Why Did the CFP Board Hire Camarda Litigator as General Counsel?
The departure from the CFP Board of Michael Shaw and the hiring of Leo Rydzewski as the Board's first general counsel sends some dispiriting messages.
Top 3 Advisor Challenges for 2015: Advisor FinTech, Regulation, Differentiation
Post-robo technology arises, a surprise new regulatory issue comes to the fore and fat-and-happy advisory firms faces the crisis of differentiation.
Compensation Disclosures ‘Taylor-Made’ for Conflicts
In a case strikingly similar to the one that spawned the widely covered lawsuit by Florida financial planners Jeff and Kim Camarda, the CFP Board notified a Los Angeles advisor that it had opened an investigation into his use of the term “fee-only” to describe his RIA.
Have the CFP Board’s Recent Punishments Fit the Crimes?
First, do no harm. Was harm done in the cases of Ron Rhoades, “fee-only” wirehouse brokers and the Camardas?
Has the CFP Board Overplayed Its Hand With the Camardas?
Even if the Board wins its suit, what will be the long-term cost in the hearts and minds of other CFPs?
CFP Board to Investigate CFPs for Inaccurate Comp Disclosure
Chair Ferrara says Board will compare public information with Board website listings to identify inconsistencies, starting with CFPs who call themselves "fee only."
Brian Hamburger: Stakes Are High for CFP Board in Camardas’ Lawsuit
The attorney and founder of MarketCounsel says lawsuit is an "accountability test" for the CFP Board.
The Vindication of History: Harold Evensky and CFP Lite
The CFP Lite designation promoted by Evensky 15 years ago could have raised the stature of professional CFPs, not to mention helping end clients.
Camardas 1: CFP Board 0. Where Does the Board Go From Here?
A U.S. judge's procedural ruling casts doubt on the CFP Board's strategy over Fee-Only Gate. Fortunately, there's a way out for the Board.
Jeff and Kim Camarda Talk About Their Suit Against the CFP Board
A conversation with the plaintiffs provides a new perspective on the ongoing "fee-only" issue and raises new questions about the Board’s handling of the case.