As financial planning continues its march towards being a recognized profession, a fundamental tenet is that it must hold itself to a fiduciary standard - just as is required of every other profession that functions in the public's interest in a position of expert trust. Five years ago, the CFP Board took that step with its adoption of a fiduciary standard for CFP certificants who deliver financial planning, declaring that doing financial planning (or even just material elements of financial planning) would trigger the standard. Nonetheless, by attaching the fiduciary standard to doing financial planning, the CFP Board's standard also implies that there are situations where a CFP certificant may not be subject to the fiduciary standard - and this "loophole" has recently come under heavy criticism. Although in practice the loophole may be a fairly narrow one - how common is it really for someone to spend years and thousands of dollars to study and obtain a CFP certification only to not deliver any actual financial planning whatsoever? - it nonetheless raise the question: is it time for the CFP Board to take the next step forward, and advance the fiduciary standard from applying when one is DOING financial planning, and instead simply attach it to BEING a Certified Financial Planning professional in the first place?
In recent years, it has become increasingly popular for many financial advisors to call themselves "wealth managers" to differentiate themselves, just as a decade or two ago it was popular to use the term "financial advisor" to differentiate from the stockbrokers and insurance agents.
Yet a recent job task analysis study from IMCA has sought to better define what "wealth management" really means - and their conclusions imply that it is far more than just a fancy label for advice, and instead constitutes unique job tasks and specialized knowledge and skills different from financial planning and designed to serve a unique type of client: those with at least $5 million of net worth.
If it gains momentum, the implications of the IMCA study are significant, as it implies that some advisors are using a label that is not actually an accurate description of the knowledge they have and services they provide, and that those who really do wish to work in this area may need to get further training and education. While that is arguably a conflicted perspective for IMCA, as their Certified Private Wealth Advisor (CPWA) certification is intended to target this exact space, it nonetheless remains a valid point: if the job tasks, knowledge, and skills of wealth management really are different than financial planning, then people should use labels that describe what they really know, do, and deliver to clients, and should be educated accordingly.
A longstanding challenge of financial planning has been the fact that its value is usually defined in intangible terms (e.g., "bringing peace of mind") or at least over time horizons too long to effectively evaluate (e.g., "helping people achieve their long-term goals"). Yet arguably, the value of financial planning could be better quantified, by trying to measure how much economically better off clients are by engaging in financial planning strategies than what they would have otherwise done.
And in a recent research paper entitled "Alpha, Beta, and Now... Gamma" David Blanchett and Paul Kaplan of Morningstar have attempted to do exactly this - evaluating how the financial outcomes of retirees are improved by engaging in five financial planning strategies, from more effective asset allocation to dynamic withdrawal rate spending approaches to proper asset location decisions.
Quantifying the difference between the baseline and financial-planning-optimal strategies as "Gamma", Blanchett and Kaplan find that good financial planning decisions increase retirement income by 29%, which is the equivalent of generating 1.82%/year of higher returns. Although there are some important caveats to the research, the new Morningstar paper may open the door to a wave of new research attempting to measure the "Gamma" of good financial planning.
The financial planning community was recently stunned by the unexpected announcement that Alan Goldfarb, chairman of the Board of Directors for the CFP Board, along with two unnamed members of the CFP Board's Disciplinary and Ethics Commission (DEC), had resigned amidst allegations that they had violated CFP Board's Standards of Professional Conduct. Critics of the CFP Board were quick to step forward and use the announcement as a moment of weakness and an opportunity to bash the organization. Nonetheless, it's still notable in a sign of strength that the CFP Board does have an enforcement process, and isn't afraid to use it - even to the point of ousting its own board chair and some DEC members.
In the long run, though, whether this proves to be a sign of strength or weakness for the CFP Board depends upon the transparency it uses in resolving the matter. While light on the details right now - it is, after all, an ongoing investigation - the real question is how much the CFP Board ultimately discloses about what the allegations were, the process of the investigation, the outcomes of that process, and how the matter was adjudicated - along with whatever steps it intends to take to ensure the problems, whatever they were, don't happen again. We can't ask for or expect any answers yet, but we can ask for and expect a commitment, now, for transparency at the end of the process to maintain the integrity of the organization.
After years of wavering, the Financial Planning Association has recently re-focused itself back to specifically supporting financial planners who pursue the CFP certification and advocating for the CFP to be recognized as the one true designation, recalling back the famous "One Profession, One Designation" refrain first uttered by financial planning luminary P. Kemp Fain nearly 25 years ago. Yet the reality is that while the CFP certification has advanced significantly since Fain's first comments in 1987, so too have many "competing" designations, some of which represent very high quality advanced educational content, albeit often in narrow and focused specialties under the financial planning umbrella. Nonetheless, many "bogus" designations have also proliferated over the years, contributing significantly to consumer confusion. As a result, while there is still virtue to having the CFP certification as a minimum baseline designation to cut out the other bogus designations, there needs to be room for the advanced specializations that have begun to emerge as well. Which means perhaps it's time for the FPA to extend Fain's famous speech one step further, from "One Profession, One Designation" to "One Profession, One [Minimum] Designation" - where the CFP certification serves as a minimum baseline for anyone who wishes to become a financial planner, but beyond which a growing number of "post-CFP" educational programs can flourish to support the emerging fields of financial planner specialization.Read More...
Five years ago, Kevin Keller became the CEO of the CFP Board, and at a unique and challenging time for the organization. The CFP Board had just announced its decision to relocate to Washington DC, which was likely to turn over most of the staff (at least, those who were left, as prior CEO Sarah Teslik had just slashed the headcount of the organization by nearly 40% in the preceding few years). Beyond staffing issues, the organization seemed to be in turmoil, with one leadership blunder after another, and Keller himself was entering as the 7th permanent or interim CEO to fill the role with the CFP Board in as many years.
Given that Keller was essentially an "outsider" at the time - experienced in leadership at another organization, but with no particular background or connection to the financial planning world - it was not clear how would he (re-)shape the CFP Board as he took over, with the rare opportunity, and danger, of re-staffing the entire organization from the ground up. Would it be the fresh start the CFP Board needed, or would the outsider unfamiliar with the challenges of the industry and the organization blunder?
Looking back over the past 5 years of the CFP Board, the conclusion seems clear now - although the CFP Board's central role in the financial planning profession continues to make its decisions controversial from time to time, the reality is that the organization under Keller's leadership appears to be entirely reinvented, and in a very positive direction. Although there are definitely some challenges that remain, this isn't your father's CFP Board anymore.
It was August 24th. I had just awakened early in the morning in Sydney, my final day there after serving as a keynote speaker for the Australia Portfolio Construction Forum, and I was looking through my morning email – which was actually the prior afternoon’s August 23rd email at home in Washington DC, given the 14-hour time zone difference. Earlier in the week, I had caught the surprise announcement from the FPA that CEO Marv Tuttle was stepping down, to be succeeded by then-current FPA COO and Associate Executive Director Lauren Schadle, and read with interest Schadle’s comments that FPA would be stepping up its focus on those financial planners who are serious enough about their craft to seek out the CFP certification.
What caught my eye that morning, however, was an unexpected response to Schadle’s comments from American College President and CEO Dr. Larry Barton. The College, through which I have proudly earned 6 professional designations, including the CFP itself, is one into which I had invested a lot of time, money, and effort, both during my studies, and in the years thereafter as I have continued to promote its advanced educational programs and even recently taken part in providing content for their latest RICP designation.
Yet after reading Barton’s response, I felt for the first time a true embarrassment in being an alumni of the American College of Financial Services, and shame in being a holder of what was once its defining credential, the CLU designation.
As regulatory reform for financial services moves along slowly here in the US, half way around the world in Australia a new set of regulatory reforms entitled the "Future of Financial Advice" are now being implemented. The changes will include a ban on all investment commissions, and a fiduciary duty for those giving financial advice, not unlike similar reforms scheduled in the UK under their Retail Distribution Review (RDR) set to take effect in 2013. Notably, though, while Australian reforms may have leapfrogged past the US, the Australian marketplace looks more like the US did nearly 20 years ago, as approximately 80% of advisors work under a small number of dealer groups and there are almost no independent firms. With Australian firms required to adopt fee-only models, including AUM, retainer, and hourly, within a year, the evolution of business models in the US may provide a glimpse to what is coming for Australia. Yet while the US offers Australia a glimpse of fee-only business models, Australia may provide US a first glimpse at how financial services shifts in a fiduciary, fee-only environment - providing a live, real world environment to evaluate questions like whether the less affluent marketplace really is served effectively without commissions, and whether there's still a place for broker-dealers in a fiduciary world.Read More...
With the first major changes to the continuing education requirements for CFP professionals in nearly two decades, the CFP Board has proposed that in the future up to 10% of the CE requirement could be satisfied with content on practice management. Distinct from education on trust and communication, the proposal would allow for CFP CE for practice management topics tied to the business of operating a financial planning practice.
While many have long requested CE credit for practice management content, though, it seems that allowing practice management CE strays away from the fundamental purpose of continuing education, and risks creating a double-standard for technical competence between financial planners that work in a practice, and financial planners who own a practice.
Perhaps that means the better solution is to improve the practice management tools, resources, and content that are available in the first place, so that practice management can simply be its own reward, and justify its own ROI, for those who choose to own and operate a financial planning business?Read More...
For the first time in almost 20 years, the CFP Board has proposed a broad range of changes to the CE requirements that apply to all CFP certificants. The new rules would include an increase in the total number of CE credits required from 30 hours every 2 years up to 40 hours, an increase in the required Ethics education from 2 hours to 4 hours (but half of those hours can be earned from general ethics content, not only "ethics" content on the CFP Board's own Standards of Professional Conduct), and the opportunity to earn up to 4 hours of CE credit from pro bono services and/or practice management content. The changes under consideration address virtually every area for which the CFP Board has been criticized in recent years, although some areas - notably, CE credit for practice management - will be debated more actively than others. At this point, the proposed changes are only a proposal - and open for comment - but unless significant objections arise, it seems likely that these new requirements could be in place as soon as next year!
