Goldfarb’s CFP Board Sanction Shows Risk to Advisors

When advisors are asked to describe their compensation on the FPA website, they can choose to check one of four options: fee-only, commission-only, a combination of fee and commission, or salary.

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 (8)
One reason to stay away. Here's a gentleman who made a mistake on a form, tried to amend to satisfy and still couldn't make the sanctimonious so-in-so's happy. Makes you wonder if there's something else involved.

Again, this blindered view of the world is why I shy from the CFP.
Posted by Richard O | Friday, June 21 2013 at 12:59PM ET
Alan Goldfarb is a personal friend, colleague, and former teacher of mine. In all the time I've known Alan, he has been nothing but a professional. It is really sad to see such mud slinging at a man who has dedicated his career to promote the integrity of financial planning. Maybe the process is broken? Maybe the FPA needs more clarity of questionning on their forms? I can't beleive that there was any bad intent on Alan's part. Take courage my friend Alan Goldfarb.
Posted by Ted S | Saturday, June 22 2013 at 1:49PM ET
As a CFP(R) the current feel from the Board is one of persecution. The Webinar series that I have attended are about procedure(s). We were recently asked if we supported an increase in dues to support a public awareness campaign-maybe that is the reason the board feels it must now spend time sanctioning -publicly its own members? Who has decided that the public is best served by this procedural witch hunt? Wouldn't the public be better served by the Board going after the real offenders of the public trust? How many CFP's(R) are barred from using the marks for things other than not responding to a board letter? Does the public know the difference from a public letter for this or a real offense from the SEC or FINRA that had a penalty attached? The CFP board obviously wants to be part of the system-but seems to have forgotten that we volunteer to be part of the community and it is not actually needed to conduct business. The board needs to focus on intent when swinging a hammer this large. In my office -- the two youngest advisors see no value to the CFP(R) mark when they have read this article-sadly I could make no real case to defend all the work I have subjected myself to in order obtain the marks. I hope to feel differently soon-but I am not hopeful, I have seen power grabs before.
Posted by Jackie B | Wednesday, June 26 2013 at 12:02PM ET
Anyone who reads this great editorial and/or Bob Clark's June 19, 2013 article in Advisorone, can easily see something is very wrong with how the CFP Board is publicly going after CFP's for unintentional errors that did not harm any member of the public. My son was in the process of preparing for his CFP and I have stopped him - what a sad statement. If I'm second guessing being part of an association that will ruin a good man's career over an unintentional error, why would I subject my son to such an abuse of power or misdirection of priorities? If we make an honest unintentional mistake, give us the opportunity to fix it - that's guidance. To publically ruin our careers over it - that's reckless. Shame on you CFP Board CEO Kevin Keller and Board attorney Michael Shaw for either directing this action or allowing it to happen.
Posted by Susan E | Wednesday, June 26 2013 at 12:14PM ET
Thank you Ann for a great article. (1) the Board has a current "guilty until proven innocent" mentality combined with a press release happy attitude being done in the name of a positive public confidence goal; (2) a disciplinary board that includes CFPs but, as told directly to me by someone who has served on the disciplinary and ethics committee, the prosecutory influence is heavily felt "from above" on the Board and (3) being led, directed and carried out without any independent entity monitoring the process. CFPs can't speak out as the Board indirectly controls them. The only entity that has a voice is YOU, the media. Thank you for speaking up for us. I worked very hard to obtain my CFP but there is a zero chance that I will renew. The disciplinary process at the Board if currently flawed and unless someone like you continues to point it out, it will not change. They are not helping the public with these unwarranted public attacks on their own CFPs but rather leaving an impression that none of us can be trusted. Thank you Ann for being our voice.
Posted by Hugo F | Friday, June 28 2013 at 2:56PM 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