was a filed & pended new, and competing, Trademark to CFP^®. After having this publicly confirmed, at the reluctance and misdirection of the CFP Board, who kept claiming in writing and open forums that it was “merely” a descriptive “term”, and having the issue covered in FPi and other quasi public forums, the CFP Board did a 180 and did not renew the Trademark filing (announced in “CFP Board Report” newsletter of Sept/Oct 2000). Instead, they begrudgingly changed their position, and stopped using it as a Trademark in their publications and other media, and reverted to its present, still flawed, “term” usage. A significant part of this whole controversy centered on the fact that the CFP Board had withheld openly & clearly informing Certificants (so called “licensees and designees” at that time), for over 4 years, that what they were saying was a mere “term” was in actuality a filed, pended, new and competing Trademark to CFP^®. Further, they authorized Certificants, in their licensing renewal forms, all throughout that 4 year period, and beyond, while I was working towards a solution to the controversy, to openly use the so called “term”, thereby assisting the CFP Board in the marketing and spreading of the competing Trademark. Licensees, therefore, were blindly promoting and building a new Mark in competition to the one Mark (CFP^®) they thought they were and had been promoting over the last 30 years…that new Mark was “CFP PRACTITIONER”.

Their current usage, while better in the “light of day”, is still fraught with problems. ALL Certificants have taken the “EXTRA STEP”…not just the so called, “CFP^® practitioners”. Or, put another way, neither “CFP^® practitioners” or CFP^® Certificants have taken any “extra” step…we have all taken the exact same “step(s)”; namely, the taking and passing of the required education, exam/s, while also meeting the work experience requirements, etc. Clearly, it is nothing short of misleading to say that “CFP^® practitioners have taken the extra step to demonstrate their professionalism by voluntarily submitting to the rigorous CFP^® certification process” since, ALL of us who are CERTIFICANTS, have done exactly the same.

Again, the CFP Board is creating false and misleading distinctions between Certificants…those who are listed as “practitioners” (whoever they are, and whatever it is that they are doing so differently from the rest of us), and those who are not so listed. Is this fair, or even honest? Ask yourself, what class of Certificant are you …”elite” or “lite”?

Admittedly, while this more subtle usage may appear better than what proceeded it…is it correct yet? More importantly… is it really even safe? Is the CFP Board still tinkering with “CFP^®-Lites” at the potential cost of all Certificants? Just what are they up to now?

April 2004

Uniting and Building a Profession

By Gib Kerr, QFP, CFP, ChFC, CLU – IAQFP Co-Founder

Harold Evensky’s letter in your April 2004 edition denouncing Paul League’s observations of damaging decisions and actions made by the CFP Board is in keeping with the unfortunate Board attitude that Paul’s comments had highlighted. Another example of this same misguided response to constructive comment was the David Dieslin piece (“CFP Board Has A Mission” also in your April 2004 issue). David was attempting to dismiss an excellent attempt by Dick Wagner to point out a solution to misguided actions by the Board. Neither Harold nor David acknowledged any errors on the part of the Board at all. Instead they simply dismiss these comments and engage in Harold’s abusive accusations and David’s changing the subject.

Reference is made to the Board’s beginnings in 1985. The CFP^® movement began in 1969 and worked constructively for many years. What happened in 1985 was a reconstruction of a successful organization, one that provides the Board with virtually unlimited authority and little or no accountability. The psychiatric profession has written volumes on how such a structure breeds mistakes and abuse. Dick Wagner’s comments were pointing out a history of some of the problems that this has caused both for the CFP Board and the FPA. Paul League was accurately doing the same thing. The Board’s reaction is classically in line with the psychiatric theory.

IAQFP is the ONLY organization attempting to unite and identify the Financial Planning profession for the benefit of the public. The CFP Board, which represents less than one third of the profession is, because of its structure, a self-serving organization run by a group of intelligent and respectable individuals who, as result of their structure, are continuing to abuse their authority, their constituents and the public. Their attacks on anyone who points out errors or suggests a better path are further proof of that. Blinded by their system of authority and lack of accountability they are unable to evaluate and consider opinions other than their own. This nation got rid of that kind of structure over two hundred years ago. The CFP Board refuses to even acknowledge their dedication to it today. The FPA was formed in the same mold. IAQFP opted instead for an open governance benefiting from the opinions of all constituents.

Until and unless these organizations change their structure, and thus their attitude, Paul and IAQFP will continue to build an alternative that serves everyone effectively, fairly and equally. Financial Planning professionals interested in learning more should look up www.IAQFP.org.

October/November 2004

by, Paul M. League

“SRO-Wannabe” Endangers All Financial Planners & the Profession

Financial Planning, as a profession, began with laudable intentions and standards founded on integrity. However, the process of becoming a Financial Planner is being seriously compromised. If planners are interested in preventing destruction of their careers and of the profession itself, they need to understand the root cause of the problem.

The federal government is being courted to appoint a Self-Regulatory Organization (SRO) to control the ethics and practice of Financial Planners. No nominees have been identified, and the need of an SRO is yet to be debated. Should an SRO be determined necessary, great caution must be taken that the nominee be an entity with a history of impeccable integrity and unyielding ethics.

In 1985 a new CFP Board took over and made the initial step to gain the SRO by trade marking their CFP® designation. In 1990 they finalized this by also changing the name of the original Financial Planning educational program into a so-called “certification program”. They explained such steps as improvements in “standards” for better “protecting the public”, instead of admitting their real reason, which was to seduce the government into appointing them the SRO. Twelve years later, in 2002 FPA meetings, then CFP Board President Rick Adkins finally confessed that the structural makeover of trade marking and program name changing, were in fact done to secure the SRO, a process that required them to meet a total of “six such governmental conditions”.

Why discuss such issues now?

It is alarming to learn that an entity with such a documented history of misleading, unethical actions, may be awarded ethics control over anyone. Their blatant misrepresenting of the facts reflects a pattern also seen in the following, now historical, controversies, all of which were only finally resolved due to massive opposition by CFP® Stakeholders:

· the Practice Standards controversy, where input over their existence, or content, had been denied Stakeholders until Gib Kerr, QFP, CFP® caused them to include Stakeholder input.

· the “CFP-Lite” controversy, where they attempted to water down the CFP® designation with a new “associate” designation label (intended to increase revenues from Broker-Dealers), again without informing Stakeholders, until Nigel Taylor, CFP® caused them to end the initiative.

· the “CFP PRACTITIONER” controversy, where they had for over four years authorized designees to popularize its use, while defiantly stating it was merely a “descriptive term”, until exposed by me as a pended trademark intended to divide planners into elites and entry-level, which resulted in their lapsing the filing and ended the initiative.

If the CFP Board becomes the SRO, it will result in a loss of 2/3 of the presently equally qualified planners bearing other designations. The CFP Board already indirectly excludes these planners through actions it supports by the FPA. These planners are unlikely to be included post-SRO. A public in need of more planners, not fewer, can’t benefit by such massive disenfranchisement. To get back in these planners will be required to redo education in the form of a costly so-called “certification program”, promoted as necessary, when unproven to be.

CFP® designees have unwittingly financed CFP Board ill-conceived initiatives through so-called designation “re-certification fees”. A PhD credential, once earned, demands no reoccurring fees, yet the CFP Board’s renamed “certification program” requires biannual $360 “re-certification” fees. This has enabled them to collect excessive, duplicate, credentialing fees, which if not paid result in the graduate’s (now renamed “Certificant”) unjustified loss of the use of the designation. The separate exam component of the renamed CFP® program adds another $595 each time taken until passed. These added revenues well exceed those of the original program, and other comparable credentialing programs that have proven to well serve both planners and public interests.

“Re-certification” is really a misnomer, because what really happens is the sending of a “renewal” form that asks “certificants” to attest that they have completed 30 hours of biannual continuing education and complied with certain Ethics. There is no “re-test”, or anything else particularly expensive in the “renewal”. Many argue such biannual fees should be reduced to reflect actual administrative costs, or just eliminated.

Meeting operational expenses is a necessity. However, their high fee income appears more for purposes of advancing their invented SRO job than towards unifying a profession, serving their Stakeholders, promoting the designation, or promoting the benefits of Financial Planning.

The FPA, which is supposed to represent and benefit an entire profession, declares support for only one segment; namely, those with a CFP® designation. The FPA thereby indirectly financially benefits the CFP Board, who, in return, cedes to it the planners referral function. However, for planners to receive referrals they must also be a $275 yearly dues paying FPA member – being a CFP® designee isn’t enough. The FPA lobbies for the CFP Board, while its members are prevented from nominating themselves, or other candidates for a position on the FPA National Board. Additionally, members are not provided information or a vote on such dangerous CFP Board initiatives as the over 12-year denied SRO. One has to question the value in an FPA that ignores its members by providing them no vote, disenfranchises all other planners, has excessive dues costing more than what equates to the annual renewal fees of the CFP® designation itself ($275 vs. $180), and whose leadership doesn’t answer to anyone, least of all its members.

This “CFP® program makeover”, along with all of its increased fees, has raised CFP Board annual revenues of over 12 million, and nearly 8 million for the FPA. Stakeholder designees are being unfairly taken advantage of financially for arguably no measurable benefit. The truth is that the original program, before the name change, coupled with continuing education, provided sufficient “standards” and protections for all.

The CFP Board’s entire SRO concept is based on the questionable premise that an SRO is needed, or that the Government seeks to appoint one. With few egregious abuses by Financial Planners that are not already addressed by the SEC, NASD, State Insurance and Accounting bodies, many find no need of an SRO.

The recent CFP Board appointment of Attorney Sarah B. Teslik, as CEO, is intended to seal the SRO deal. If unchecked this will stop most planners from even calling themselves “Financial Planners”. New, burdensome and costly SRO stipulations will have to be met, resulting in final nullification of these other 75,000 equivalently credentialed planners. CFP® designees are not immune. Potentially litigious CFP Board “Practice Standards” will no longer be limited just to them, but will apply to all. The additional 2006 CFP Board requirement of a Bachelors Degree will be followed by the CFP Board, through the FPA, openly distinguishing planners by devaluing those with degrees against those without.

These are real dangers systemic to the CFP Board, and the FPA, due mainly to their failing to implement democratic principles of honest and open dialogue, equal representation and voting rights.

It’s out of control. Stakeholders have no say. Are there alternatives?

IAQFP.org, having a respected history of leadership that has exposed CFP Board ill conceived initiatives, offers the solution. IAQFP has proven that a voting Membership can ensure both the necessary finances, and safeguards, without an SRO.

IAQFP introduced the QFP (Qualified Financial Planner) designation, to serve as the single, universal designation, unifying all equivalently qualified Financial Planners. IAQFP achieves unification by having already granted use of the QFP to all those having earned any of 5 equivalent Financial Planning designations [ChFC, CFP®, PFS, MSFS or MS (the latter two with a concentrated study in Financial Planning)], that, regardless of “CFP® re-certification”, maintain 15 hours annually of diversified continuing education. Those doing so are a QFP, a lifetime, fee free credential.

IAQFP has codified this with a free Registration offer to these over 100,000 authorized QFP users in the “QFP Verification Registry of Qualified Financial Planners” (www.iaqfp.org/register.html), the place the public is urged to verify the qualifications of anyone claiming to be a Financial Planner. IAQFP also encourages Membership to provide funds to support its solution, at rates over 2.5x less than those of the FPA, minus CFP Board costs.

If CFP® designees, and others, don’t act now, we will be left with a profession whose “CFP Board-SRO Wannabe” will continue its pattern of dangerously misleading, unethical conduct. Their actions have proven to fail to serve those they purport to represent most, while also threatening to harm and disenfranchise all other planners.

The CFP Board has merely demonstrated they know how to create unwanted initiatives that increase revenues through a baseless program name-makeover, and FPA divide and conquer tactics. Such steps have only resulted in empty so-called “higher standards” producing no meaningful Stakeholder or public benefit.

A simple solution exists that solves all of these problems; namely, for all duly qualified Financial Planners to immediately use the QFP as your primary Financial Planner indicator, for it renders irrelevant both the CFP Board and the FPA, while also nullifying such damaging initiatives as SRO.

July 23, 2002

The Problems With The CFP® Challenge Exam – A Response to the FPi Question

By Paul M. League, CFP^® – Then Chairman of Concerned Planners Group (6/1/2002 – 12/31/2003)
www.IAQFP.org / info@IAQFP.org
Laurie, your observations are indeed timely.

We have written the CFP Board several weeks ago requesting their rationale for allowing the “challenge”. You also know that we sent out a Press Release yesterday containing reference to this exact subject.

As you likely know this is a long-standing part of our Groups purposes (www.IAQFP.org) and is reflected on that page of our website as follows:

f. have the CFP Board require all persons, including related professionals like CPA’s & Attorneys who may wish to challenge the subject matter, to first have to take the full study curriculum, along with any related modular exams, prior to any “Comprehensive Exam”.
g. have the CFP Board formally grant use of the CFP^® designation to qualified ChFC’s (i.e. those who have met the minimum 3 year experience requirement, since the CFP Board has stated, in writing to our Group, that ChFC’s have already met seemingly equivalent education & examination requirements of CFP^® certification).

Lifetime experience, knowledge & subject familiarity does not necessarily equal formal education; therefore, a specific formal financial planning curriculum, along with exams (modular or “comprehensive”), is, in our view, the basic criteria.

We are the last one’s in support of any kind of a “giveaway”, but we do support a rational approach to determining qualified financial planners. Our Groups “Referral Registry” is reflective of such rationale.

We have “called” the CFP Board to act on their statement that pre-1991 ChFC meet equivalent education and exam to that of CFP^®. Neither they, nor the American College, have acted on this call to award such ChFC use of CFP^®. The only other required criteria are their 3-year experience requirement (which ChFC have already met), and finally adherence to the CFP Boards Code of Ethics, which, if one wants to use the Mark, one must follow. Therefore, these designations, as used, are equivalent in all 4 “E’s” – education, examination, experience, and ethics.

Tiring of these parties failure to act, we, as a separate Group of concerned and qualified planners, made the decision to accept BOTH pre & post 1991 ChFC into our Referral Registry, and as full fledged Members of our Group. Why also post 1991 ChFC? Because of the exact same rationale that we use to support pre-1991 ChFC.

The only difference that exists for post 1991 CFP^® certification is that this is the time when the CFP Board converted from their modular academic standard and tests, to their so called “raised bar” Comprehensive ‘Certification’ Exam.

There are many opinions about this “new certification standard” (i.e. as to whether or not it is substantively or meaningfully different, at least in terms of accurately testing for one’s educational understanding of the material), but it is our opinion that it does not reflect a “raised bar standard”, at least as far as education is concerned. For governmental “certification” standards there is a technical difference, which fits the CFP Boards interest in becoming the SRO of the field. There is also the $100 Registration Fee & $595 Exam Fee (charged again and again for each retake which is about 50% of the time!), and the $300 biannual Mark usage fee, which is more about revenue generation and increased CFP Board power & influence. These factors have little if anything to do with the knowledge of the subject matter of financial planning, and certainly even less to do with a designation conveying real qualification standards.

CFP^® Certificants need to get real, step down from atop the conceit mountain, and start to take constructive action against the CFP Board & the FPA’s attempt at corralling the financial planning profession under the CFP^® designation, as if they are, or it is, the be all and end all of the entire field of financial planning.

We offer the only focus and means to support our fellow planners in just such endeavors. It is our position that ALL ChFC, certain RFC, and others, are in fact as duly qualified as CFP^®. The only way we can make this a “practical reality”, despite the turf war resistance, is to do what we have done; namely, publicly announce that for our purposes, and for referrals to the public, these designations are in fact equivalent and will therefore be equally identified to the inquiring public upon request.

One day we would like to help the public by consolidating under one designation. Such a move would negate the solutions being offered by the FPA, the CFP Board, and others for SRO status, or lawsuits to weed out nonconformists.

Writing Dated: 3-2002

Retitled: Justifications for Unifying ChFC with CFP®

By Gib Kerr, QFP, CFP^®, ChFC, CLU & Paul M. League, QFP, CFP^®

www.iaqfp.org / info@iaqfp.org

Two of the most important criteria to earn and be identified as a CFP^® Certificant are education and examination. IAQFP.org (formerly the Concerned Planners Group(sm)) is completely dedicated to these requirements. Indeed these are the kind of requirements that have made the CFP^® credential the standard of the financial planning field ever since the term “Financial Planning” was first popularized by the CFP^® community.

The term “Financial Planning” has no dictionary definition, and because of this it is used by all varieties of business people for marketing purposes. This causes great public confusion. There is a great and immediate need to clarify this. Government agencies and legislators are not satisfactorily addressing this issue, thus it is incumbent on the CFP^® community to do so. One major opportunity currently exists that could provide a meaningful step in this direction. IAQFP.org (formerly the Concerned Planners Group(sm)) has introduced this program and has been pursuing it since the summer of 2001.

The basic question underlying this idea is: are there any competitive financial planning organizations that are meeting CFP^® standards that could be integrated into the CFP^® family? We have identified one that is virtually a copy of the CFP^® program.

The American College, which trains and credentials insurance & financial professionals, decided to compete with the CFP^® movement a number of years ago when it became apparent that the public was demanding a way of identifying properly qualified professionals in this developing field. Their CLU credential identified the best-trained insurance professionals but they needed a new study course and examination program to match those created by the CFP^® organization.

That was exactly what they did. They mirrored the CFP^® studies and testing program. They couldn’t resist adding some extra insurance issues to the required materials. Thus, where the CFP^® program consisted of six courses and six exams, the American college program involved ten courses and ten exams. Graduates were granted the Chartered Financial Consultant designation: “ChFC”. They had already completed the studies and passed the tests that were just as demanding, and that covered the same material required of “CFP^® applicants”.

IAQFP.org (formerly the Concerned Planners Group(sm)) brought these facts to the attention of the CFP Board of Governors asking for recognition of the ChFC studies and examinations as a qualifying substitution for those offered by the CFP^® program. We also suggested that ChFC’s be required to attend a one-day indoctrination workshop to cover other aspects of the CFP^® requirements such as the Code of Ethics and practice standards, etc. Compliance with other details required of all CFP^® candidates would then qualify them to receive the CFP^® designation.

Our negotiations with the CFP Board over the past months have produced some very positive results. The CFP Board has been responsive and open in our discussions. They pointed out that the CFP^® studies and exam changed in 1991 and thus the kind of programs required by both the CFP^® program and the ChFC program has been different from that time on. They acknowledged that prior to 1991 both programs met the same standards as to education and examination. They do not feel that those CFP^® Certificants who had received their designations prior to 1991 where no longer qualified or should have to undergo any new requirements. We therefore asked if the they would consider crediting ChFC’s, who received their designations prior to 1991, the same recognition. Both groups have these many extra years of financial planning experience and ongoing studies to satisfactorily compensate for any real or perceived differences in the post 1991 CFP^® program.

The CFP Boards response is indeed encouraging. They advised that the reason this move has not been made is because their colleagues at the American College have never requested such recognition. One has to wonder if anyone has asked the College to do so and/or if the ChFC community has ever directly asked the CFP Board.

IAQFP.org (formerly the Concerned Planners Group(sm)) is delighted to have brought this issue to light, and we are anxious to see the many thousands of ChFC’s, who would qualify, quickly become a part of the CFP^® community. The public will get a shot in the arm from the publicity and great benefits from the increased confidence in the CFP^® designation as the prime means of identifying qualified financial planning professionals. This confidence will result in an increased respect and demand for all planners holding the CFP^® designation. The American College will benefit from increased enrollment in its current CFP^® courses. The CFP Board will find itself finally getting out of the red, financially, because of more than doubling its roster of Certificants. Whether it is the CFP Board, the American College, ChFCs, CFP^® Certificants, or the public we all serve, this is a win/win project.

The final issue then is for the CFP Board to become convinced that there is sufficient interest on the part of ChFCs. That task can be greatly enhanced by the meaningful support of all professional individuals and associations dedicated to serving the financial planning needs of the public. IAQFP.org (formerly the Concerned Planners Group(sm)) will continue to lobby in every way we can. The primary requirement, however, is the participation of the ChFC community. Individually, and in groups, the ball is in their court. ChFC organizations and individual ChFCs all contacting both the CFP Board and the American College requesting action can make good things happen. Mass emails, phone calls and letters are needed. The opportunity is here. The time for action is now.

Article Dated: 4/2004

Is the CFP Board “Mission” Yours?

Paul M. League, QFP, CFP^®

www.IAQFP.org / info@IAQFP.org

New CFP Board Chair David Diesslin’s April 2004 Financial Advisor Magazine article titled “CFP Board Has A Mission,” contains suggested CFP Board accomplishments and a “Mission”. Unfortunately he left out facts and issues that are critical to determining what their actual “Mission” may be.

In the same Edition, Letters to the Editor section, is a submission titled “A Poor Position to Unite Profession”, by Harold Evensky, that wrongly criticizes constructive observations of what myself, IAQFP.org, and many others see as critical ongoing misdirection’s by the CFP Board, and FPA. Nonetheless, we thank Harold for his opinions as a private party ostensibly no longer representing the CFP Board, while understanding that he is not without conflict of interest.

For example, they claim they are “unifying the profession” when promoting the CFP^® designation as the sole designation of Financial Planning. The other sixty percent of the nation’s equally qualified Financial Planners, identified by the designations QFP, ChFC, PFS, MSFS, and MS, are thereby being excluded and disenfranchised. It appears they want everyone to just forget about these 60,000. The FPA supports the disenfranchisement as evidenced by their home page website statement “FPA believes that…when seeking the advice of a financial planner…the planner should be a CFP^® professional”, and in their statement “the FPA advances the financial planning profession” (http://www.fpanet.org). What about the Nation’s other duly credentialed Financial Planners? How can the FPA honestly claim to be “advancing the profession” while it ignores these other 60,000?

IAQFP, in contrast, offers its QFP, Qualified Financial Planner designation, as a universal identifier that includes all of these 60,000 Financial Planner designees, plus the 43,000 CFP^® “certificants” (/qfp_designation.html). Additionally, we provide an open forum and Vote structure where our Members issues can be heard and acted upon (/register.html). IAQFP is the only organization tangibly unifying the profession, thus proving Mr. Evensky’s comments to the contrary misrepresent the facts.

Diesslin says the CFP Board looks at CFP^® Certificants as their “valued clients”, who are “vital to our (their) purpose” (Para #11). As such, don’t certificants have the right and option to question, challenge, critique, and in the end to also select a different direction? And, isn’t it also our right to openly state the reasons why without being derided by the CFP Board through such pejoratives as “well meaning observers (who) perpetuate misconceptions” (sub heading to the title of Diesslin’s article), or threatened for purportedly disregarding Ethics by persons like Evensky (Para #2 of his Letter)? It is important to revisit some history so that the problems we critique in the CFP Board “Mission”, and the other things they say and do, can be fully appreciated.

FPA members listened intently in 2000 as CFP Board members Bob Goss and Patricia Houlihan attempted a damage control tour of FPA meetings following the “CFP-lite” controversy, where they claimed the CFP Board had taken on a whole new attitude of openness towards CFP^® certificants. Part of the literature to support this claim included a brochure titled: “Why You Should Choose a “CFP PRACTITIONER”. When it came time for questions I asked, “What is a “CFP PRACTIONER”, to which they replied “nothing more than a mere descriptive term”. I countered that the brochure stated it was a pended trademark, to which both of them repeated the “descriptive term” and then quickly moved on to other questioners. CFP^® designees know the controversy that flowed from that misinformation as documented at /cfp_practitioner_historical_controversy.html, a pattern to which I alluded in the March 2004 Letters to the Editor section of Financial Advisor magazine titled “A Better Alternative: IAQFP” (Para #2) at: http://www.fa-mag.com/past_issues.php?id_content=3&idPastIssue=81&show=letters). These and subsequent CFP Board actions showed a complete contradiction of their “openness policy” and cannot be easily whitewashed away as attempted by these parties, though their motivation in trying to do so can be easily understood.

For examples of current misleading statements and policies by the CFP Board, and where lack of full and open disclosure provides fuel for yet additional controversy, one only has to review the header to their monthly CFP BOARD REPORT titled, “News From Financial Planning’s Professional Regulatory Organization”. This same claim is found on designation certificates they have issued dating back to at least 1989. Examination of the headline, and words like “certification” help to illustrate; one, they represent only forty percent of the nation’s Financial Planners, leaving 60,000 who they do not represent or “regulate”; two, they have not been appointed SRO/PRO; three, selling a trade mark Financial Planning designation does not confer “regulator” status upon anyone (as in the broader sense of governmental or legislative body appointment); and four, their rights to supervise usage of their trade mark stops there, and provides them no force of law as “regulator” of Financial Planning itself or the other designees thereof. If they added “of CFP^® Certificant Financial Planners” the charge of misleading could be countered somewhat, but without it a stronger case could be made for intended misinterpretation.

Worrisome examples of how they apply “designation regulations” abound, but are best exemplified through the imposing extremes to which they have taken that argument in the JJ MacNab, QFP, CFP^®, CLU incident. As reported by Ms. MacNab the “Regulator CFP Board” demanded that she fix the printed version of Senator Grassley’s oral testimony in which he introduced her to a Senate Panel as a “certified financial planner” (note, with no trade mark ^® symbol, no caps, and not followed by one of those infamously required noun modifiers like “certificant”). Realistically, how could she address such obtuse concerns, suggesting to a Senate Panel that they make such corrections? Yet, the CFP Board persisted in reprimanding her, and threatened to rescind her use of the CFP(R) designation. Is this, or similar examples, not enough to justify opposing SRO/PRO governmental appointment of the CFP Board?

Diesslin misleadingly suggests these kinds of actions represent higher “standards” (Para’s #7 & 14) that engender the support of designees, need protecting, and while “inconvenient” (Para # 12) should willingly be endorsed by designees. He also says the CFP Board has “elevated the CFP^® marks to the status of true certification…created the CFP^® certification examination in a comprehensive format that…sets (them) apart…(and that these are all examples of) advances designed to benefit the public” (Para #4,5,7,). What many say is that all of this activity is not to help the public, or stakeholders, but is instead purposefully done to support their late admitted attempt to become anointed by the government as SRO/PRO, and to protect their tax entity status [years later they finally verbally admitted (though still not reduced to writing), that they actually pursued the trade marking, and “certification” matters, specifically to qualify for the SRO governmental appointment, a fact denied for years but finally revealed in verbal presentation by past President Rick Adkins at 2002 FPA member-wide meetings as witnessed locally here in LA, CA by FPA President Frank Gleberman, prior President Nigel Taylor, IAQFP Co-Founder Gib Kerr, and about 40 other attendees). It is misleading statements such as these that qualify as Ethics violations.

Additional misleading statements by Diesslin’s include “the CFP^® certification has value because both the public and CFP^® certificants understand the need to distinguish between planners who meet our standards and those who don’t” (Para #7). To the contrary IAQFP.org has found that the public has been equally well served by each of the many Financial Planner designees who we both accept and recognize under our unifying QFP designation. Our Member QFP are also held to arguably a higher standard than that of the CFP Board, with continuing education requirements that cover the full spectrum of the methodology, and a Code of Ethics & Professional Conduct that does not require a special two hour CEU course because it is clear enough to be understood by public and professionals alike (see: /code-of-ethics.html & /register.html).

Call the CFP^® “certification” what it really is; namely, a trade marked designation done so by the CFP Board for two central purposes: one, so that they could qualify for the federal governmental SRO in a concerted deliberate move to take over of the Financial Planning movement and the profession; and two, to ensure that designees would be forced to continue paying designation usage dues, or lose their designation. Had the CFP^® designation been left to stand as an educational designation, dues could not be enforced. You can imagine the effect to their power had they lost these revenues!

The fact that they have created a bureaucracy around “certification” and trade marking really only matters to them, for, as IAQFP.org has seen, creating an easily recognized, universally identifiable designation of Financial Planning does not require trade marking. So, we are not complaining about trade mark requirements. We are merely pointing out that “certificants” are forced to accept burdens that they do not agree “benefit the public” (Para #15), serve them, or the profession. Trade marking is unnecessary, and it represents an outcome over which its stakeholders back in 1985 were not asked to give input, were not provided disclosure, and were not given a vote.

Yet Diesslin, like his predecessors, persists in the misdirection when stating “some people now mistakenly believe that the CFP^® certification is our mission” (Para #8), downplaying the facts in the errant SRO/PRO history and other controversies by use of the word “initiatives” as in, “dredging up of past initiatives” (Para #14). And, he adds, “people are taken aback by our interest in such areas of education and international standards” (Para #8). Few are astonished by what they are doing in the areas of education, or regards their actions at internationalizing the designation, since the educational effort is a requirement to maintain their tax-exempt status.

Remember, it is the CFP Board who argued that the process of earning a CFP^® designation had to be converted from an “educational achievement” to a “certification” event. Diesslin states “this sets us apart from organizations that allow their candidates to test on a piecemeal basis” (Para #5) as if there is something lesser in modular course testing as used by Accredited Colleges and Universities the world over. Read between the lines of his statement closely: remember, they have recently announced that all post 2006 applicants for the CFP^® designation will have to have a bachelor’s degree before they can sit for the CFP^® “certification exam” to earn the designation. Is that really a “higher standard”? Many see it as just another way for them to further expand and secure power. The actual effect of this move will be to further bar thousands of capable individuals from employing the Financial Planning process as CFP^® practitioners, and will reduce the numbers of available CFP^® practitioners to meet the needs and demands of a deserving public.

Diesslin’s claim that the one thousand fold growth in CFP^® certificants “is an effective measure of how the standards are viewed by the public” (Para #7) is again misleading at best. Professionals are not stupid, and so many chose the CFP^® designation over other available Financial Planning designations because it was clear the momentum was there. The real credit for the growth in the popularity of the CFP^® designation is due those who bought into and acquired the designation, and is not the result of any so-called CFP Board “standards”, or how they are marketed to impress laypersons or governmental bodies.

Many CFP^® designees conclude that the flow of dollars leads more to the coffers of the CFP Board & FPA, than to designees, and further that the CFP^® designation hasn’t contributed to meaningful retention or influx of new clients for them. When contrasted against the multi-millions these parties have received it pales in comparison to the minute amount they have expended on effectively promoting the designation itself. To many the CFP Board appears to act more like a for profit business than a non-profit, though somehow they obtained and maintain a 501(c)(3) non-profit, tax-deductible status.

Resources for these entities looks something like this: for the CFP Board, at $150 a year in designation usage and recertification renewal fees, times an estimated 43,000 US certificants (Para #7), gross revenues are $6.45 million, plus at $595.00 per exam times an annual average of 6,750 exam takers gross revenues of $4.01 million more (not accounting for millions more in added gross revenues from their CFP^® Board-Registered educational programs); and two, for the FPA, annual dues of $275 times an estimated 20,000 members, equaling gross annual revenues of $5.5 million (not including advertising revenues or grants from their directly affiliated 501(c)(3) Foundation for Financial Planning org.).

Where is all the money being spent, and are those expenditures effective in terms of advancing the profession and knowledge of what Financial Planning is all about? Do policies of these parties benefit the public? Planners can conclude that the CFP Board and FPA appear less committed to promoting the Financial Planning movement than they claim. I suggest that they redirect the bulk of these resources into promoting knowledge of what Financial Planning is, rather then into trade mark enforcement, or into meeting requirements for them to qualify as the SRO/PRO. Financial Planning is all about educating Planners to employ the most unique tool of the methodology; namely, its comprehensive, integrative thinking and perspective. The purpose of all of which is to aid laymen in making informed decisions of how to best order their financial affairs. It is time they put resources into clarifying that purpose, rather than into directives that mislead and a “Mission” that is not well defined.

Diesslin & Evensky say none of them served on the CFP Board for “personal gain or self aggrandizement” (Para #14), but only as “unpaid dedicated professionals” (Para #1 of Evensky Letter). Truth be told, they profited, and still do, some by healthy expense allowances, but each of them by direct effect and benefit to their personal practices. Moreover, many of them have been granted positions of authority affording them, as in cases like Mr. Evensky and wife Deena Katz, the honored position of “Contributing Editors” for Financial Advisor Magazine.

Problems, such as those noted here persist because the CFP Board remains closed, contrary to the posturing by Diesslin who calls for critics to “contact” the Board in “open discussion” (Para #15). The types of problems discussed here are systemic to the CFP Board, and serve as examples of how the CFP Board has no intention of openness or of listening to its stakeholders.

One final example of the problems brewing within the CFP Board is understood by examination of the real reason Lou Garday, CPA may have so abruptly left the CFO position on the CFP Board. I believe it was due to the Board’s unwillingness to support him in bringing people like Nigel Taylor, and others, onto the Board of Governors, all of who had a history of challenging, creative ideas. Garday was doing an excellent job of managing the Board’s financial affairs, but was seeking a way to invigorate a stagnant CFP Board. Unfortunately for all, he failed, an experienced shared by many, which resulted in his literally being driven out.

Well, herein is the open discussion and contact Diesslin heralds. Will any of them respond in a constructive manner, or will they instead continue to name call (as in the quoted writings noted here) in an attempt to marginalize an increasing number of us who continue disclosing what they try to keep hidden (e.g. the true reasons for trade marking, certification, and their designs on the SRO/PRO)? These parties need to “respect dissension”, as David claims they do (Para #13), while understanding that well meaning critics do so intentionally and with clarity of purpose, and as such these parties would be better served to direct their slander at their own creations. Any “Mission” that distracts from the truth of what has been disclosed herein is one that increasing numbers of Planners tell us they cannot and will not support. To the CFP Board, FPA, David and Harold IAQFP Members say, join with us to truly unify and advance the Financial Planning profession in ways that are helpful, open, fully transparent and that create a “Mission” we can all support.

January 28, 2005

Is a True Financial Planning Coalition on the Horizon?

By Paul M. League, QFP, CFP® – IAQFP.org Chairperson & President (January 28, 2005)

A January 2005 InvestmentNews article reports that the FPA (the organization that exclusively supports the CFP® designation), and the AICPA (the CPA society that supports the PFS designation) appear to now be “vying for PFS designees”. FPA board member Kacy Gott is therein quoted as saying “we want to be the community for all who promote Financial Planning”. Did you hear that? The FPA, after years of being CFP® – centric, now wants to be “the community for all”, now isn’t that a rather peculiar departure?

What’s behind this apparent change? Clearly, the FPA is pressed for holding onto its members and must have determined that in order to maintain and expand their numbers, and influence, that they must appeal to a far broader base. What this most likely indicates is that the CFP Board, the FPA, and the AICPA may, and I emphasize may, have finally struck a deal of sorts that possibly foretells reciprocity between their competing designations that will finally result in them being treated as equivalent.

IAQFP is pleased to learn that these parties finally appear to accept what IAQFP already has; namely, the equality of these two designations, and still 3 other designations (ChFC; MSFS; MS), as representative of one who is educated and trained under substantially the same qualifying criteria, and one who therefore is also qualified in the application of its methodology, discipline and integrative perspective.

The CFP Board & FPA (Financial Planning Association), in particular, have been opposing this for years, while IAQFP, after making several approaches to both, but only being ignored and/or refused, decided to recognize the equality of all 5 (CFP®, PFS, ChFC, MSFS and MS –the latter two with a concentrated study in Financial Planning). IAQFP has long welcomed each of these designation earners to be covered under its QFP, or Qualified Financial Planner designation, the single unifying designation created to represent all Financial Planning and its professionals. IAQFP further codified this by allowing all 5 of these designees FREE registration into its public Registry resource so that the public can both easily verify and locate said professionals (the IAQFP – QFP Verification Registry of Qualified Financial Planners at: www.iaqfp.org/qfp_registry.html).

While the above has been developing, IAQFP has led in exposing repeated hidden and controversial initiatives by the CFP Board, assisted by the FPA, the longest being their desire to become the PRO or SRO of the Financial Planning profession. In a November 2004 IAQFP Member-wide deliberation, and vote call, Members voted 82% against the need of a Self-Regulatory Organization (SRO), or Professional Regulatory Organization (PRO), to regulate the profession or the activities of planners. When it came to the question of what would happen if the government, or other body, were to appoint one anyway, and whether or not that appointee should be the CFP Board, FPA or any party related to them, IAQFP Members voted a resounding 91% against.

Several months later we learn through another InvestmentNews article (1/2005) that the FPA has set up a committee to “consider planner oversight”, this on the heels of a Probe Newsletter article by Ed Morrow, Chairman of IARFC, that makes a strong case against the need of an SRO/PRO for either planners or public benefit. That article also strongly cautions against support for either the CFP Board or the FPA as SRO/PRO, citing as an example their rather problematic handling of referrals that are only made to CFP® certificants who are also required to be FPA dues paying members, while restricting access to all other planners bearing other equally qualifying designations. How is it beneficial to consumers when the CFP Board & FPA collude to disenfranchise the majority of equally qualified Financial Planners who hold other valid Financial Planning credentials, simply because they don’t also hold a CFP®?

Further, who selected the CFP® credential to be the “chosen one”? CFP® stakeholder designees themselves were not even given a voice, opinion or vote on this. Clearly, the CFP Board & FPA have made that determination, but again they have done so without the vote or consent of either their own stakeholders or of the far broader community of 100,000 Financial Planners.The CFP Board and FPA have presented no evidence that consumer confusion is eliminated or lessened as a result of holding the CFP® designation over any other. The question still has not been answered: “How do we distinguish the Financial Planning process itself from the various vehicles and products used to fund such Plans?” Obviously, just holding the CFP® designation, or any other, is not enough. The answer is that this is already being done by Financial Planners themselves, helped in some cases by the entities that issue their credentials and/or the advocacy organizations they support, such as IAQFP.org.

Now, by also designating itself as the best candidate for PRO, or SRO, and the CFP® designation as the one designation to represent all of Financial Planning, the CFP Board and/or FPA are trying to cement a monopoly hold over the entire Financial Planning field…a hold that IAQFP Members, and others as herein noted that represent a clear majority, have strongly voted and spoken against.

Rather than more infighting and increased turf wars, the Financial Planning community needs to unite, and in doing so, to create solutions that truly have the potential of actually being beneficial to planners and consumers alike. If we, as a profession, are truly concerned with distinguishing what we do as planners from the products we use, and of providing consumer protection and reducing consumer confusion, then now is the time for all Financial Planning professionals, and the entities from whom they obtain their credentials, and the organizations they support, to unite.

Any solution must be inclusive of all those currently qualified, representing a true coalition.

IAQFP.org was formed to be that unifying coalition organization. IAQFP.org has sought to uncover perceived consumer concerns and to address the common goal of eliminating public confusion over who is and who is not a qualified Financial Planner through the introduction of the QFP designation. IAQFP researched in depth the designations of those who claimed to be Financial Planners and determined that five designations, from four entities, met the minimum criteria. IAQFP took all of these steps because these 4 entities, and the organizations that support them, were, and largely remain, dedicated to acting alone…with the apparent current exception that the CFP Board and AICPA may now have brokered some kind of a unification deal. Whether this is for real, or beneficial to planners and the public, remains to be seen; however, if any such unification also causes further pursuit of the SRO or PRO position, then all Financial Planners, along with the public, remain at serious risk for at least the single reason that no one appears to want either.

Renewing the IAQFP effort to bring all of these entities together is an idea whose time has certainly come. However, for this to have the greatest chance of success, members of these entities must also register at www.IAQFP.org/register.html and immediately begin using the unifying QFP designation. Such actions take nothing away from the other 5 designations of Financial Planning, their issuing entities, or the organizations that support them. The four entities who offer designations maintain them, with their designees simply adding their qualifying credentials, which just serves to bring extra credit to each and every qualifying designation and entity, with all of them together being unified as QFP – Qualified Financial Planners.

IAQFP already stipulates that its QFP adhere to certain pro-consumer standards and disclosures, and has a disciplinary & complaint process in place to enforce overall credibility and compliance. Through such a coalition uniform protections and standards become fully shared, which effectively not only extends public protections and safeguards, but also better serves the planner community.

The opportunity to join this coalition is open and free.

The potential exists, but can only be fully realized when the eligible 100,000 equally qualified Financial Planners begin using the unifying QFP designation that IAQFP.org has already authorized them to use, and then to register their use in the QFP Verification Registry for all the public to see.Finally, these 100,000 must also formally request that their respective organizations be an active and positive part of the coalition.

A unified coalition & profession obviates the need of an SRO or PRO for planners and public alike.

Last Updated: 7/04

IAQFP Suggestions to the CFP Board for Joining in Uniting the Profession

We hold that the CFP Board does many fine things for which we commend them, however, changes are needed in areas that will benefit our Members, fellow professionals, our developing Financial Planning Profession, and the public we serve, and it is among the purposes of IAQFP.org to point out and work for at least the following much needed changes:

1. bring about open nominations and elections of all voting members of the CFP Board of Governors, by the community of CFP^® Certificants.
2. have the CFP Board require that every voting member of the CFP Board must be either a CFP^® Certificant or an active QFP. Non-Certificants may serve on the CFP Board, but without voting rights.
3. have the CFP Board cease and desist from referring to themselves, or having CFP^® Certificants or the public think of them as, “Financial Planning’s Professional Regulatory Organization”. What they are is owners of the CFP^® mark(s), now a federally registered certification mark, and while it is true that they regulate the use of their mark(s), and are technically “a regulatory organization” over their CFP^® Certificants use of those marks, they certainly have no such claim to make over the entire Financial Planning Profession or community of financial planning professionals. Their use implies they regulate the entire profession, and in doing so misleads, and we want them to stop this misleading usage in favor of a more clear statement and position.
4. have the CFP Board publicly state they will cease and desist from any and all efforts at becoming the SRO (Self Regulatory Organization), and will instead put their resources and efforts into helping serve the needs of their “certificants”, improving & distinguishing “Financial Planning” as a profession, and promoting the CFP^® mark & CFP^® Certificants important role in the Financial Planning profession.
5. have the CFP Board bring an end to Practice Standards and modify the present CFP^® Code of Ethics (that are essentially indistinguishable from Practice Standards), in favor of a more general, and less public “Code of Ethics & Professional Conduct”, substantially equal to that which applies to all IAQFP / QFP.

   The CFP Board has openly stated that their need and reason to trademark their CFP^® designation, to have Practice Standards and to have their particular version of a “Code of Ethics and Professional Responsibility”, is to better ensure their becoming an SRO, the SRO of financial planners and/or the Financial Planning Profession. These “Standards” subject planners, and more specifically CFP^® Certificants, to substantially heightened degrees of legal liability that are not only largely unwanted, but are also not understood well by either planners, groups, and certainly not clients of planners. Lawyers understand them quite well, however, and this is the danger to all parties in their otherwise very unnecessary existence.

6. have the CFP Board require all persons, including related professionals like CPA’s & Attorneys who may wish to challenge the subject matter, to first have to take the full study curriculum, along with any related modular exams, prior to any “Comprehensive Exam”.
7. have the CFP Board formally grant use of the CFP^® designation to qualified ChFC’s (i.e. those who have met the minimum 3 year experience requirement, since the CFP Board has stated, in writing to our Group, that ChFC’s have already met seemingly equivalent education & examination requirements of CFP^® certification). Click HERE for additional details.
8. bring an end to the CFP Board required special 2 hour Code of Ethics course and in connection with point “e” above – the adoption of a newly revised and simplified Code.
9. have the CFP Board encourage & require all CFP^® Certificants to complete continuing education courses in all 6 areas of the financial planning curriculum each 2 year renewal cycle (i.e. Overview of the 6-Step Financial Planning Process; Risk Management; Investments; Taxation; Retirement Plans & Employee Benefits; Estate Planning).
10. have the CFP Board reposition the CFP^® mark in the pubic eye (i.e. what it “means or represents”), as well as through its approved educators & CFP^® Certificants, as a “generalist” and pre-requisite for those who wish to practice within the Financial Planning profession, thereby better allowing for and also encouraging “specialization’s” (i.e. a “certified” financial planner with specialization in Estate Planning, or Investments, or Insurance, etc.).
11. have the CFP Board change its basic tone & relationship to its Certificants to help end the attitude of confrontation & mistrust, in hopes of bringing about a much more constructive, sharing, helpful & productive atmosphere between the CFP Board & Certificants.
12. have the CFP Board correct their misleading definition of the term ‘ CFP^® practitioner’, since they define such practitioners as Certificants who have taken “an extra step”, which is erroneous, since all Certificants have taken the exact same steps. Click HERE for details.
13. have the CFP Board prove they are meaningfully listening to, and acting on the concerns and opinions of CFP^® Certificants, in the acts and decisions they take effecting or regarding Certificants (i.e. to hold them, primarily accountable, to Certificants).
14. have the CFP Board cease and desist from all activities that use compensation, or any other methods, to divide Certificants.
15. have the CFP Board reduce CFP^® Certificant Mark usage fees while also pursuing avenues of increasing Certificants along the lines we have suggested here in regards to ChFC’s.
16. At the present time the CFP Board has transferred all referrals for a CFP^® Certificant to the FPA; however, the FPA only provides referral names to those practicing CFP^® Certificants who are also Members of the FPA, thereby discriminating against thousands of non-FPA CFP^® Certificant Members, as well as other qualified financial planning professionals. Therefore, both the FPA, and the CFP Board who allows them to do so, are discriminating against thousands of equally qualified financial planning professionals. IAQFP stands in opposition to the damage the CFP Board does by not requiring the FPA to also make referrals to Non-Members of the FPA who are also CFP^® Certificants.
17. IAQFP seeks to have the CFP Board pull back the referral function from the FPA entirely unless and until the FPA agrees to list not only FPA Member CFP^® Certificants, but all CFP^® Certificants who are also in the business of providing financial planning services.
18. Have the CFP Board accept all those that we accept under the QFP Designation as equal to CFP^® Certificants, and join IAQFP.org in its unification of the profession under the ideal of: One Profession – One Designation.