Join the presenters, Marilyn Capelli Dimitroff, CFP, Nancy Johnson Jones, CFP, Michael P. Shaw, and other participants following Wednesday's Live Virtual Seminar (6/12,4:00 PM ET) as they share thoughts about the presentation.

To participate in the conversation, you must first register and log-in to this site. The handouts for this session are available starting 24 hours prior to the session in the downloads area, under today's session date and title.

 Links to Ethics at the FPA home page were mentioned several times.  Where is this link??

The presenters seemed to indicate that for those of us who are dually registered and who present a copy of the ADV to everyone, we are meeting all the new disclosure requirments of the CFP Board. Is this correct?

 Hi-I posted a message right after the Ethics session today, 6/12/08.  I did not get a response as of yet (5PM).  Did you get a response to yours??

Karen Hill

Notice of Confidentiality: **This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain 
Lincoln National Corporation proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential,
or subject to copyright belonging to the Lincoln National Corporation family of 
companies. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to 
which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are 
hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in 
relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited 
and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the 
sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail 

and any printout. Thank You.**

 Karen,

The link we mentioned is on the CFP site - not FPA's.  It's www.cfp.net - look for the Ethics section.

Nancy Johnson Jones

 Review your Form ADV to be sure all the required information for the CFP Board is included in your ADV - if so, you should be fine.  CFP Board disclosures do not need to be in a separate document.

Nancy

Thank you for answering both questions, Nancy.  I agree that the Form ADV alone does not satisfy the requirements under Rule 2.2 of the Updated Standards.  As you said, however, if the Form ADV contains all the required information of Rule 2.2, the Form ADV will satisfy disclosure under that Rule.  Rule 1.2 is a different matter and can be included in the financial planning agreement or engagement letter.  If the Form ADV has the engagement information of 1.2, then the Form ADV will satisfy the requirements of Rule 1.2.   Thanks, Jay

J. Barron Knight, Esq.

Director, Professional Review, CFP Board

Greetings, In order to prompt a response from the Board, which has not been responsive to my private letters, I posed a series of questions to the CFP Board during their webinar on July 9, 2008 that were not addressed. I will be monitoring the Board's web site to see whether these questions are subsequently posted and responded to in detail, but I am reproducing these questions here just in case, so that others may respond, or, think about how they see things.

Recent published articles have quoted many lawyers opining how much easier it will become to prevail against CFP® Certificants in insurance litigation. In this regard I have four questions that require a response…

1. Other than a conflicted in-house counsel, has the Board obtained any unbiased legal opinions to the contrary reflecting regulatory differences in all 50 States and if so, when will they become available…
2. Which major insurance carriers did the Board hold discussions with in order to clear up any conflicts associated with contractual agency relationships and fiduciary obligations owed to the companies by the insurance “agent”…
3. If you havn’t done so, WHY NOT… isn’t that extremely reckless?
4. Since the Board DOES intend to interpret whether CFP® Certificants are in compliance with the federal investment advisers act, and discipline Certificants not in compliance, when will the Board finally address the issue of illegal activities of fee-only planners in the business of insurance AND discipline all planners based on the Board’s interpretation of each State’s insurance laws?


How can you possibly claim to be enforcing a Code of ethics and professional responsibility without adequate “supervision” and if you intend to supervise by means of regulatory audit and examination of CFP® Certificant’s practice, when will this begin??


Isn’t the Board’s “fiduciary” standard of care, which may be higher than the regulatory standard of care, be the means by which a lawyer obtains a higher civil penalty in litigation than he would otherwise obtain?


Why is the CFP Board defining "fee-only" rather than "fee-only financial planning"?? After all, is it not financial planning you are seeking to "quasi-regulate"??


According to the Council on Licensing, Enforcement and Regulation, legislators view Certification and licensure as establishing “the minimum entry level standard required to practice”, that should not, among other things, present a bar to practice, don’t your decision to set the bar as a “gold standard and highest standard” directly conflict with the political reality of the legislative decision making process??

Doesn’t forcing a CFP® Certificant to pay in advance for hearings fly in the face of a statutory and constitutional presumption of innocence. Why should a CFP® Certificant have to pay anything to mount a defense to prove his innocence??

Regarding the NEW renewal Terms and Conditions: As I’m understanding the Certificant renewal terms and conditions: Sub L when combined with sub G clearly demonstrate that the Board refuses to stand behind the marks, their fitness or appropriateness for use in our daily practice of financial planning, but, if we are ever sued while providing services in the manner the Board prescribes, in compliance with Terms & Conditions sub H… AND, the CFP Board is named as a co defendant in that suit, we stakeholders are expected to reimburse the Board’s expensive lawyers and entire defense costs from our own pockets?? Better yet, if practice standards or the educational program is found to be flawed or deficient, we wouldn’t be able to sue for recovery from the Board because UCC merchantability and fitness waivers and disclaimers are perfectly legal in most states and we’re using the education, skill sets, methodology and marks “as-is” and at our own risk. THAT SAID, if YOU won’t stand behind your standards, WHY SHOULD WE??? Can you respond and tell me why you disagree… in detail!?

In an effort to cover this potnetial liability I did contact my E&O company and ask them to add the CFP Board as an additional insured on my policy... they refused point blank which leaves me and every other CFP® Certificant swinging in the wind. Well... unles you really buy into the dream of a profession that not even the credentialling body will stand behind!

Interesting . . . I guess I will wait a while longer before pursuing the CFP designation.  I don't think my ChFC designation presents such liability issues.  While I greatly desire to see the financial planning business evolve into a mature, recognized profession, I for one do not care to put myself at further financial risk simply to have a few letters after my name.

I am confident that the vast majority of CFP certificants are fine people and very professional in their approach to the planning business.  However, I would urge the CFP membership to get control of their organization.  Maybe then I'll join.

Gary M.

It's been two months since the chair of CFP Board promised answers would be posted on their web site to questions asked at the webinar from July. To date......... no answer to any of my or anyone else's questions and nothing updated on the Board's web site since June 23rd.  SO MUCH for integrity. The Board should be ashamed of their conduct in this and other matters. An oligarchy that sets rules of ethical conduct and regularly and consistently ignores them is a sad state of affairs and it would appear Washington style ethics are INDEED contagious. Congress is not the only institution in need of "change". I call upon Board member Certificants to honor the code they approved and resign if the Board does not  honor promises made by the Chair. They would not be the first en masse resignations from this organization based on ethics.