- Thread starter
- #21
- 11,304
Have you checked out the MRFC? It is accredited by the NCCA ! Also listed as one of the eight Accredited Designations on the FINRA web site!
@HARVEY BAILEY
Mr. H. Stephen Bailey - Chairman & CEO of IARFC:
Yes, I have. And the MRFC credential is one seriously worth pursuing. I may take the exam by the end of the year.
I have been a critic of the revised requirements for the RFC and RFA credential. (I've even been banished from the IARFC facebook page for quoting Solomon Huebner when others tried to create an "ALU" designation as a "CLU-lite" equivalent.)
The problem is that letters after your name have traditionally MEANT something - some kind of additional education above and beyond licensing requirements. The IARFC has "gutted" these by merely requiring either life insurance licensing or securities licensing.
How can I be affiliated with an organization/association that is willing to compromise what designations mean to the public?
The RFC USED to mean something. I remember the article over 10 years ago when it was announced that RFC was "approved in Nebraska". There was a lot of questions about the validity of various designations, and the RFC (at the time) passed the test (compared to the ALSO accredited CSA designation).
Now let's think about it: have the regulators changed their positioning? No.
Is the CSA designation approved? It's an accredited designation on FINRA's site... but the State of California has BANNED it.
Senior Designations
Here's the irony: The CSA requires FAR more coursework than the RFC designation does today... but the CSA is banned, and the RFC is approved.
The RFC and RFA designations cannot say that you have had any additional training or coursework... but the marketing brochures IMPLY exactly that.
IARFC Consumer Marketing Brochure, A103
The IARFC has a cognitive dissonance problem: Are you in the business of credentialing everyone who pays a fee? Or do you have a higher standard? Where is the higher standard on your "lower standard" designations?
As recently as April, 2018, the IARFC lowered it's requirements (again) for the RFA/RFC CE requirements as well as the experience requirement for the designation itself. The CE used to be 40 hours every year (easy to do), and now it's 30 every two years; and the experience requirement was 4 years... reduced to 3.
IARFC Revises CE Requirement for Financial Designations
I KNOW the IARFC wants to grow. The IARFC needs to grow and it's worth growing. The problem is in HOW to grow. The MRFC is a welcome addition... but it came at the EXPENSE of the criteria of your other (once distinguished) designations. You've watered them down... and for what? To attract more members at a lower level?
My proposal: You need to have SOME kind of requirement in order to obtain the RFC/RFA designations. Make it something that the applicant chooses: Perhaps a sales training course for their particular niche. Some way that shows that they have invested in themselves in order to better serve their clients. Maybe even completing ONE course of an advanced certification - such as CFP, CLU, or even LUTCF/FSCP. It doesn't have to be "planning" related, but it can be related to final expense agents, annuity agents, or even medicare supplement agents. Some kind of additional training and investing in themselves would go further for the credibility and validity of the RFC/RFA credentials. (Heck, for RFA - just be recommended by an existing RFC member - perhaps who are in an MDRT mentorship relationship?)
These are my thoughts for you.
Last edited: