Sounding Off: Did CFP Board Overreact With Goldfarb Sanctions?

Numerous readers responded to a recent article about the CFP Board sanctioning its former chairman, Alan Goldfarb for selecting “fee only” and, later, “salary” to describe his income on a form on the FPA website.

Get access to this article and thousands more...

All Financial Planning articles are archived after 7 days. REGISTER NOW for unlimited access to all recently archived articles, as well as thousands of searchable stories. Registered Members also gain access to exclusive industry white paper downloads, web seminars, blog discussions, the iPad App, CE Exams, and conference discounts. Qualified members may also choose to receive our free monthly magazine and any of our daily or weekly e-newsletters covering the latest breaking news, opinions from industry leaders, developing trends and growth strategies.

Already Registered?

Comments (9)
I wonder how many advisors will make the benefit/liability decision away from having the CFP designation. My guess is that the CFP board only will make changes if a substantial number of advisors drop their CFP designation, with a considerable decline in dues.

One suggestion is that the CFP handle "procedural" issues, like that noted in this article, in private. If no correction is made, then they can go public. Of course, issues which go beyond an innocent procedural mistake are a different matter.
Posted by Michael S | Thursday, July 18 2013 at 10:02AM ET
I have known Alan Goldfarb for over 20 years. As a recruiter in the industry who has talked to thousands of advisors over the years, I can truly say that if everyone conducted their business affairs like Alan, this would be a better industry. His pristine record with FINRA further attests to the quality of his work. We don't see any of his clients raising these issues, do we? He is truly one of the "good guys" out there. In this case there were no clients injured by his alleged improprieties and his intentions were clearly not in any way to avoid full disclosure. Considering the many positive contributions he has made to the CFP Board and to FPA over the years, the fact that these "leaders" wasted a lot of time on a witch hunt and didn't have anything better to do is deplorable. The CFP Board should focus on issues that are truly negative for clients and handle minor misunderstandings like this in a much more professional and discreet way. UGH!
Posted by Mitch V | Thursday, July 18 2013 at 11:10AM ET
I have mixed feelings about the sanction imposed against Mr.Goldfarb, and considering his involvement with the CFPBOS think that maybe a suspension may have been justified. Lately it appears that some well known personalities in the planning world seem to feel that their infractions should go unpunished.

He had an ownership interest and received a K-1, a form that is not used to report salary per se. That seems indisputable.

Furthermore- he had involvement with the CFP Board and possibly inflicted unnecessary pain on other certificants- who were not in a position to conduct the premeptive PR campaign that he did, and may not simply garner attention. He is reaping the fruit from seeds that he has sown.

If this had not been the Chair,but someone from Podunk, would anyone have cared?
Posted by PAT P | Thursday, July 18 2013 at 12:41PM ET
Before he chaired CFP Board, Alan Goldfarb was a member of the CFP Board of Professional Review for many years where he was responsible for hearing disciplinary cases, passing judgment, and assessing disciplinary penalties from CFP certificates who were found guilty. During the 2-3 year period when CFP Board redefined the definition of Fee only and changed the standard to require that CFP practitioners are held to a fiduciary standard, Alan presumably participated in the deliberations since he was an active member of CFP Board. There is no way a member of CFP Board or the Disciplinary Review Committee would not have known that the facts as presented by Alan himself in his own press release were sanction able. The standards are and definitions are very clear if you read them and considering the number of cases Alan heard and subsequently passed judgment against the CFP certificant on the very same subject matter, it is not believable that he didn't know he was transgressing.
Posted by Bedda D | Thursday, July 18 2013 at 2:40PM ET
Bedda, I respectfully could not disagree more. To my experience, the rules are extremely ambiguous, contradictory, and poorly communicated; my study of enforcement practices shows that they have been extremely arbitrary and poorly-informed. As others have indicated, I believe that there is far more to this story and that the facts, when they come to light, will not be pretty. If the Board continues on this course, the damage to the marks, and the profession, could be profound. But I ask you: clearly Mr. Goldfarb was fully cognizant with the rules, having helped create them. How could he have possibly been so foolish, given his prominence, to have brazenly broken them? What possible benefit could it have been? Why risk a distinguished career? This makes no sense. The only thing that does make sense is that the process is broken, and too much power is concentrated in the wrong hands.
Posted by Jeff C | Thursday, July 18 2013 at 7:09PM ET
Add Your Comments:
Not Registered?
You must be registered to post a comment. Click here to register.
Already registered? Log in here
Please note you must now log in with your email address and password.

Already a subscriber? Log in here