Executive Summary
Joining your "professional association" has long been a standard for professionals. Doctors have the American Medical Association. Lawyers have the American Bar Association. Upon completing a profession's educational and licensing requirements, membership associations are a typical next step on the journey of professional development. At least, until the internet and the rise of social media began to substantively change the behavior patterns of professionals to find everything from educational content to community online, leading to a broad-based decline in participation at many professional membership associations. Of which financial planning's own leading membership organization – the Financial Planning Association (FPA) – has experienced its own challenges and waning membership in recent years.
In this guest post, financial advisor (and former Board of Directors member of both the FPA and the CFP Board) Dan Moisand discusses why membership associations are still as important as they ever were, and arguably even more so in the case of financial planning, where our recognized status as a profession is still developing in the eyes of the public, which can require a strong membership association to build credibility.
Notably, in recent years the CFP Board has done much to advance recognition of financial planning as a profession. It requires education on an increasingly comprehensive body of financial planning knowledge, administers a robust comprehensive exam, and has repeatedly lifted its code of ethics and standards of conduct to be increasingly fiduciary in its requirements to serve clients' best interests at all times. While also supporting and better recognizing financial planners who take the time to engage in pro bono financial planning services for those who cannot afford the services.
Yet the reality is that CFP Board's scope is limited, where organizations like the Financial Planning Association can have impact. While CFP Board may be helping to drive the profession, the FPA supports the professional in areas that CFP Board is not well suited, from Continuing Education (through new FPA's Competency Model) to Practice Management (with FPA's professionally-diverse community of advisors) to Advocacy (where FPA can uniquely advocate on behalf of professionals, even sometimes including against the CFP Board).
As Moisand ultimately notes, the FPA does still have work to do, to turn around a nearly 20-year steady decline in membership, and the organization is still in the midst of trying to revamp everything from its MediaSource tools (for consumer media leads) to PlannerSearch (for consumers seeking a financial planner) to its series of four national conferences. Still, while other specialized membership organizations are growing, the unique benefits from advocacy to community amongst a diverse group of business models arguably means those who wish to see the profession advance as a whole should consider belonging to their more specialized membership groups and the FPA.
Over my career, CFP Board has moved the marks from a good educational designation to the mark of the profession, and increased public awareness of CFP certificants. Yet, the financial planning profession is almost invisible to the public, lost within the broader financial services industry. A stronger Financial Planning Association could help elevate the profession.
FPA has been not been as effective in its role as the profession's primary membership organization as many hoped when it was created in 2000 via a merger of the Institute of Certified Financial Planners and the International Association for Financial Planning. In the early days of FPA, there was a lot of enthusiasm for advancing the profession. The debate was about a line between advice and sales, and FPA was unique at the time in taking a strong stand for fiduciary advice.
Over time, as FPAs influence eroded, the enthusiasm for advancing the profession has become harder to see. I find more planners have more enthusiasm for advancing their model or style of practice (e.g., fee-only versus not, AUM fees versus advice-only) than the profession as a whole. There is nothing wrong with that per se, but the narrower focus causes fragmentation and slows the progress of the profession's advancement.
Recent developments have renewed my hope that FPA can be more impactful. I doubt FPA can fully reinvigorate the revolution the early pioneers started, but can speed the evolution the profession needs going forward. CFP Board has helped elevate awareness of the profession tremendously but CFP Board can't or shouldn't do many of the things professionals need done; the biggest opportunity to improve the situation may lay with a bigger, stronger Financial Planning Association (FPA).
I say that not just because I believe the profession deserves a higher stature but because I believe the public is truly missing out on something extremely valuable. The help of a true professional financial planner improves the lives of the families they serve both tangibly, and through a very long list of intangible factors like confidence, clarity, efficiency, and contentment.
The word "profession" is used in varying contexts. When I call financial planning a profession, I mean it in the same sense as the public views medicine or law because financial planning shares many of the same attributes as those other fields.
Financial Planning As A Profession: An Important Purpose
First and foremost, a profession addresses an important societal need. Lawyers work to preserve their clients' rights and receive a fair outcome in disputes. Doctors advise people on their health. Everyone is affected by legal and health matters.
Money too affects everyone, and a society that makes good financial decisions is better off than one that does not. As the late financial planning pioneer Dick Wagner said, "Money skills are 21st century survival skills". The societal need for financial planning is very high, providing strong support to the case that financial planning is a profession.
Professions Have Special Expertise
Our legal, biological and healthcare systems are complex and the stakes are high. Legal clients can lose their freedom. Patients can lose their life. As such, there are barriers to entry into those professions. Doctors and lawyers must prove they have the requisite specialized knowledge to address the issues of those in their care through education, exams, and licensing.
Other professions similarly stand on a bona fide body of knowledge: a set of concepts and terminology. The advice a professional gives is based on evidence, not anecdote. There is more financial planning research being done by more financial planning PhDs than ever before. Financial planning does not have medical school, bar exams or specific licensing by the government, but it does have CFP Board-registered programs and the CFP exam. Financial planning stacks up well here, with licensing being the weakest element. More on that later.
Professions Support Pro Bono Work
Because the subject matter affects everyone, but not everyone is granted the authority to practice or can afford the services of a specialized professional, pro bono work is an important element to being in a profession. Financial planning stands tall here with a growing range of pro bono opportunities for advisors to engage with.
Pro bono financial planning has been going on for decades, promoted most notably by the Foundation for Financial Planning. Founded in 1995, the foundation is the only organization solely devoted to fostering one-on-one pro bono financial planning. Membership organizations like the Financial Planning Association and NAPFA have done wonderful work promoting pro bono work and connecting members to those in need.
In 2023, the CFP Board adopted a formal resolution encouraging all its mark holders to perform at least 20 hours of pro bono work for people in need and underserved communities. The board also encouraged firms to support the pro bono efforts of their staffers.
Further bolstering the value to the public and profession of pro bono work, in January, CFP Board announced changes to its Competency Standards. Beginning next year, candidates may count up to 500 hours of qualified pro bono financial planning toward the 6,000-hour Standard Pathway experience requirement.
Professions Have (Fiduciary) Standards
Doctors and lawyers are held to their respective versions of fiduciary standards. The interests of the people they serve come first. Practitioners have a duty to eliminate conflicts of interest. When that is not possible, they have a duty to not merely disclose the conflict, but must obtain informed consent and manage the conflict in the client's best interest.
In financial planning, this, of course, can be more challenging for planners who receive commissions than it is for fee-only practitioners. But make no mistake, there is no compensation model that avoids all conflicts of interest.
The lack of applicability of a bona fide fiduciary duty in regulations is the weakest area in the "is it a profession" discussion for financial planning, because the government only imposes a fiduciary duty on practitioners in limited situations, primarily the delivery of investment advice.
Unfortunately, while the public desperately needs such high standards for all financial advice, the government has been moving in the opposite direction, allowing the line between advice and sales to become increasingly blurred. For instance, Form CRS, the "Customer Relationship Summary" was supposed to clarify the difference between brokerage and advisory relationships, but all legitimate research I've seen into the matter indicates the document does little more than confuse people.
I don't see this issue improving for the public anytime soon. There is little appetite within the government to draw a bright line between advice and sales and give the public clarity, let alone regulate financial planners as proper professionals.
CFP Board is the only body I see making any effort to have a fiduciary standard applied broadly to all financial advice, but it cannot rescind someone's license to do business as a "financial planner", only controls someone's ability to use its "CERTIFIED Financial Planner" marks. In addition, CFP Board is not a government regulator, and is therefore limited in its ability to detect issues (e.g., it does not have the ability to issue subpoenas or compel discovery). The Board has to rely heavily on filed complaints directly from consumers, or via other regulators, to initiate investigations. Further, as a private certifying body, it cannot fine people, imprison them, order disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, or ban anyone from working in financial services, at the most it can only rescind their use of the CFP marks.
The underlying issues is that while there are significant requirements to become a CFP certificant, there are only minimal regulatory requirements to use the title "financial planner" and they vary by state. In theory, government licensing of financial planners would be a good step for the profession. However, if the competence and ethical standards were not at least at the level of the for today's CFP Professionals, it would not be a good step for the public. The public is better served by higher standards, not lower.
The issue of licensing will not be addressed anytime soon, because alas no governmental body is equipped or even interested in regulating financial planning. Which just makes it all the more important that professionals within financial planning lead the charge themselves to advance recognition of the profession.
Are You A (True Financial Planning) Professional?
Like "profession", the word "professional" is used in a variety of ways. When an event goes smoothly, we say the organizer was professional. If a store clerk gets angry or belligerent, we will likely call them unprofessional.
A debate about who is in the profession and who is not has merit. But for purposes of this discussion, I will define a "true financial planning professional" as someone who, at a minimum:
- Believes the core purpose of their work is to improve their clients' lives through good financial decisions.
- Maintains a high level of expertise
- Conducts themselves as though they will be held to a fiduciary standard, whether the regulations they fall under would do so or not
While similar in principle to Kitces' own "Advicer" Manifesto and label, there is no single credential, business model or other objective condition that meets all these criteria. There cannot be because evaluating each of the above items presents some challenges and requires some subjectivity.
Meeting the first bullet requires ascertaining intent which can be tricky. "High" in the second bullet is a relative term. Assessing the last bullet point requires some insight into the person's business practices.
Given the importance of the fiduciary standard, the last bullet point may puzzle some readers. How can I say someone who isn't subject to the fiduciary standard at all times is a professional? I include them because they are conducting themselves properly. If the regulators ever impose the fiduciary standard as it should be applied, these practitioners will have no problem complying because they already behave as though the standard applies. Being required to do something one is already doing is not at all a burden.
I don't list these minimum criteria to provide a checklist to evaluate any one individual. I list them just for framing as I make the case for joining the FPA.
The nature of the criteria I describe makes it impossible to precisely quantify the number, but we cannot simply assume it is the 109,000+ CFP professionals plus are some uncertified parctitioners that meet all three bullet points. Nonethless, the number is undoubtably much higher than the 17,000 or so members of the FPA. This is a problem for both the public and the profession.
It's a problem for the public because if the public can't find true financial planning professionals, they will continue to not reap the benefits they need and want.
It's a problem for the profession because while CFP Board can and will continue to do a lot to elevate the visibility of the profession, CFP Board cannot or should not do some things FPA can or should do. The profession cannot rely on just CFP Board to continue to advance.
When I meet a CFP certificant, the credential makes me think someone has a high probability of meeting the criteria for a professional, but certification isn't an automatic free pass. There are marks holders that don't practice at all. Others sell products, advisory services, their time, or stand-alone plans primarily for the money, and not as a means to better their client's lives. There are many who sleepwalk through easy CE programs (not Kitces readers, of course!), and many who think disclosure is the same as informed consent.
Still the CFP marks are the mark of the profession and deservedly so. When I became certified in 1994, the comprehensive exam was new, and I had to explain to prospective clients what the designation was all about. Over time, standards have risen. Today, certification is the simplest way to show the public one has competence as a general practitioner of financial planning.
I rarely have to explain the credential because prospective clients already know about it. Most wouldn't have contacted me if I weren't certified. Even the most basic research into personal financial matters will highlight the marks. It is difficult to find a personal finance article from a credible outlet that does not cite a CFP certificant as source.
Why The Profession Needs A Strong FPA
Boosting the FPA is important because despite its strengths, CFP Board can't or shouldn't do many of the things professionals need done. Three that stand out are Continuing Education, practice management, and advocacy.
Continuing Education Not A CFP Board Role
In 2013, CFP Board disclosed a controverisal proposal that it was considering getting into the business of providing Continuing Education. After all, some other organizations offering designations were doing so, and there were concerns about the quality of CE programs.
It's notable though that, back in the day, what is now CFP Board was made independent from the College of Financial Planning in large part because in order to advance the marks, the potential of conflicts between the education function and the standards setting and enforcement functions needed to be minimized. As a result, what originally started out as a single organization that taught CFP education and then issue the CFP marks was split into two separate completely independent organizations back in 1985.
This was important because, similar to how players call fouls on each other in pickup basketball games everyday, when it is important and stakes are higher, a referee is used. Referees do not participate in the competition.
When CFP Board announced their potential entrance into the CE business nearly 15 years ago, many CE providers pointed out the conflict of interest and competitive advantages CFP Board had because it could preference its own programs over independent providers. Fortunately, CFP Board chose a different route.
Today, CFP Board is offering programs that grant CE on a regular basis. Though my view on the conflict and competitive imbalance from 2013 remains, the mere presence of these programs is not a concern. CFP Board should not be banned entirely from offering CE, but their offerings should be limited.
For instance, in recent years, CFP Board revised its Code of Conduct to include a fiduciary duty applicable to all financial advice. CFP Board has an obligation to provide materials and educate certificants on the changes. There is no party on earth better qualified to deliver a program on those changes. It is their standard. They are the authority on teaching their own rules.
A certificant participating in such a program should receive CE credit. If CFP Board never offered credit, such credit would not be available. That makes no sense to me.
For other topics, there may be an initial need for materials and programming. Most recently the addition of the Psychology of Financial Planning to the curricula and testing for certification comes to mind. Over time, however, the need for CFP Board created material to be eligible for CE declines, and I wouldn't apply this new material logic to everything.
More recently, legislation like OBBBA was passed, and Trump accounts are new and will appear on the CFP exam in future testing cycles. I don't see any need for CFP Board to create programs for practitioners on that when there are already hundreds of CE providers available to create the programs.
Yes, CFP Board could do this and do it well, but they have bigger objectives like their efforts to improve access to professional financial planning through workforce development. Workforce development and further boosting awareness of the profession were the reasons they created a 501©(6) in 2022, and they have been doing a great job of it.
The best thing CFP Board could do for CE is work on ways to get providers to improve the quality of CE programs by partnering with, strengthening, and investing into the CE provider ecosystem. To its credit, that is a priority for the organization.
According to CEO K. Dane Snowdon in a late March email to CFP certifcants, "…CE quality is uneven and needs attention. In 2026, we are focused on raising that bar across the profession, so it better reflects the realities CFP® professionals face every day. CFP Board has a role to play, particularly through CE tied to our conferences, events and original thought leadership, but we do not intend to become a significant marketplace provider or favor our own content. As part of this effort, we will increase transparency, including sharing learning objectives so providers can see how content aligns with established domains and build on it if they choose."
Few providers will be doing programs as consistently good as what you get on this site, but many could be better. Improving quality is a prime area for collaboration with FPA and other groups in the planning ecosystem.
Practice Management Uniquely Suited To FPA
I appreciate CFP Board's efforts to draw more talent to the profession. The organization is doing a lot of outreach to students, career changers, and among non-advisors otherwise serving in the financial services industry. This has come in a number of valuable forms including research through Financial Planning Review, along with guides to career paths in financial planning, and a partnership with the Externship. The number of CFP certificants is increasing, and the new people are younger and more diverse than ever.
Nonetheless, I do not need CFP Board programs on practice management. I do not want the SEC or any other regulatory body telling me how to run my business, beyond what is necessary to comply with my legal and ethical duties. CFP Board is not a regulator, but the same perspective applies.
I would much rather get practice management material and insights from other business leaders, and a traditional membership organization like FPA is best for facilitating those interactions. Please note, I have no reason to believe CFP Board is looking to do practice management programs, but now that they are allowing limited amounts of CE for practice management programs, it is worth mentioning.
Though it shares the same 501(c)(6) tax status, by design, CFP Board is not a traditional membership organization. Certificants are not members, and have no ability to decide whether to join and be part of its (c)(6) activities (or not). CFP Board's primary obligation to certificants is also its greatest value to the profession and public - to uphold and enforce meaningful standards. The public and profession will be better off with CFP Board avoiding the distraction of practice management materials, beyond the excellent workforce efforts they have been engaged in.
Advocacy For The Profession Versus Advocacy For The Professional
Advocating for the profession is not the same as advocating for the professional. In recent years, CFP Board has been an effective advocate for the profession. It is frequently invited to give testimony and provide other information to legislators and regulators.
Part of its credibility stems from its long-standing focus on the public as a 501(c)(3). With it now also running a 501(c)(6), the organization's advocacy possibilities are expanded. However, to keep the focus on the needs of the public, the 501(c)(6) was established so it is controlled by the board of the 501(c)(3). The only members of the CFP Board 501(c)(6) are the members of the 501(c)(3) board.
Certainly, FPA has advocated for the public's interest many times in its history too. Most notably twenty years ago when FPA sued the SEC over an exemption from the Advisor Act of 1940 for fee-based brokerage accounts offered by broker/dealers. The so-called "Merril Lynch Rule" would not apply the fiduciary duties attached to advisory accounts to the exempted fee-based brokerage programs.
The FPA believed strongly that the profession could only be built on the foundation of the fiduciary standard, and the public was better served by the fiduciary duty imposed by the Advisor Act. Most consumer-focused organizations and advocates agreed, but only FPA had the means and resolve to challenge the rule. They sued and won. Had FPA lost, likely trillions of dollars would not be subject to a fiduciary standard today. This remains, arguably, the biggest advocacy success in the history of the profession.
CFP Board supported the suit, but it did not have the advocacy heft that FPA did then. The suit is an example of how CFP Board and FPA frequently find themselves on the same side of an advocacy issue. I expect that to continue. As a profession, the public's interest and the interest of the professionals that serve them will align well often. If FPA and CFP Board both had strong advocacy operations, they could make more of an impact on public well-being. That was the thinking behind the formation of the Financial Planning Coalition back in the late 2000s. A stronger FPA might resurrect and reinvigorate that alliance.
A larger, stronger FPA can also benefit the profession via advocacy in ways CFP Board cannot. There will be a time when CFP Board's public benefit point of view will not align with FPA's practitioner focus. CFP Board's structure should temper its enthusiasm for supporting a matter primarily benefiting practitioners. By contrast, FPA is a traditional 501(c)(6) membership association. As such it can go all in on advocating for the professional. This may be the area the profession needs a stronger FPA most.
More frequently, however, will be times when the two organizations will agree on the core of an issue but can come at the matter from differing angles with strength. For instance, say a regulator offers a new rule. If it would benefit the public, CFP Board can concentrate its support for the rule based on those benefits. Meanwhile, to a degree CFP Board cannot, FPA can pound the table on sensible implementation so professionals can be assured the benefits will get delivered to consumers without compliance being overly burdensome.
Lastly, a strong FPA advocacy function has been useful a few times in the past when CFP Board itself was the source of an issue. The worst of the missteps by CFP Board during my career was the 1999 "CFP Lite" debacle wherein the organization rolled out a junior designation which most CFP certificants felt would dilute the importance of the marks. FPA was just forming at the time, but was strong enough to help get the initiative dropped. More recently, FPA got involved in a new Coalition pushing back on CFP Board's rising reporting fees that impact the cost of CE for all CFP professionals.
Simply put, a strong FPA adds an important layer of accountability from CFP Board to the profession's practitioners.
What's In It For You: Benefits of Getting Active With FPA
So far, I have commented on the importance of a bigger, stronger FPA to the profession and for professionals broadly. For me, the positive impact FPA can have on the profession is enough to warrant being a member. For others, they need to benefit more directly from membership to join. Fortunately, FPA can be good for your career no matter what stage of career you find yourself.
Community At FPA
Over my career, I have benefitted immensely from FPA membership. Some of those benefits I can get elsewhere like easy access to CE programs, discounts from vendors, various discussion forums, connecting with prospective clients, and connecting to pro bono opportunities. Others are hard to find elsewhere like the relevant, actionable research in the Journal of Financial Planning, FPA Residency, or the several revolutionary ideas first offered at FPA Retreat (now FPA Shift) such as life planning and the use of monte carlo analysis.
The biggest boosts to my career, however, have come from pushing myself out of my corner of the profession and participating in chances to interact more deeply with other FPA members. I find conversing with practitioners with a shared belief in financial planning as a profession extremely valuable. The variety of practices styles and business models among FPA members yields angles and insights on issues that other more homogenous professional membership groups I also belong to do not provide.
The value of this practice diversity is especially strong when it comes to practice management and interpersonal issues. All business models must get clients, keep clients, and administer their business. No business model has a monopoly on good ways to do those things. No business model has a monopoly on good ways to communicate with clients, prospective clients, vendors, peers, employees, or employers. I've learned at least as much about these things from planners in different models than I have from planners using the same model I do. FPA membership makes finding these learning opportunities easier through various forums like conferences, projects, online, or at meetings at some of the incredible chapters across the country.
FPA Competency Model
A more recent learning opportunity was unveiled last year by FPA, the FPA Competency Model™. Developed by a task force Chaired by Hannah Moore (originator of the acclaimed Externship program) that also included respected educator and 2026 Chair-elect of CFP Board Dr. Martin Seay, and former FPA President, Nick Nicollete. The competency model fills a badly needed training and development gap for the profession. The CFP curricula is a great base for technical knowledge, but there is so much more to being an effective planner and professional.
The FPA Competency Model™ is a practical, research-informed guide that defines the behavioral skills essential to success in financial planning. It complements technical knowledge by focusing on how professionals communicate, lead, build trust, and advance the profession. It covers six key competencies: Interpersonal Impact, Professionalism, Critical Thinking, Advancing the Profession, Leadership, and Client Communication & Care.
Each competency has sub-competencies and an assessment to help you gauge where you are strong and where you could improve. You will likely find that you have foundational proficiency in some areas, intermediate in others, and advanced in others still. Once you complete the assessment, you'll receive a personalized list of recommended courses, resources, and learning experiences tailored to your needs. As FPA puts it, "… a guided journey designed to meet you where you are – and help you take the next step forward with purpose".
The model won't fully do the job of making one a super planner, but it can get one started on that path. Employers can use it to train and support high-performing teams. Academic institutions can use it to shape more applied, human-centered curricula. Mentors and mentees can use it to spark deeper conversations about growth and development. Veteran planners can use it to extend their influence through leadership and mentorship. Aspiring professionals can use it to chart a purposeful path.
When I was introduced to the model, I viewed its as a great starting point for developing new planners beyond the CFP curriculum. But, having run through much of it myself, it has helped me focus my own development by clearly identifying areas I want to work on and what exactly I should be doing to improve. As someone who is in the latter stages of a career, leadership is of particular importance, for instance.
Planner Search
Did you know FPA has a search function consumers can use to find a financial planner? Most people don't. FPA PlannerSearch has unfortunately been one of the most neglected programs at FPA, despite its potential. Most members would like the chance to meet prospective clients but for years even PlannerSearch's existence was almost completely unpublicized. That's about to change.
Thanks to a multi-year strategic partnership with SnappyKraken, PlannerSearch should become more visible and definitely more useful for the public. I've seen early versions of what is to be rolled out later in 2026. The tool will be much more user friendly than most other search tools. Inquiring clients should be better matched to an appropriate planner, and be reaching out with higher intent to planners. FPA will be working actively to publicize the tool.
According to new CEO Dennis Moore, "FPA PlannerSearch will evolve from a simple directory into a data-driven platform that matches consumers with financial planners based on their needs, expertise, and shared values. At the same time, we will better clarify what financial planning is in the marketplace, while shining a bright light on what makes financial planners, particularly CFP professional members of FPA, uniquely qualified to deliver these important services."
I am hopeful for the first time in a long time that it could generate new clients for members.
Connecting members with new clients has an easily quantifiable impact on members and the potential to be a game changer. FPA certainly has some work to do here to boost awareness of PlannerSearch among the public, but FPA can do things with PlannerSearch other "find a planner" services can't. For instance, FPA has an advantage over commercial matching ventures due to its non-profit status, which makes it easier for FPA to drive visibility through earned media. It also has more flexibility when it comes to what planners can say about themselves than an organization like CFP Board which, as the credentialling body, should not appear to endorse a certificant beyond that they have the credential.
FPA Has Work To Do
For almost 20 years, FPA membership has slowly declined. Other providers of many of the benefits have arisen, people don't relate to or join associations like they once did, and FPA hasn't been able to pivot strongly with these changes. Fortunately, it looks like the organization is back on the move. The Competency Model and PlannerSearch developments are not the only encouraging signs of a turnaround.
Under the leadership of new CEO Dennis Moore, a former CFP® practitioner, and past national President of FPA, work to renovate the organization has already begun. Just in the few months he has held the post, I can see small signs of this work. For the first time in many years, I got a "thank you for renewing" message from FPA. It included a rundown of links to access some of the benefits membership provides. The email is not a big deal on its own, but it is a sign of the simple little things that can add up are not falling through the cracks.
FPA also made MediaSource easier to use. MediaSource receives inquiries from the media, and connects the reporters with members that can serve as sources.
More visible has been the redesign of the FPA's conferences, FPA Lead (for its chapter leaders), FPA Shift (formerly FPA Retreat), FPA Gather (the conference for NexGen), and FPA Summit (the organization's annual conference). Though the changes go deeper than merely renaming the four main events the association has been putting on.
For instance, the reports back from the recently redesigned FPA Shift conference were excellent. Attendees loved how the meeting kept the best of what Retreat was, and blended in new ways of learning, interacting, and incorporating new people. One commentor called a session "life-changing". That's the kind of impact that conference has been known for. The talk was from Rick Kahler on the very personal, real-world challenges he faced in his succession.
There is a palpable, positive uptick in energy at FPA. And membership numbers appear to be rising a bit. Much of that can be attributed to new CFP® members.
For the last few years, whenever a candidate first becomes certified, they get a pop up on the CFP Board site offering a free one-year trial membership to FPA. Until recently an association-wide effort to engage and retain these newly minted certificants did not exist. A new group effort between national and chapters was instituted last year and so far retention numbers have been above projections.
CFP Board Wants FPA To Grow And Thrive
As alluded to in the advocacy discussion above, FPA and CFP Board have been at odds from time to time and it's likely they will be again at some point. However, I would be remiss if I didn't point out the two organizations share the objective of advancing the profession. The disputes usually center on how to advance the profession, not whether it's a profession to be advanced.
In 2019, as part of its event commemorating the 50th anniversary of the start of the profession, CFP Board convened a think tank of sorts with representatives from just about every corner of the planning ecosystem. Over 100 of those thought leaders continued the dialogue and ultimately a working document, "15 Elements of the Financial Planning Profession" was created. One of those elements, "Practitioner Community", noted "Every established profession has a professional body that supports the practitioner community and fosters its development".
CFP Board sees the importance of a strong professional body, but CFP Board believes it is better suited to pursue other objectives. Those aims were codified and publicized in 2021 as the "five blocks": Standards & Certification, Access, Awareness, Community & Regulatory Engagement, and Workforce. 15 elements but only 5 blocks, because the other 10 can best be fulfilled elsewhere beyond CFP Board.
This is the underlying motivation for CFP Board's support of FPA. It is a large part of why CFP Board set up the trial membership function for new certificants, promotes FPA conferences, and encourages CFP certificants to join FPA when they renew their certification. A traditional membership association can make an impact where CFP Board isn't.
The 15 elements working document described barriers including that the fragmentation of professional bodies has resulted in "…competing narratives and interests, often based around compensation models, with no consensus on a pathway to a profession." In other words, many planners only join groups from their corner of the profession.
The consensus was that going forward, "an effective, representative and recognized professional body for the profession will require leadership that can create and implement a clear strategy for growth and deliver on a value proposition that is attractive and sustainable for the professional community of practitioners".
Who Cares About The Profession?
I see signs of what is happening at FPA. What I can't see is how many financial planners care about advancing the profession. There is passion in various corners, but I don't see the same fervor for the broader profession like I once did.
If professionals from all corners of the profession don't stand up to be more visible – and soon – the financial services industry will bury them. We're already seeing some of this as PE firms come in and "scale" the financial advice businesses they are investing into.
Most of the acquirers you read about are far more interested in the investment management business of the RIAs they're buying, than the professional practice of financial planning. And I have friends around the country who are no longer NAPFA members because their firms were bought by organizations that sell products. I also know of several planners who were told in no uncertain terms they should not participate in FPA activities because they were expected to spend their time on "revenue acquisition" over investing into their own professional growth.
Selling a product isn't bad in and of itself – any more than fee-only guarantees the ethical delivery of good advice. But many of these mergers and acquisitions transactions are moving people away from professionalism. Hopefully, PlannerSearch can bring some of these planners back.
What about you? Do you view financial planning as a profession? Do you consider yourself a professional? If so, join the FPA today, alongside any other groups that cater to your corner of the profession. That's "and", not "or".
I've been a highly satisfied member of the National Association of Personal Financial Advisors since joining in 2000. My NAPFA membership has been great for me because its strength is catering to the needs of its core member, the CFP professional operating in a true fee-only, always-fiduciary model. Though fees represent a greater portion of compensation within financial services, the fee-only population is still a small minority. That means under their current model, many practitioners can't access NAPFA benefits, and NAPFA is limited by its size in what it can do for the profession. For instance, it can promote the advantages of fee-only models to the public, but NAPFA has just four terrific regions in the U.S. that provide programming. FPA has 75 chapters.
Over the years speaking on various topics, I have seen firsthand how many FPA chapters put on high quality programs. NorCal, Minnesota, Dallas/Ft.Worth, National Capital, Arizona, New York, Orange County, and New England chapters come to mind. Chapters are of such high value to FPA that CEO Dennis Moore, himself a past chapter leader, has visited seven chapters just in the first four months of 2026 to foster direct engagement with their leadership and members.
With FPA including a broader population of planners, my membership in FPA and NAPFA have complemented each other well. Practitioners should support the groups focused on their corner of the profession but supporting a broader view too via FPA membership has never been more important.
Yes, dues payments can add up, but it is a relatively small sum to make an important investment in your profession and your own future growth as a professional. Plus, if you put in a little effort, you can reap a myriad of direct benefits from membership. You may even get a new client, but at the least you'll surely be able to serve the ones you already have better!
