The Leading Business Education Network for Doctors, Financial Advisors and Health Industry Consultants

Our Recent Experience with CFP® Mark Utility

17 Responses

1. Ann Miller RN, on October 14, 2009 at 9:40 PM said:

   Dr. Jesse B. Arman
   Vice President, Academic Affairs
   College for Financial Planning

   Thank you for your recent phone contact and civility. We would be pleased to address your concerns if sent to us in writing so we can post them for our readers and subscribers. Accuracy and transparency is a laudable goal.

   Corrections and Complaints:
   https://healthcarefinancials.wordpress.com/2009/10/07/me-p-complaints-corrections/

   Best.
   Ann Miller; RN, MHA
   [Executive Director]

   LikeLike
2. Jones, on November 7, 2009 at 1:38 AM said:

   A CFP® mark holder

   I am a CFP® mark holder [is “certificant” actually a word in the English language?] and have been in the planning business for twenty years. But, I am relatively new to this blog and may have missed something. Nevertheless, Dr. Marcinko and Dr. Basu are correct about the CFP® marks.

   The CFP® trade mark is voluntary and the CFP BoS has no power or authority to fine or censor an errant planner or to permanently remove an inept or dishonest one from the field. And, so-called “professional regulation” by means of trademark and intellectual property law is unique, yet pretty much meaningless to this non-professional sales field.

   Academics like Dr. Basu, and pundits like the logical Dr. Marcinko, provide a valuable reflection that we as a community should fully consider. Their opinions do not sound like condemnations of the marks, or CFP Board, at all to me.

   Rather, consider their observations as “opportunities” to improve. And, as the Wall Street collapse in 2009 demonstrates, there is so very much room for same in the retail financial product and services sales sector.

   The CFP® mark is just plain marketing hype; pure and simple. We know it, and the public knows it. Stop pretending otherwise.

   Jones

   LikeLike
3. Geoff, on November 7, 2009 at 2:31 PM said:

   To Jones,
   Well said; eloquent in fact. I agree completely and am no longer a CFP® by choice.
   Geoff

   LikeLike
4. Hank, on November 9, 2009 at 2:34 PM said:

   Geoff,

   Did you know that jurisdiction for consumer financial products is scattered over an array of federal agencies, none of which concentrates primarily on consumers and all of which delegate it to a backwater area of regulatory responsibility.

   As this group of consumer law professors put it:

   “Our review of the regulatory approaches at the existing agencies, whose jurisdiction includes but does not focus on consumer financial products, leads us to conclude that on balance they place a higher value on protecting the interest of financial product vendors who promote complex debt instruments using aggressive sales practices, than they do on protecting the interests of consumers in transparent, safe, and fair financial products.”

   http://law.hofstra.edu/NewsAndEvents/PressReleases/pressreleases_20090928_consumer.html

   I agree; don’t you?
   Hank

   LikeLike
5. Monty, on November 18, 2009 at 12:30 AM said:

   An FA

   I have read with amusement about FAs on other blogs and websites who brag about how they studied 100-200 hours for the “tough” CFP® examination. Yet, the CFP® required only a HS diploma until 2007, or so! What’s up with that?

   In “Outliers”, a non-fiction book written by Malcolm Gladwell, the author examines the factors for high levels of success. Throughout the publication, Gladwell repeatedly mentions the “10,000-Hour Rule”, claiming that the key to success in any field is, to a large extent, a matter of studying/practicing a specific task for a total of around 10,000 hours.

   FAs, CFP®s and stock-brokers are experts … yeah, sure!

   Montgomery

   LikeLike
6. Ben, on December 4, 2009 at 12:52 PM said:

   More on Malcolm Gladwell,

   According to Gladwell, there are three types of people:

   Connectors — people who know a lot of people.

   Mavens — people who know know a great deal about one area of general interest and can easily distill and communicate what is new.

   Salesmen — people who can get others to “buy into” an idea.

   So FAs, “consultants” and CFP®s etc, must fall into the later category; holding a trade [federally registered] mark, but no unique corpus of knowledge.

   Bentley

   LikeLike
7. Charles, on April 16, 2010 at 10:02 AM said:

   Ben,

   Agreed, and unfortunately regarding the growing senior population, the financial services industry has many confusing titles and designations that leave elderly consumers potentially vulnerable to incompetent or fraudulent advice.

   Since seniors control trillions of dollars, they are the primary target of financial representatives using some of these misleading senior titles or designations.

   http://www.fpanj.org/associations/2123/enews/?nbr=132

   Charles

   LikeLike
8. Ted, on April 12, 2011 at 10:22 PM said:

   The FPA

   The Financial Planning Association suffered a 15% loss in membership over the past five years while other professional membership organizations for financial advisors have grown rapidly

   http://www.fa-mag.com/component/content/article/7097.html?issue=167&magazineID=1&Itemid=73

   Now, I know why?

   Ted

   LikeLike
9. Sharon, on November 30, 2011 at 3:48 PM said:

   CFP Board warns certified financial planners about declaring bankruptcy

   Filing for protection from creditors could come back to haunt planners; sanctions, revoking of CFP® mark possible.

   Did you know that over the last year, the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards Inc. noticed a sharp increase in the number of bankruptcy cases that come before its Disciplinary and Ethics Commission?

   The numbers tell the tale: In 2010, bankruptcy cases accounted for 20 of the CFP Board’s 103 disciplinary hearings [about 20%]. And, the number of bankruptcy cases jumped to 49 in the 134 hearings conducted this year [About 35%].

   http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20111129/FREE/111129894

   So, what gives with these guys and dolls? Should a doctor take their advice? I think NOT, or at least vet them very carefully, and then vet again. Better yet; become financially educated and DIY.

   After all, it’s your medical practice, your life and your money!
   This ME-P will help.

   Sharon

   LikeLike
10. Ann Miller RN MHA, on September 21, 2013 at 7:14 PM said:

    CFP Board Strips ‘Fee-Only’ Listing From Its Website

    Exclusive: Without any notice, ‘fee-only’ is replaced with ‘none provided’ on CFP holders’ profiles.

    http://www.financial-planning.com/news/cfp-board-strips-fee-only-listing-from-its-website-2686690-1.html?

    Ex-CFP Board Official Says Board Punished Her & Ex-Board Chair Amid Lawsuit Fears

    Exclusive: Confusion over compensation disclosure again cited; board insists process is ‘consistent, fair, credible.’

    http://www.financial-planning.com/news/ex-cfp-board-disciplinary-official-says-board-punished-her-2686632-1.html?ET=financialplanning:e14898:86235a:&st=email&utm_source=editorial&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=FP_Weekend__092113

    Draw your own conclusions CFPs; and comment.

    Ann Miller RN MHA
    http://www.CertifiedMedicalPlanner.org

    LikeLike
11. Craig, on September 24, 2013 at 9:39 AM said:

    Early CFP Board Leader Says Future of Certification in Jeopardy

    The CFP Board’s strategy of punishing some certificate holders over compensation disclosure issues in what critics charge is an arbitrary manner threatens the future of the CFP designation, according to one of the early leaders of the board who also chaired its disciplinary commission.

    http://www.financial-planning.com/news/early-cfp-board-leader-says-future-of-certification-in-jeopardy-2686698-1.html?ET=financialplanning:e14903:86235a:&st=email&utm_source=editorial&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=FP_Daily__092313

    Dr. Marcinko – Your experience with the CFP board is sadly; the norm. So, is it time to say bye-bye to the CFP designation and these sales career shills?

    Craig

    LikeLike
12. Gudeon, on September 24, 2013 at 12:30 PM said:

    Craig,

    It seems as though the CFP Board is indeed imploding and along with it their so-called “marks”. Nothing more than a licensee to use a registered trade mark, from insurance agents and commissioned salesman seeking to pretend otherwise.

    So much for fiduciary status; too.
    And, so much for the CFP designation.

    RIP “marks” … now get a real job, board members.

    Gudeon

    LikeLike
13. Craig, on September 24, 2013 at 6:13 PM said:

    Gudeon

    I suspect the CFP-BoS sold out to the big wirehouses, possibly under the threat that the wirehouses would no longer allow their employees to use the license … er-ah registered trade marks.

    Craig

    LikeLike
14. Rosemary, on September 24, 2013 at 11:59 PM said:

    A sad situation

    This is a smear on the Board’s conduct and has truly done nothing to raise the standards of my profession; I am truly saddened by this.

    Perhaps the Board would like to share exactly why all this has transpired so that we call can consider whether or not the risks are worth the marks and the ever increasing fees?

    Rosemary

    LikeLike
15. Susan, on September 25, 2013 at 8:40 PM said:

    Early CFP Board Leader Says Future of Certification in Jeopardy

    The CFP Board’s strategy of punishing some certificate holders over compensation disclosure issues in what critics charge is an arbitrary manner threatens the future of the CFP designation, according to one of the early leaders of the board who also chaired its disciplinary commission.

    http://www.financial-planning.com/news/early-cfp-board-leader-says-future-of-certification-in-jeopardy-2686698-1.html?ET=financialplanning:e14947:86235a:&st=email&utm_source=editorial&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=FP_Daily__092513

    Yippie! Phonies.

    And, add it to the basket of more than 100 worthless designations to those who have little or no education or affinity of their own.

    Susan

    LikeLike
16. Ann Miller RN MHA, on March 27, 2014 at 12:04 PM said:

    Post-CFP™ Subject Matter Expertise
    [On Niches – According to Mike Kitces MSFS, MTAX, CFP®, CLU, ChFC, RHU, REBC, CASL]

    CMP™ (Certified Medical Planner™)

    The CMP™ designation was created by Dr. David Marcinko (who also wrote the “Financial Planning Handbook for Physicians and Advisors”), and is intended for advisors who aim specifically to serve physicians and the medical community.

    Content focuses not only on the insurance and investment issues relevant to physicians, but also provides an understanding of the business of medical practices themselves so advisors can help work with their physician clients to have more successful businesses as well.

    Link: http://www.kitces.com/blog/what-comes-after-cfp-certification-finding-your-niche-or-specialization-with-post-cfp-designations/

    Ann Miller RN MHA

    LikeLike
17. Rick Kahler MS CFP™, on December 1, 2014 at 4:15 PM said:

    Integrity Counts

    Before you engage a financial planner, you want to be sure that person has the skills and integrity to represent your best interests. For years I’ve recommended using fee-only planners who hold the Certified Financial Planner (CFP) designation.

    I’ve held the CFP designation myself since 1983. I don’t sell financial products or receive commissions. I instead offer fee-only services in a fiduciary relationship with clients that requires putting their interests first.

    Yet for the past 15 months, I have been battling with the CFP Board of Standards over my right to describe my practice as “fee-only.”

    According to a policy adopted by the CFP Board several years ago, CFP’s cannot call themselves “fee-only” if they or a “related party” receive any “non-trivial economic benefit” from a financial services company. I assumed this didn’t apply to me until I discovered last year that the Board considered real estate firms to be financial services companies.

    At the time I held a 50% ownership in a family real estate brokerage firm. I wasn’t actively involved in managing the firm and had not sold real estate or received commissions from such sales for a decade. I did receive a $150 monthly salary from the firm and had been paid one dividend in 20 years.

    I notified the CFP Board that I could be in violation of their policy. I inquired into their definitions of “non-trivial economic benefit” and “related party.” I asked whether an irrevocable trust or a relative could own the real estate company if I resigned all my positions with it.

    For the next 10 months I attempted to get the answers to these two questions. I encountered nothing but confusion, contradictions, and broken promises. It slowly became apparent the CFP Board was as unclear about the application of their policy as I was. Yet I was aware that they could begin an action against me at any time.

    I was reluctant to take the drastic step of giving up the CFP designation I had long taken pride in. But I was unwilling to describe myself, inaccurately, as a “fee and commission” planner.

    In an attempt to address the Board’s concerns, I halted my $150 salary from the real estate firm, began the transfer of ownership of the firm to my wife’s trust, resigned all my duties with the firm, and offered to cease referring clients to the real estate firm.

    After many frustrating phone calls, considerable media attention, and a “cease-and-desist” letter, the CFP Board and I eventually came to a solution.

    The Board agreed the actions I had taken would satisfy them that the real estate company is no longer a “related party.” I can keep my CFP designation and continue to call myself a “fee-only” planner.

    I’m glad about the outcome. Yet this experience has left me disillusioned. The CFP website states that CFP professionals are required “to put your interests ahead of their own at all times and to provide their financial planning services as a “fiduciary”. . .” Yet the CFP Board continues to allow CFP’s to sell financial products on commission, as long as no “financial planning” is part of that specific transaction.

    This results in confusion for clients, a high potential for conflict of interest, and a muddying of the ethical standards that the CFP designation is supposed to represent.

    Would I still recommend, to find a fiduciary financial planner, that you look for the CFP designation? Probably, but only as a starting point.

    Before you assume any advisors represent your best interests, look beyond their designations. What matters more is the integrity demonstrated by their actions.

    Rick Kahler MS CFP™
    http://www.KahlerFinancial.com

    LikeLike