CFP Board

[scottstreet]

Re: CFP Board is Out of Control

I don't disagree on the PR release issue.

 

[WMG]

Re: CFP Board is Out of Control

Perhaps.

Here's the problem as demonstrated with the article: The CFP board is reacting to information found via FINRA and/or state regulators. They are late to the game. They aren't the 1st regulator to the scene. In fact, they are a voluntary regulator. All of these actions came from FINRA and regulated by them first. (That case from September 2000 is a prime example of being reactive, versus proactive.)

CFP board just copies what FINRA does. That's not regulation, but duplication... and then makes it all PUBLIC (as though they are being proactive or something).

FINRA doesn't (I believe) send out a press release every time they ban someone from the financial services industry, yet the CFP board does with their "regulatory decisions".

If there's a need for further regulation, the CFP board isn't it.

I get that, and based upon their role, they are supposed to react. That's where the questions start -- to what extent, how, etc. They may be a voluntary regulator as to the industry, but they are not voluntary as to their role and membership via governance over their own organization. They do as they seem fit, over their membership -- and they have that right.

As far as what it "seems" like they are doing -- if perception becomes a reality, then that is on the the person who is perceiving. The industry can do something about it. I recently told someone, if you don't like the party, don't go. If you don't like the club, don't join, and so on and so on. You can't have it both ways in this case.

I don't like or agree with everything they do, and I voice that opinion, as often as I can, have the opportunity to do so, etc. However, remember the old poem..."and then they came" -- there's something to be learned there, and the lessons might be harsh.

----------

Perhaps.

Here's the problem as demonstrated with the article: The CFP board is reacting to information found via FINRA and/or state regulators. They are late to the game. They aren't the 1st regulator to the scene. In fact, they are a voluntary regulator. All of these actions came from FINRA and regulated by them first. (That case from September 2000 is a prime example of being reactive, versus proactive.)

CFP board just copies what FINRA does. That's not regulation, but duplication... and then makes it all PUBLIC (as though they are being proactive or something).

FINRA doesn't (I believe) send out a press release every time they ban someone from the financial services industry, yet the CFP board does with their "regulatory decisions".

If there's a need for further regulation, the CFP board isn't it.

And, while I may not have been clear -- I agree with you. Thanks.

----------

Thanks for the advice you're swell. Keep up the "accurate" posts.

----------

David , we disagree about the CFP and that's fine. However, a couple of points.

I. the discipline for Joseph brown had nothing to do with the 2001 settlement while he was with Paine Weber. It is in reaction to a review started last may ('14) of stated forms of compensation. he put "fee only" they disagreed. He did not respond within 20 days.

II. The CFP Board is only "regulating" the use of it's designation. This is completely normal behavior. Just like this site, Sam's house, Sam's rules. No different as i see it.

II.The CFP doesn't "just copy what Finra does". Completely different. FINRA does not require a fiduciary standard. They do piggyback on FINRA for SEC violations. However, they are simply "regulating" their own Voluntary membership.

I think FINRA publicizes disciplinary actions or else this guy is just unbelievably plugged in: https://www.canisuemyadvisor.com/investment-fraud-blog/

I. Okay.

II. True.

III. True - they are regulating their voluntary membership.

FINRA does publish their rulings, yes. Bill Singer posts a blog on this stuff too with his own commentary about how stupid the broker was, or how crazy FINRA regulation has become. But FINRA doesn't send out a press release to the industry regarding individual ruling decisions saying "Hey, look at us! This is what we're doing!" (They will send out new regulatory rules that may be BASED on a previous case, but that's different.)

However, with CFP rulings, these things don't impact one's career as a true regulator would - such as FINRA, SEC, or state DOI. It's only within CFP rules and the right to "use the marks".

So, what does a CFP press release accomplish? Nothing, except self-promotion of themselves... and further embarrassment of those who ALREADY went through their disciplinary issues with real regulators, such as FINRA (in these cases).

I don't see it as effective for the public. It's only a soapbox for the CFPBOS to say "See? We do it too".

Excellent points. Thank you to both of you.

 

[DHK]

CFP board is at it again.

CFP Board Imposes Public Discipline

Check out this one:

Edward A. Rusowicz, CFP® (Irvine): In November 2016, CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (Commission) accepted an offer of settlement wherein Mr. Rusowicz received a Public Letter of Admonition. In the offer of settlement, Mr. Rusowicz consented to CFP Board’s findings that he was convicted of Alcohol Related Reckless Driving in 2003 and Driving Under the Influence twice in 2015. CFP Board determined that Mr. Rusowicz’s conduct violated Rule 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(A) and 3(C) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures. Accordingly, the Commission admonished Mr. Rusowicz with regard to the above-mentioned conduct.

[...]

Scott A. Larsen, CFP® (Kenosha): In February 2017, CFP Board’s Disciplinary and Ethics Commission accepted an offer of settlement wherein Mr. Larsen received a Public Letter of Admonition. In the offer of settlement, Mr. Larsen consented to CFP Board’s findings that he drove the wrong way on the highway after consuming alcohol. Mr. Larsen pleaded no contest and was convicted of Recklessly Endangering Safety, a Class G felony. CFP Board determined that Mr. Larsen’s conduct violated Rule 6.5 of CFP Board’s Rules of Conduct and provided grounds for discipline pursuant to Articles 3(A) and 3(C) of CFP Board’s Disciplinary Rules and Procedures. Accordingly, the Commission admonished Mr. Larsen with regard to the above-mentioned conduct.

Look, I get it that reckless driving under the influence can be a felony (I would guess - but I don't drink). But the CFP board "accepting an offer of settlement" so you can keep using their marks... is just a power grab.

Either he's licensed to do business in the lines of insurance &/or securities in their state... or he's not. Having to pay a settlement to the CFP board when clearly this has nothing to do with how he conducts business... is asinine.

 

[pfg1]

CFP board is at it again.

CFP Board Imposes Public Discipline

Check out this one:



Look, I get it that reckless driving under the influence can be a felony (I would guess - but I don't drink). But the CFP board "accepting an offer of settlement" so you can keep using their marks... is just a power grab.

Either he's licensed to do business in the lines of insurance &/or securities in their state... or he's not. Having to pay a settlement to the CFP board when clearly this has nothing to do with how he conducts business... is asinine.

Agree....that is crazy.

 

[Justin Bilyj]

Can anyone tell me what the compliance differences are for CFP, CFA, IAR, and CHFC who want to market themselves?

 

[DHK]

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking.

Here are the trademark standards for The American College:
http://www2.theamericancollege.edu/assets/pdfs/chfc-clu-trademark-standards.pdf

I'm certain that CFP and CFA will have something similar.

IAR or RIA is not a designation, but a registration with the state/SEC as an investment advisor representative. It shouldn't be letters after one's name, but some people do this and shouldn't. I distinctly remember that from my Series 66 course.

 

[scagnt83]

Look, I get it that reckless driving under the influence can be a felony (I would guess - but I don't drink). But the CFP board "accepting an offer of settlement" so you can keep using their marks... is just a power grab.

Either he's licensed to do business in the lines of insurance &/or securities in their state... or he's not. Having to pay a settlement to the CFP board when clearly this has nothing to do with how he conducts business... is asinine.

To play devils advocate on this one... your state insurance dept can impose fines for "violations of moral turpitude", which includes all kinds of felonies AND misdemeanors. Why shouldnt the CFP Board regulate their members in a similar fashion as a state or federal agency?

 

[DHK]

Yes, they can and they do.

Since the CFP board considers the CFP to be a 'license' of sorts, I think that's their rationale for regulating their voluntary members in this way.

Yet, one can still do business the same way (assuming insurance and securities licenses are not affected) WITHOUT being a CFP, so there really isn't much 'teeth' to this except that you get to pay fees or give up being a CFP.

 

[VolAgent]

To play devils advocate on this one... your state insurance dept can impose fines for "violations of moral turpitude", which includes all kinds of felonies AND misdemeanors. Why shouldnt the CFP Board regulate their members in a similar fashion as a state or federal agency?

Have you read rule 6.5?

6.5 A certificant shall not engage in conduct which reflects adversely on his or her integrity or fitness as a certificant, upon the CFP® marks, or upon the profession.

That is extremely broad.

As a state body, there are rules and definitions when it comes to licensing and the regulating body. Is there such with the CFP?

What if you publicly stated you did not like gay marriage or that you did like gay marriage? Either one could be interpreted as conduct which reflects adversely upon the profession.

Now, one of the examples given is a felony and I assume the other was as well? So certainly more cut and dried. I can definitely see censure for these acts, the question is how broad do they reach?

 

[Justin Bilyj]

Into the bedroom...