CFP Board Responds to The Wall Street Journal’s Article.

I worked with Jason Zweig to help develop the Wall Street Journal article.? In the article, Jason noted that the CFP Board took "strong issue" with my suggestion that the CFP Board does not vet its members and that its multi-million dollar "consumer awareness" campaigns are setting people up to be deceived.? My rebuttal is as follows? -? (1) The WSJ article states that more than 6,000 CFPs who had significant disclosure events on their FINRA and/or SEC records were endorsed on the CFP Board's verification site as having no disclosure events.? Res ipsa loquitur (the fact speaks for itself). (2) This is an example of the CFP Board's messaging to consumers -?? "When you choose a CFP, you'll know you're in good hands. That's because every CFP pro is thoroughly vetted to uphold the highest standards."??I believe most reasonable people would agree that this messaging is misleading/deceptive in the wake of the WSJ article findings. I find it highly offensive that the CFP Board's response is that the problem is now being fixed.? The CFP Board has long been aware of its feckless vetting (relying on "self-reporting") and of the fact that some of its members obtain the marks in order to convey trust so that they may then defraud their clients (e.g., convicted Ponzi schemer, Bradford Bleidt).? The CFP Board could very easily have cross-checked its members against FINRA Broker Check and SEC IAPD, but it has never done so.?? The Board's willful ignorance on this issue and its irresponsible and deceptive advertising have brought immeasurable harm to consumers.? I sincerely hope the investing public, regulatory authorities, and states' attorneys general will finally wake up to the CFP Board's long history of putting its interests ahead of consumers and take action to hold the CFP Board accountable.? Regardless of how much money the CFP Board spends on public awareness branding, it has absolutely no business being a standard-bearer for the financial planning profession. BTW - Did anyone else notice that the CFP Board did not indicate that it would expel or suspend the 6,300 dues-paying CFPs who violated the Board's Standards of Conduct by failing to self-report their disclosure events?? I am guessing that the WSJ reporters would be willing to turn over the list.? That would, of course, result in a significant reduction in the amount of revenue available to the Board to fund its marketing campaigns and pay its million-dollar executive salaries.

The WSJ article found some places where the CFP Board was falling short of its promise of oversight over planners. CFP Board is taking real substantive steps to address the issues identified in the article. The staff at CFP Board work hard, are capable and will learn from this. I work as a volunteer on CFP Board Commissions not because CFP Board is perfect, but rather because CFP Board seeks to do good and does in fact advance the public good in its work.

Looking forward to the October 1st roll out. We've been studying and updating content, and very excited to see new reporting requirements and a broader fiduciary standard. The article does show a need for better real time reporting on letsmakeaplan.org - but the CFP Board isn't a form ADV.

I read the WSJ article and this response and found hubris and arrogance only in the hyperbole of the comment section. Well done Kevin. Hope to see you sometime soon.

BULL. The senior staff and directors of the CFP Board suffer greatly from hubris and arrogance, which is eroding the credibility of the CFP mark.? Speaking from first-hand experience, there's a critical need for an independent investigation into allegations that the staff and directors have engaged in self-dealing. Furthermore, until the CFP Board cleans house, it should not have ANY involvement with a fiduciary standard.