Only the CFP Board treats their own members as criminals or incompetent

[DHK]

CFP Board's New Disclosure And Documentation Requirements

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
One of the fundamental challenges that professionals face when providing recommendations to consumers is that the recipient may struggle to fully understand the ramifications of their decision about whether or not to accept and follow the recommendation in the first place. After all, professionals tend to be engaged with respect to matters that are especially complex or challenging – such that the average person cannot make the decision quickly or effectively on their own, and must rely on the services of a professional. Yet, in a world where consumers still must give their consent to pursue recommendations that may have adverse outcomes, it’s hard to be certain the consumer really understands enough to give their “informed” consent in complex matters in the first place. Accordingly, various professions have evolved over time the framework of what it takes to ensure a consumer is giving “informed consent” – to act on a recommendation made by the professional with full awareness of the potential risks that it may entail.

And in its latest update to its Standards of Conduct, the CFP Board will now require that CFP professionals obtain informed consent with respect to any recommendations they make to clients that may entail a Material Conflict of Interest, to be certain that the Client truly understands the prospective conflict before deciding whether to engage the CFP professional. In practice, this will entail not only providing upfront information about the CFP professional’s services and compensation (which may be delivered orally for Financial Advice engagements but must be written for Financial Planning engagements) but also disclosures of the CFP professional’s Material Conflicts of Interest (which may be oral or written), and obtaining the Client’s informed consent (by any means desired, though clearly for professional liability protection, CFP professionals will likely want to document this in writing!).

Just stop the CFP overreach. This is madness. Go get a ChFC or an MRFC and quit being babysat by the CFP BOS. This is getting ridiculous.

 

[marindependent]

@DHK - interested, not challenging - Why

is getting ridiculous

?

 

[DHK]

The CFP marks are a mark of education, experience, ethics, examination above those who are just licensed. It shows that they have gone above and beyond just licensing requirements to do business.

But more and more, as I follow how the CFP regulates their voluntary members (remember that CFP isn't required anywhere) and how they require far more in their practice standards... and if you DON'T uphold them, you can be held liable for it.

I've seen their practice standards manual. It's 2" thick.

My ChFC designation? I have a 2 page PDF about how to properly use their trademarked materials. In essence, as long as I do my CE and pay my annual renewal fees, The American College leaves me alone. Of course, they don't aspire to be an SRO.

It's just a power grab by the CFP board and they're trying to prove that they can regulate "financial planning". And their ranks keep growing.

I think that REAL regulators (state DOI, state securities regulators, SEC, and a lesser extent FINRA) should just keep doing what they're doing. They can ARREST you. CFP and FINRA cannot. They can fine you. They can ban you. They can revoke your rights to use their "marks", but that's about it.

It's just getting stupidly ridiculous for a voluntary SRO and I wouldn't have any part in it and would encourage others not to either.

Get ChFC or MRFC if you want an accredited planning designation. ChFC is also a Series 65 exempt designation just like CFP is.