CFP Board Mulls 80% Fee Hike

[CarolinaCFP(r)]

It is excessive. First, they say the need to "raise public awareness" for the designation. In order to do so, they need to raise fees 80%. So they post some garbage survey and say 94% support it, therefore we need to do it, and we need to raise fees to fund it. So, 94% support the raise in fees. Wrong. Not a good survey. So, if you do a survey and actually connect the dots, much different conculsions will be drawn. Ask the holders if they support a campaign (the content or delivery over which they have no control) of 9Million funded by their 80% increase, the results will be much lower than the 94%. I would argue it would yield less than 20%.


I have been a cfp(R) for 6 years, and feel it takes a backseat and always will to the other designations, CFA, and CPA most notably. Why, because there is no clear career path or scores of jobs for CFP(r)'s. As a CFA, you can be an analyst, PM, or most any other job in finance at all of the investment or commercial banks, VC firms etc. As a CPA, you can be a controller, work at a big 4, or open your own shop. The bottom line is as a CFP(r), you can only open your own shop. Sure, there are jobs at Vanguard and Fidelity and RIA's but they are a much smaller slice than the CFA or CPA.



Until there is a campaign that puts 20 fresh prospects in front of my door, as a direct result of the efforts of the CFP(r) board, I will not have much interest.

[CarolinaCFP(r)]

It is excessive. First, they say the need to "raise public awareness" for the designation. In order to do so, they need to raise fees 80%. So they post some garbage survey and say 94% support it, therefore we need to do it, and we need to raise fees to fund it. So, 94% support the raise in fees. Wrong. Not a good survey. So, if you do a survey and actually connect the dots, much different conculsions will be drawn. Ask the holders if they support a campaign (the content or delivery over which they have no control) of 9Million funded by their 80% increase, the results will be much lower than the 94%. I would argue it would yield less than 20%.


I have been a cfp(R) for 6 years, and feel it takes a backseat and always will to the other designations, CFA, and CPA most notably. Why, because there is no clear career path or scores of jobs for CFP(r)'s. As a CFA, you can be an analyst, PM, or most any other job in finance at all of the investment or commercial banks, VC firms etc. As a CPA, you can be a controller, work at a big 4, or open your own shop. The bottom line is as a CFP(r), you can only open your own shop. Sure, there are jobs at Vanguard and Fidelity and RIA's but they are a much smaller slice than the CFA or CPA.



Until there is a campaign that puts 20 fresh prospects in front of my door, as a direct result of the efforts of the CFP(r) board, I will not have much interest.

[CFPDrew]

I have learned more about board in these posts than I have in the past 5 years. I did not intend to disparage anyone with my comments and I'm not a loser (I did a survey yesterday to be sure). Like you, I became a CFP because I enjoy helping people plan for their futures and I thought earning the marks would set me apart and demonstrate my commitment to the profession. I do an excellent job for my clients. Unfortunately I have met many certificants who are really insurance salesmen, investment managers, and tax advisors who have never complied a comprehensive financial plan. Attaining the marks was simply part of their marketing strategy. I thought the work the board was doing for me (us) was an attempt to eliminate that element among us. So, if we want financial planning to be perceived as a respected profession what should we do? What should the board do?

[B Smith]

One would think the CFP Board, of all organizations, would know some basic math. I think they're assuming a $9million windfall based on every CFP certificant keeping the designation and paying up. I am sure that many will decided that the designation is not worth the increased fee,


Some time ago, the Board surveyed all CFP certificants regarding whether we felt that generating increased awareness of the CFP designation was important. I'm sure we all agreed that it was important. However, what the Board conveniently left out was whether we wanted to pay for this marketing out of our pockets. I think if the survey asked us whether we wanted to increase public awareness and marketing by raising our fees 80%, the results would have been quite different.

And you probably weren't aware in their minds that meant they could lobby congress to increase awareness for their desired legislative goals.

[B Smith]

It is excessive. First, they say the need to "raise public awareness" for the designation. In order to do so, they need to raise fees 80%. So they post some garbage survey and say 94% support it, therefore we need to do it, and we need to raise fees to fund it. So, 94% support the raise in fees. Wrong. Not a good survey. So, if you do a survey and actually connect the dots, much different conculsions will be drawn. Ask the holders if they support a campaign (the content or delivery over which they have no control) of 9Million funded by their 80% increase, the results will be much lower than the 94%. I would argue it would yield less than 20%.


I have been a cfp(R) for 6 years, and feel it takes a backseat and always will to the other designations, CFA, and CPA most notably. Why, because there is no clear career path or scores of jobs for CFP(r)'s. As a CFA, you can be an analyst, PM, or most any other job in finance at all of the investment or commercial banks, VC firms etc. As a CPA, you can be a controller, work at a big 4, or open your own shop. The bottom line is as a CFP(r), you can only open your own shop. Sure, there are jobs at Vanguard and Fidelity and RIA's but they are a much smaller slice than the CFA or CPA.



Until there is a campaign that puts 20 fresh prospects in front of my door, as a direct result of the efforts of the CFP(r) board, I will not have much interest.

Great point. The CPA/PFS and CFA have gained ground on the CFP for sure. Competitvely, firms I meet with and see ads for would definately select one of the other designations all things being equal for a prospect.

[B Smith]

I'm thinking of putting together my own coalition, if anyone's interested in not only defeating this latest proposal, but also learning more about the inherent problems we all faces as Certificants and why we should not be supporting the actions of the Financial Planning coalition, please drop a line to my drop box: hummerman@live.com You'll have to tell me who you are and why you're interested and I will be checking you out, so no spies from the dark side please.

This would be a great time for a group that focused on the support of financial planning. No need to seperate ranks based on how one charges.

BTW - whatever happened to that group of 6 people that made a commotion about promoting the fiduciary agenda? Haven't heard a thing from them since their press release they had formed.

[Community Manager]

Wow! This is clearly a hot-button issue - I'd love to put together a follow up story on this (and CLEARLY the feeling all of you have on the subject.)


I don't typically do this -



but if you'd like to chat further about this - give me (Matt Ackermann) a call at 212-803-8415.



I'd love to run some of these comments, but quoting Advisor234 doesn't bear the weight of quoting Rob Smith of Bethesda, Md. (if you know what I mean)



If you'd prefer, you can also email me at [url=mailto:matt.ackermann@sourcemedia.com]matt.ackermann@sourcemedia.com[/url] with your contact information



Thanks so much!



Matt.

[JWood]

Please tell me again what exactly the CFP Board does for CFP practitioners? And what is it the the Board is doing to improve CFP education (that so desperately needs to be done)? Sure don't need the "advertising." It seems like the Board has decided it wants to be a regulatory agency of some sort - what for? Does that benefit CFPs? And why would we want to advertise by the same agency that handles McDonald's - the quintessential indicator that volume of advertising is inversely related to the quality of the product? Is it just becoming more obvious that the Board is being run by a group of ego-centric hacks?

[Denise2]

I have been a CFP practitioner since 2000. I worked hard to get this designation. I can honestly state that if I didn't have those little letters after my name, it wouldn't matter one bit. So I will seriously consider dropping the designation if the board decides to follow through. My clients work with me and refer people to me because they TRUST ME! Not because my name ends with CFP. Unfortunately, if you take a look at all of the advisors who have been arrested and/or sanctioned in the last couple of years, a lot are CFP's. Being a CFP doesn't make you automatically more trust worthy, and an $8 million dollar ad campaign isn't going to change that.

[DWBennett]

A fee hike of this amount is absolutely outrageous!! For a public awareness campaign?? We could all spend that money far far more effectively on a personal marketing program. It's just like a tax .... we all spend more money for the common good. I don't buy it and no disrespect or offense to any of my fellow licensees but I'm not interested in the slightest to pay my own money to benefit other licensees across the country, new and experienced.


I don't need or want your marketing campaign. I need and want the Code and the Standards and the Disciplinary Rules. This is NOT a membership marketing organization and if you're going to spend my money on marketing then I want a say so.



A fee hike of this magnitude for this purpose being rammed down our throats when we have zero say so in the matter is highly disturbing! 80%???!!! This should not be tolerated or accepted by anyone!



Furthermore, I suspect that for many people this would be a barrier to entry to our profession or to maintaining the marks. How will THAT serve the public? Who gave the Board the right to make such a radical decision as this??? This is a BAD idea and it is WRONG. If I were on the Board of Directors, I would vote against this with a passion!!!!!

[Michael E. Kitces]

Amazing to see such an active dialogue about this.

I've posted some of my own thoughts on the proposed change on my blog at http://www.kitces.com/blog/index.php?/archives/45-CFP-Designation-Public-Awareness-At-What-Cost.html.

It looks like I'm far more upbeat about the proposed change than most people here. I didn't realize so many people view the marks as an educational process but not something worth having the public be aware of!

[Michael E. Kitces]

I don't need or want your marketing campaign. I need and want the Code and the Standards and the Disciplinary Rules. This is NOT a membership marketing organization and if you're going to spend my money on marketing then I want a say so.

Not trying to pick a fight, but I'm just asking: What's the point of a Code and Standards and Disciplinary Rules if the public isn't aware that they exist?

[Tad Borek]

A sad note to Paradise


the CFP(r) is not a professional designation. Financial Planning is not a recognized profession. The CFP(r) is simply your agreement to use the marks within the proscribed limitations. I think that Dunkin has the same deal with its donut makers.

That's the rub, right? I was thinking Ace Hardware because that's a brand that a local hardware store can adopt, and get the benefits of Ace's buying power, marketing, etc.

The CFP Board is overseeing a brand name that can be used in financial planning businesses. As a certification mark, that brand comes with some standards and a licensee gets some minor recognition of that in the licensing process - e.g. when registering as an investment adviser.

But it isn't a license and until it is, it lacks relevance for a lot of people (both professionals and consumers). So if the Board is going to push for more marketing of the relevance and importance of the CFP brand, they'd better also push to be more relevant, which requires lobbying.

Interesting contrast to the bar here in CA, where dues are higher but those dues fund the disciplinary system (mostly), which is in theory pro-consumer rather than promoting the profession. The bar isn't a trade association that runs ads about lawyers, it has oversight of the actual license to practice law. We get to check off a box asking that none of our bar dues be used for lobbying, and I check that box every year. If I were a CFP licensee, I'd probably check off a box asking that most of my dues be used for lobbying. What better marketing would there be than this becoming the required license to practice "financial planning"? It'll never happen but I'm skeptical of what good their marketing alone will do.

Also: at http://www.guidestar.org you can pull up their 990 - they're a nonprofit after all. Why are they sitting on so much cash? Is the dues increase due to a perception that those large investment losses last year have put them in financial bind (even though it seems to just have reversed gains from prior years) And isn't it interesting to see big investment losses and high volatility in the assets of an organization whose mission is ostensibly responsible personal finance?

-Tad

(investment adviser & atty, not a CFP licensee)

[Bradly T.]

Michael - The point is being missed by you evidently. The Board has had 25 years to make the public "aware" and to their credit (or actually PRIOR Board's credit) much HAS been done to elevate the marks to multiple industries - lawyers, accountants, bankers, brokers, trustees, etc. are respectful and even seek out credential and accredited practitioners - but NOT the public. Yes, we know, as there are more of us and we network through local media and events (thank you FPA), there is SOME improvement of public awareness.


But the points are: they don't need more money for better spending and budgeting priorities. They are now attempting to give away the profession of planning to the investment industry and DC clowns and further increase the costs for practice, erasing all differentiation that planning inherently enjoys, now to become a mere element of the investing profession. This is an ABOMINATION!!!!! The point is the Board is out of touch and not representative of its certificants and we have no say or influence in their priorities, salaries, bonuses, etc. The point is that many planners with the ChFC, CLU, PFS, and CPA are NOT represented by the so-called coalition and the Board is trying take-over the profession without due representation of the totality or even majority of professional practitioners.



THIS SHOULD BE NEWS!!!! AND BE INVESTIGATED AND REPORTED. However, the Board appears to have the industry's media and journalists in their pocket on this one. I doubt you folks tackle this one. But I appreciate an open forum for true practitioners to discuss it even if the media won't. You needn't hide in your blog - the discussion is right here! :)

[Michael E. Kitces]

Michael - The point is being missed by you evidently. The Board has had 25 years to make the public "aware" and to their credit (or actually PRIOR Board's credit) much HAS been done to elevate the marks to multiple industries - lawyers, accountants, bankers, brokers, trustees, etc. are respectful and even seek out credential and accredited practitioners - but NOT the public. Yes, we know, as there are more of us and we network through local media and events (thank you FPA), there is SOME improvement of public awareness.

Indeed, a lot of CFP visibility has come from the FPA and NAPFA over the years, not the CFP Board. But I don't think that's actually a good thing, and from the CFP Board's perspective seems a strange way to try to achieve visibility for the marks.

But the points are: they don't need more money for better spending and budgeting priorities. They are now attempting to give away the profession of planning to the investment industry and DC clowns and further increase the costs for practice, erasing all differentiation that planning inherently enjoys, now to become a mere element of the investing profession. This is an ABOMINATION!!!!! The point is the Board is out of touch and not representative of its certificants and we have no say or influence in their priorities, salaries, bonuses, etc. The point is that many planners with the ChFC, CLU, PFS, and CPA are NOT represented by the so-called coalition and the Board is trying take-over the profession without due representation of the totality or even majority of professional practitioners.

With all due respect, much of this appears to be your interpretation of unstated CFP Board assumed motives, not anything they have publicly stated as such. Granted, I don't think that means we have to (or should) only take an organization at face value for what it says publicly and ignore what else is going on, but I just don't see the same outcomes to the Coalition's initiative. Their stated objectives revolve around more oversight of financial planning as financial planning, including the client-centric role that they believe advice plays. I don't see that as "erasing all differentiation that planning inherently enjoys" - to the contrary, I see it as largely undifferentiated in the eyes of the public, who don't particularly understand the difference at all between a "financial advisor," "financial consultant," "financial planner," and "CFP certificant." If the CFP Board efforts can help to clarify the differences between those who have made a competency and ethical commitment to providing advice from those who have not, it would seem to be a long-term positive for financial planning in my eyes.

[Michael E. Kitces]

You needn't hide in your blog - the discussion is right here! :)

Bradly,
I wasn't trying to. I had posted my own blog comments before I became aware of this active forum discussion thread from my Twitter feed. :)

[Jim P.]

If I tried to raise my fees 80% I think most, if not all, of my clients would fire me and hire someone else. Likewise, we can "fire" the current Board and "hire" people with a more reasonable approach to fairly representing its members. Since there has been no increase in the fee for five years it is reasonable for there to be some increase, but 80% is absurd, especially during these challening economic times. We need to elect representatives who are not empire-builders with an alternative agenda. Let's put together a board that will vow not to increase fees by more than 20% and get them elected!

[cliff4]

This public awareness/advertising program may have value, but putting $9.0 million on an initiative that may or may not produce results seems extreme. Does the CFP Board need financial planning advise? Is this the only option? What happens after the campaign ends? Do our fees decline back to current levels? Can this be done through a multi-year special assessment? The CFR Board needs a wake-up call. It's time for a clear explanation of how the existing fees are employed before any additional fees are authorized. Without our fees the CFP Board is broke. Which tale is wagging this dog!

[ConsumerAdvocate]

This public awareness/advertising program may have value, but putting $9.0 million on an initiative that may or may not produce results seems extreme. Does the CFP Board need financial planning advise? Is this the only option? What happens after the campaign ends? Do our fees decline back to current levels? Can this be done through a multi-year special assessment? The CFR Board needs a wake-up call. It's time for a clear explanation of how the existing fees are employed before any additional fees are authorized. Without our fees the CFP Board is broke. Which tale is wagging this dog!

Cliff



I hate to be the one to tell you but you are the tail.

[Bradly T.]

MK - You don't think the Coalition's attempt to have planning regulated and registered with the SEC (now transferred evidently to an SRO - FINRA) is contrary to the establishment and recognition of a separate profession?? You believe they represent all or even most stake holders and practitioners in their very public and romantic daliance with Dodd/Frank about issues of no true concern to financial planners? Planners who are also registered DO have a stake in the fiduciary harmonization effort - but planning as a profession does NOT sir, unless it were simply to support the harmonization effort as in clients' interest. But there is MUCH more to this effort than that - they are trying to piggyback onto and insert themselves into an effort for their own agenda - influence and control - but which is and should remain outside and exclusive from this investment industry issue. Investing is a small (not insignificant, but small) and singular element to a planner's work. The Coalition is very effectively convincing Congress AND the public that planning is an ingredient to investing. The ABOMINATION AND BETRAYAL !! So I ask again - you support the effort for SEC oversight of financial planners and our profession?? And the pretense and falsehood that this is related to the fiduciary harmonization initiative of Dodd/Frank's RegReform bill?


Your initial post contained a very sly and transparent attempt to ignore the topic of this discussion by asking - why would anyone be against public relations and industry marketing? Your surprise and approach are not becoming of one who has an important voice and platform for critical thought and persuasion. Marketing has zero to do with this discussion. And while you may disagree with my opinion sir, it is NOT my opinion that the Coalition is way short on practitioner representation or they are publicly seeking Federal registration and oversight of planners by the SEC. Why shouldn't doctors, lawyers, engineers, and CPAs also be regulated by the SEC - they have about as much in common with RIA and BDs as the planning profession SHOULD have.

[Bradly T.]

Why not request additional funding - with a specific target budget - for a new initiative? Either voluntary or mandatory but limited and specific? Why not support an effort by the FPA for such a "drive"? Why not actually develop a campaign with a marketing firm and published prototypes to demonstrate the project and pay for that from existing funds to promote such an effort?


The point has been made but let me emphasize that dues and fees required of the Board, the FPA, the estate councils, the SEC and FINRA, the states, the appointment costs, my BD's fees and haircuts, CEs, ad naseum, add up to THOUSANDS of dollars every year - a measureable and significant per centage of gross revenues (and that's for ONE professional).



This most recent blatant and misguided misadventure by the Board only alienates those the Board should be focused on helping and serving - practitioners and their clients - not the elitists ON The Board. The Board needs to deliver more and show more sensitivity and receptivity prior to such an outrageous scheme. I am very heartened by the passion of every poster, regardless of agreement or not. Silence is complicity.

[IdaPlanner]

If nothing else, can we all agree that the 94% of us who approved this spend didn't actually do any such thing? Does anyone have a copy of the survey in question? I tried to get back into it, but it won't let me because I've already taken it. I'd love to see the exact questions as they were stated there and know what 94% of people approved. It's pretty clear from this small 70 comment representation that <50% approve when the cost increase is also considered (probably more like 94% disapprove).

[B Smith]

Your initial post contained a very sly and transparent attempt to ignore the topic of this discussion by asking - why would anyone be against public relations and industry marketing?

I don't know about the tone but will point out - I do feel the same way when people ask 'why would anyone be against' something, and I did get that feeling from the post... but I'm generally skeptical too of bureaucracies. That's never an appropriate question because no one is against it, and that's not the point. But that statement is the excuse every good intentioned bureaucrat to pass what they want, despite their constituencies feelings.

Second, I would ask Michael to review the thread given the comment in his post that the CFP Board is more open, and specifically mentioning the member questionaire. I see several people that feel the questions were posed in a similar fashion - with an intention that was absolutely not clear, but has become clear that was not the answer they would have given had they known how it would be used. It feels like professional pollsters that know exactly how to get the result they want, despite voters feelings.

Of course people answer they want the marks advertised. It's a different question though when we know exactly what that means to those that asked it. Like other posters I have a information from the board saying exactly what question they felt gave authority. I don't read it the same way. Have no doubt they will say the same 'why would anyone be against this', and 'look! they're not based on the questions we asked!'

They should provide an accounting and specific ideas in their questions if that is the flimsy support they use to advance unpopular opinions. And perhaps we should know more about the goals of prospective candidates specifically prior to voting them in.

[Michael E. Kitces]

MK - You don't think the Coalition's attempt to have planning regulated and registered with the SEC (now transferred evidently to an SRO - FINRA) is contrary to the establishment and recognition of a separate profession?? You believe they represent all or even most stake holders and practitioners in their very public and romantic daliance with Dodd/Frank about issues of no true concern to financial planners? Planners who are also registered DO have a stake in the fiduciary harmonization effort - but planning as a profession does NOT sir, unless it were simply to support the harmonization effort as in clients' interest. But there is MUCH more to this effort than that - they are trying to piggyback onto and insert themselves into an effort for their own agenda - influence and control - but which is and should remain outside and exclusive from this investment industry issue. Investing is a small (not insignificant, but small) and singular element to a planner's work. The Coalition is very effectively convincing Congress AND the public that planning is an ingredient to investing. The ABOMINATION AND BETRAYAL !! So I ask again - you support the effort for SEC oversight of financial planners and our profession?? And the pretense and falsehood that this is related to the fiduciary harmonization initiative of Dodd/Frank's RegReform bill?


Your initial post contained a very sly and transparent attempt to ignore the topic of this discussion by asking - why would anyone be against public relations and industry marketing? Your surprise and approach are not becoming of one who has an important voice and platform for critical thought and persuasion. Marketing has zero to do with this discussion. And while you may disagree with my opinion sir, it is NOT my opinion that the Coalition is way short on practitioner representation or they are publicly seeking Federal registration and oversight of planners by the SEC. Why shouldn't doctors, lawyers, engineers, and CPAs also be regulated by the SEC - they have about as much in common with RIA and BDs as the planning profession SHOULD have.

Bradly,
Thanks for the comments and feedback on this.

I will agree without hesitation that - in the "long run" - I think the regulation of financial planning deserves its own regulatory structure of some sort, not merely as a segment of the SEC given its investment and securities focus. And as memory serves, the early efforts of the Coalition were in fact in that direction - until it was effectively made clear to them that lobbying towards a stand-alone regulatory structure for financial planners was dead-on-arrival in today's legislative environment. Which quickly leads to the next question - do we stay advocating for a platform of change that will not feasible be enacted, or do we compromise towards something? It seems clear that the Coalition opted for the compromise path - with all the negatives that compromise entails relative to the original goal - but I'm not necessarily convinced that it was a bad decision. I suppose there were other choices, but they don't seem appealing. The Coalition could have stayed in its original position, and kept it to the bitter end, accomplishing no actual change. They could have gone a different direction and tried to establish an additional regulatory body (a new SRO?) to oversee financial planners, but we as planners have been clear that we are already too regulated by different and overlapping organizations, and the feedback from our own community seemed to suggest that just adding another layer - even if it was a standalone and genuine financial planning oversight body - would not have been an improvement if it just added ON TOP of existing state and Federal regulatory bodies.

So from that framework, I don't think the path the Coalition pursued has been unreasonable. Is it ideal? Nope. There's not a lot that excites me about seeing financial planning regulated by FINRA or the SEC. But it does excite me to think that maybe, finally, there will be SOME oversight of those who hold themselves out to give professional advice that they should, in fact, be accountable for that advice and some standards for how it is delivered.

I'm not thrilled that the way business gets done in Washington is that you insert yourself as best you can into legislation that is going through Congress, and try to get a few nods in your direction for your own agenda, but the reality seems to be that that is how change of any sort occurs in Washington right now. The Coalition didn't set those rules; they played the game as it was dealt to them. And although, again, I don't find the outcome to necessarily be ideal, I think in the long run we will have the opportunity to explain why financial planning regulation should be "spun off" from some other regulatory group in the future, which seems to be a much more viable path to standalone regulation for financial planning than lobbying for a standalone Federal regulatory body that apparently just isn't going to happen right now.

[Michael E. Kitces]

Why not request additional funding - with a specific target budget - for a new initiative? Either voluntary or mandatory but limited and specific? Why not support an effort by the FPA for such a "drive"? Why not actually develop a campaign with a marketing firm and published prototypes to demonstrate the project and pay for that from existing funds to promote such an effort?


The point has been made but let me emphasize that dues and fees required of the Board, the FPA, the estate councils, the SEC and FINRA, the states, the appointment costs, my BD's fees and haircuts, CEs, ad naseum, add up to THOUSANDS of dollars every year - a measureable and significant per centage of gross revenues (and that's for ONE professional).



This most recent blatant and misguided misadventure by the Board only alienates those the Board should be focused on helping and serving - practitioners and their clients - not the elitists ON The Board. The Board needs to deliver more and show more sensitivity and receptivity prior to such an outrageous scheme. I am very heartened by the passion of every poster, regardless of agreement or not. Silence is complicity.

Bradly,
For what it's worth, I do think you have a good point about whether, if this is a "special marketing initiative", whether the dues structure that's being tied to it could be premised as a "special assessment" or in some manner temporary, rather than a "permanent" change in dues for what may or may not be a permanent change in public awareness spending. At the least, it bears clarifying with the CFP Board whether they really consider this to be a sustaining initiative.

Also, it's worth noting that this STILL hasn't actually been passed by the CFP Board. It comes before the Board of Directors next month. Simply put, as Bradly notes, silence is complicity, but from the other side - there IS still time to voice your concerns. Frankly, I think it's pretty notable that unlike a lot of major initiatives and changes in the past, at least this time the CFP Board announced this - publicly - BEFORE the Board adopted it!

[Bradly T.]

MK - Appreciate and enjoy your perspective HOWEVER the insertion strategy you describe is both cowardly and consequential. What is done is damn difficult to undo. Our profession deserves its OWN legislative consideration and singular preponderance. The result of the Coalition's effort is abandonment of their primary obligation - the creation of a PROFESSION!!!! We will never be a profession if they succeed. And I disagree with your sympathy of their true goal and motives. They are consolidating power and influence to specifically exclude the accounting and insurance industries' legitimate participation in the formation of a well defined and recognized PROFESSION. It is an ABOMINATION - and not worthy of either sympathy or support. The point is neither the Board nor the Coalition represent their constituency and do not care to....they clearly have their own agendas and have a low opinion of practitioners and our profession or at least, they have a low opinion of our opinion. Words mean little compared to actions. But both carry consequences.

[Wilsoncpa]

I am a new member of this organization, so I do not have any history to compare against. But I have been a CPA for nearly 30 years and belong to the AICPA. In those 30 years the dues have increased from 190 up to 205 per year. For those dues we receive legislative updates and lobbying efforts, public awareness campaigns, publications, training plus all the rest of the amenities that would go with membership in some professional organization. I am not directly opposed to paying greater dues, per se, as long as there are demonstrated benefits associated with the increase in fees. However, I am surprised that the CFP board believes that the dues need to increase to this degree given what the AICPA can do for less amounts.

[LTG]

I'm ok with a fee hike if the board starts to actually do a good job getting the message out and offering more marketing materials for members to use.

[DWBennett]

I don't need or want your marketing campaign. I need and want the Code and the Standards and the Disciplinary Rules. This is NOT a membership marketing organization and if you're going to spend my money on marketing then I want a say so.

Not trying to pick a fight, but I'm just asking: What's the point of a Code and Standards and Disciplinary Rules if the public isn't aware that they exist?

Hi Michael,

You make a valid point, however the public is aware that CFPs exist and when they meet one it's encumbent on the CFP to tell them what the marks mean. There are marketing brochures available from the Board that further explain these issues and many 3rd party articles in the media for years have been endorsing CFPs and discussing their function.

Naturally marketing is good for business but if I'm spending money on marketing then I want to choose how it is applied most effectively for my personal business's benefit. Public awareness only does so much good anyway. People might initially interview with a CFP because of the marks, but the ultimate decision is always based on personality, credibility, trust and rapport/chemistry and those items are not at all affected by a marketing initiative.

[Michael E. Kitces]

MK - Appreciate and enjoy your perspective HOWEVER the insertion strategy you describe is both cowardly and consequential. What is done is damn difficult to undo. Our profession deserves its OWN legislative consideration and singular preponderance. The result of the Coalition's effort is abandonment of their primary obligation - the creation of a PROFESSION!!!! We will never be a profession if they succeed. And I disagree with your sympathy of their true goal and motives. They are consolidating power and influence to specifically exclude the accounting and insurance industries' legitimate participation in the formation of a well defined and recognized PROFESSION. It is an ABOMINATION - and not worthy of either sympathy or support. The point is neither the Board nor the Coalition represent their constituency and do not care to....they clearly have their own agendas and have a low opinion of practitioners and our profession or at least, they have a low opinion of our opinion. Words mean little compared to actions. But both carry consequences.

Bradly,
Obviously, we'll have to agree to disagree that we will never succeed in the creation of a profession if their efforts in the current regulatory direction are a success. Perhaps it's just that I find "never" is a strong word, but more generally I don't think the theory is unreasonable - that maybe we need SOME regulatory recognition at all before we can take the next step to make the case we need our OWN regulation (especially since, in asking for our own regulation, we will presumably ask other regulatory bodies to back off so we don't have to answer to too many masters at once).

It's also worth noting that, at least from my own admittedly limited understanding, the Coalition was not dismissive of other organizations like the insurance industry. Instead, my impression is that those organizations were not willing to embrace the Coalition's goals as expressed in their statement of understanding - particularly with respect to its central incorporation of fiduciary standards. Now I suppose we could debate about whether the Coalition's statement itself embodied the "right" goals or were too exclusionary by nature, but my impression is that other organizations excused themselves from the Coalition's stated goals. In fact, I seem to recall seeing a few press releases from other organizations in the weeks leading up to the legislation that specifically took issue with the Coalition and its goals.

In any event, in the context of the original discussion... perhaps we'll agree to disagree on some of the points here, but I will agree with you that much of what you ask - an even clearer public explanation of how such a substantial dues increase will be used, and why, and sustained (or not) in what way - is a very reasonable thing to ask of the organization.

[Michael E. Kitces]

I don't need or want your marketing campaign. I need and want the Code and the Standards and the Disciplinary Rules. This is NOT a membership marketing organization and if you're going to spend my money on marketing then I want a say so.

Not trying to pick a fight, but I'm just asking: What's the point of a Code and Standards and Disciplinary Rules if the public isn't aware that they exist?

Hi Michael,

You make a valid point, however the public is aware that CFPs exist and when they meet one it's encumbent on the CFP to tell them what the marks mean. There are marketing brochures available from the Board that further explain these issues and many 3rd party articles in the media for years have been endorsing CFPs and discussing their function.

Naturally marketing is good for business but if I'm spending money on marketing then I want to choose how it is applied most effectively for my personal business's benefit. Public awareness only does so much good anyway. People might initially interview with a CFP because of the marks, but the ultimate decision is always based on personality, credibility, trust and rapport/chemistry and those items are not at all affected by a marketing initiative.

DWBennett,
Indeed, there is some public recognition of the CFP marks, but I think it's unfortunate that that awareness is generally a result of the efforts of FPA and NAPFA, and not the CFP Board itself. Again, to me, this focus by the CFP Board at least roots the public awareness campaign back where it belongs.

On the other hand, when I look at other professions... it is not a necessity for the doctor to explain why it's important to be an MD, or the lawyer to explain why it's important to have passed the bar exam. Granted, that is primarily because those standards have been incorporated into the law itself, so the public knows what to expect (and if you hold yourself out to be those professions when you are not, you are breaking the law!). But at some point in its history, I'm pretty certain the medical profession had to take a step beyond just having "all the good doctors explain how they were different than snake oil salesman" and actually promote, as an organization and to the public, how real doctors are different and better and embody a public good.

I don't view the CFP Board's initiative about "marketing" per se - and maybe that's a bad label to use at all - I view it as public awareness around the emergence of a profession, and a set of standards that help the public understand who is committed to professional standards.

[Michael E. Kitces]

As a follow-up, interesting comment in my blog post from someone who was at the CFP Board announcement at FPA Denver and head the "more complete" explanation.

Sounds like there's a bit more the CFP Board could do to communicate to all of us what this individual heard at the meeting. Hopefully that communication is forthcoming.

See comment #4: http://www.kitces.com/blog/index.php?/archives/45-CFP-Designation-Public-Awareness-At-What-Cost.html

- Michael

[mawebb]

All CFP certificants should check out the CFP Board of Standards website and look at their form 990 non-profit IRS filing. It is eye opening how much the employees get paid! Salaries and benefits were $5,317,651 in 2008. The grant program gave out $1.1 million in that same year. The CEO's total pay package was over $400k. Now they want to raise our fees by 80%? For more advertising? Hmmm, maybe we should be paying more attention!

[Bob H]

I have a suggestion....

They have $25 mil in the bank. The new ads will cost $6 mil.

The Board spends the money they already collected from me and does the ads. Then.. and IF they show results, come back to me and ask for more.

My thought is this... Are they becoming the Gov't? Once the increase the fees, if they drop the ads will they drop the fees?

Me thinks not.

Bob

[tbell0001]

I think that a broad-based national advertising campaign is a good idea. However, an 80% increase in fees is a hefty price to pay for exposure. I think than an increase on the order of 25 to 30% is more palatable, especially since I work in a credit union where the average member probablay does not fit the target audience as defined in the proposal.

[B Smith]

If nothing else, can we all agree that the 94% of us who approved this spend didn't actually do any such thing? Does anyone have a copy of the survey in question? I tried to get back into it, but it won't let me because I've already taken it. I'd love to see the exact questions as they were stated there and know what 94% of people approved. It's pretty clear from this small 70 comment representation that <50% approve when the cost increase is also considered (probably more like 94% disapprove).

Elephant in the room... if we all disassociate ourselves from the issue, can anyone for an increase explain to myself and Ida why the statistic of 94% is used to justify narrow-ended goals. You can't statistically get 94% of people to agree the sky is blue. I'm sorry supporters don't want to address the issue here that many of the 94% feel their answers were used for purposes they wouldn't have supported. I feel so strongly that 94% is really a silly number to say stand for anything that the supporters really need to get a statustics professor to convince me otherwise. I guarantee 94% of CFP(r) certificants can't tell you who the CEO of the CFP Board is. Those ignoring this are missing the fact that there is a valid opinion that isn't simply accusing the Board of misinterpreting a number. It's really a hugely silly misinterpretation.



Dinosaur in the room is Bob H's comments. Why not show results with the bankroll you have before doing something else. I'm unimpressed with how they've spent the money marketing so far; I think what I see on the website elevates 1 or 2 selected certificant holders and the rest is a waste of money. I can name 10 sites in 10 seconds that educate consumers better. And the CFP emails basically just link to those sites anyway.

[Cutler]

Being in my first year of business as an independent financial planner, it is a struggle to survive with all of the required fees and regulations. The increased fees the CFP is considering would hurt me tremendously. Please reconsider other ways of obtaining increased income.


Thank you for your consideration.



S. Trezise

[FX]

A Board of Inquiry should be created to investigate the expenditures of the CFP Board since its move to Washington, D.C. Some of the transition staff spent months in hotels in Denver and D.C. yet but forbid the newly hired staff in D.C., for example, to phone the outgoing Denver staff to learn our jobs. As a result we forced to conduct “discovery learning” as the transition staff never provided any guidance other than providing poor documentation on how to follow procedures that they usually did not comprehend. Frustration was the order of the day. It seemed the upper management was always conducting offsite meetings or was just AWOL. Some of my staff had their integrity tested to not enforce established standards and I am proud that many of them elected to vote with their feet after I left. On my way out I was ordered to write a false statement, which I refused. I have never seen such poor management, disregard of stewardship, and lack of leadership. I offer this as a retired Marine colonel who is now working with a federal agency, which by the way, has a polygraph test as a hiring requirement.

[Shags]

That last post, if true, explains the Confused Fubar Pococurante Board of Standards...

[Community Manager]

Such an incredible discussion - I am planning to do a follow up story where we pose some of your questions to the leadership at the CFP Board. The group wants to be forthcoming and open about its plan. Let me know (either through an email, a phone call or a question on here) specific things that we should ask these guys.


Thanks



Matt Ackermann

[Count Beans]

You’ve got to be kidding me! I’ve been a CFP since 1993 and have never felt that it held any real value for me except for a few extra letters after my name that were meaningless to most. I challenged the CFP exam after only one day of studying without ever taking a singe CFP course and passed it with no problem. I could have NEVER done that to earn my CPA license. I used to tutor colleagues as they studied for their CFP course exams and felt that the material was ridiculously simple. The CFP is little more than a marketing instrument to give the public the impression of professionalism. My CPA license is an actual license regulated by the state, not a “license to use a mark” issued by a self-regulated industry group made up of a bunch of product pushers trying pose as professionals. I dropped my PFS credential (issued by the AICPA) because I thought the fees were too high relative to the value, and I will drop the CFP if this fee increase goes through. I have no problem marketing on my experience (over 24 years) and other credentials. I have never relied on the CFP board or used any of their materials anyway. By the looks of the other posts I am not alone.

[SD-FP]

How many CFP's realize that "CFP" is owned by Apollo Group? (APOL)

My question is how much of the proposed increased fee would go to Apollo's coffers? - I've been a CFP over 20 years and would seriously consider dropping the designation... I'm not so sure it makes any difference to my clients, current or prospective ones.

Unfortunately, most professional designations are just money making organizations that somehow got not for profit status at some time.

[Gary Kieffner]

As a CFP professional who, like many others, spent a few thousand dollars to get the credentials by passing the CFP Exam, I support the board on the promotion of the marks. Most of the other CFP's I work with in buiding and pushing for raising our profession to the level that the accountants and attorneys currently enjoy, support initiatives to do just that. The only way you do that is from recognition by both Washington D.C. inside the beltway and the public at large. DC, because of the CFP board and the FPA and the other members of the coalition, has a much better view of the profession than it did 3 years ago. The public does not. The PR initiative by the board is a must and I would encourage everyone to think about how they feel about their profession gaining ground as opposed to just whether or not they feel it adds to individual marketing to clients. Why anyone would say they would drop the marks over spending money to promote the marks is beyond comprehension unless they just dont value the marks in the first place. If that's the case, drop the marks. But befor you do, you may want to look at the massive effort by the CFP board and a community of interest inside the FPA to build the profession by education in undergraduate, graduate and doctorate programs. The professional vision is there and I for one will support it, push it and promote it. What will you do?

[ConsumerAdvocate]

The only way you do that is from recognition by both Washington D.C. inside the beltway and the public at large





Gary.... I am having a hard time coming up with one profession that is regulated at the federal level and not by each state. Doctors, Lawyers, CPAs and PEs are all professions that are state run.



I am glad that you are so sure that the "only way" to do this is from recogniton in DC which will probably have quite a different makeup next Jan.

[newbie2]

In this economic environment? That fee takes my breath away. As a student, I may go ahead and get the knowledge and pass the exam but I can't pay those fees. Aggressive plans like theirs are for another time and another day but not now.

[cskcfp]

I could understand a smaller increase, but why so high at 80%???? Probably why I don't work in financial planning any longer, the fees for CFP, broker/dealer, FINRA, and insurance were all together very high. I continue to be active in insurance sales, however, and would like to retain my credential. I'm already semi-retired. Why isn't there a category for those of us who want to retain our professional designation which we've worked hard to get and keep with a fee commensurate with retirement income?? I would be willing to pay something, but it's already too high for me when I fully retire. I guess the CFP Board doesn't want us as members any longer unless we are full time practitioners!!!!

[Gary Kieffner]

The only way you do that is from recognition by both Washington D.C. inside the beltway and the public at large





Gary.... I am having a hard time coming up with one profession that is regulated at the federal level and not by each state. Doctors, Lawyers, CPAs and PEs are all professions that are state run.



I am glad that you are so sure that the "only way" to do this is from recogniton in DC which will probably have quite a different makeup next Jan.

Great point! Ironicly, that change may keep anything from changing in DC. So, the PR still matters from a public recognition standpoint. The state model may work but states all have insurance commisioners who dont want to see some of the things we are talking about as a planning profession and thus would fight to preserve the lock they have. Plus, I dont see the Feds giving up control to the states on anything.

[ConsumerAdvocate]

The state model may work but states all have insurance commisioners who dont want to see some of the things we are talking about as a planning profession and thus would fight to preserve the lock they have.


I think it is inappropriate to indicate that the State Insurance Commissioners do not have the best interest of their citizenry in mind. Insurance is a complex world and as a planner you see a mere glimpse and usually it is about commissions.



If anything, considering the CFPBOS endorsement of its certificants not obtaining all required insurance licenses I think that perhaps the state insurance commissioners would be justified in preserving their turf.

[Bradly T.]

Just wanted to add my voice of support for the credential and the profession. Unlike some who have posted (like Mr. Beans), I did not find the pre-work or the test easy or shallow but very challenging and comprehensive (I admit my IQ may be woefully below Beans). I did notice however many admins, secretary types, etc. who seemed to be trying for the marks on behalf of an employer - how that works I don't know - but I also noticed they were in over their heads and several were on their third or fourth attempt. But I don't understand why the College doesn't promote additional, graduate level CE to promote specialization and professional expertise like The American College does for all CLU and ChFC graduates.


And while Mr. Kitces claims that the Coalition tried to engage other practitioner organizations into the Coalition, I disagree completely, especially based on 25 years of history. They may have requested support for the harmonized fiduciary standard and they may have done the same related to turning over our profession to the SEC. But they did NOT and have NOT tried an inclusive process of creating and growing and managing a PROFESSION!! The Board has been and remains CRAZY proprietary and in colusion with the securities industry in a possesive and obsesive near-paranoia of control and manipulation of this emerging and still only potential profession (it is a professional discipline but it is not yet a true profession). Planning has roots just as deeply in the insurance and accounting professions, perhaps even deeper and for longer, than in the securities industry.



This love fest the Board has long held with securities and its ongoing cageyness with the other 2 legs of this 3 legged stool has delayed the formation of a true and unified profession. They were more interested in turf and cash flow than cooperation....and now they're in DC of all places! To believe that this attempted deal with the devil (SEC) is part of a long term plan for the birth of a profession is nonsensical. To believe these federal or SRO agencies will sometime later allow a piece of their turf and cash flow to move away is naive. If our beloved profession (or rather, professional discipline) is as important and vital as we believe, then why try to insert our issues into this massive banking and securities bill? It can only be because we are NOT important enough for our own legislative consideration or it is because this is a ploy - on practitioners (of all stripes - not just CFPs) and on Congress.



The Board has already established their fiduciary care standard and they could revise it to conform to any legislated standard they wish. And they could express a friendly opinion about brokers and advisors due dilligence and fiduciary standing. And they could do so WITHOUT surrendering planning to the securities industry and the SEC - who will NEVER give up this turf once gained. If you think association dues are high, wait until additional registration fees are added and new inspections and audits become required!! No, this latest misadventure is clearly an attempt to exclude other stake holders rather than do the hard work of inclusion and compromise to unite all planners under a singular professional umbrella (read power grab) and to pander to their greatest source of certificants and dues - brokers and advisors. (This smells so much like 1994-96, I can't believe anyone is immune to the stench).



The Board has abdicated. Perhaps we should all consider not paying our FPA dues either - no harm to us - until they decide it is in their best interest to represent their members and take up the real work of establishing a PROFESSION and get out of the footsie bed with the Board - just who DOES represent this obvious majority??!! The CFP Board wants to market the marks in lieu of creating a PROFESSION - they want to market the discipline so long it is delivered by their dues paying members exclusive of others who may even have greater expertise in the discipline. Sorry but this mess stinks to me. I love being a CFP, it gives me a great sense of accomplishment and it symbolizes my commitment to a valuable discipline which delivers important value to my clients. I also really enjoy the many planners I have met over the decades - much more so than mere brokers, agents, or advisors. I feel special and believe them to be as well. But I fear the Board is killing what many tens of thousands have worked so hard for so long to create. And it is not just their judgement in question....it is their motives and their ethics I find revolting.

[the observer]

Since this is a bulletin Board for financial service professionals and not the CFP Board's Board...

could you please all stop using this annoying term CFP® "Practitioner". There is no such thing as a practitioner any more, even though the Board clutches to it madly.

If you don't believe me, go to: www.uspto.gov

type in the term and you'll see the Board abandoned the practitioner service mark a long time ago when they abandoned a number of other damaging service marks like the CFP lite.