Leading Lights of the Profession Slam CFP Board Proposals

Current and former leaders of Board and planner groups confirm opposition

More On Legal & Compliance

from The Advisor's Professional Library
  • Regulatory Oversight of Investment Advisors Although the regulatory environment is in a state of flux, it is imperative that RIAs adhere to their compliance obligations. To ensure compliance, RIAs and IARs must fully understand what those obligations are.
  • Dealings With Qualified Clients and Accredited Investors Depending upon an RIAs business model and investment strategies, it may be important to identify “qualified clients” and “accredited investors.”  The Dodd-Frank Act authorized the SEC to change which clients are defined by those terms.

A host of the leaders of the financial planning profession--past and present--have signed a letter addressed to the CFP Board of Standards expressing their opposition to the Board's proposed changes to its Code of Ethics as "so potentially detrimental to the mark, the profession and the public interest, that it is imperative we emphasize our collective concern." The letter, over the names of such luminaries as Harold Evensky, Elissa Buie, Ben Coombs, Jim Barnash, and Roy Diliberto, notes that many of the individuals have already expressed their individual concerns about the proposed changes, first floated in July, to the Board. Mincing no words, the letter goes on to say "we believe that the effective elimination of many practice stand requirements, the weakening of others and the proposed weak "prudent person" fiduciary standard, coupled with an unacceptable "opt out" provision, is not in the interest of consumers and devalues the economic significance of the CFP mark."

The Financial Planning Association had voiced its official opposition to the changes on September 25 in a letter from current FPA President Dan Moisand (also a signatory to the October 11 letter) to Barton Francis, chair of the CFP Board. The FPA said the proposed revisions "fail to enhance consumer protections or advance the profession of financial planning." It called for the proposals to be "withdrawn, redeveloped with a more inclusive process, and resubmitted to the public and certificants for further comment."

The Board closed its comment period on the proposed changes on September 25, and said it would consider the hundreds of comments it received at its October Board of Governors meeting.

Reprints Discuss this story
This is where the comments go.