Michael Kitces attacks CFP Board for jacking fees 17% in name of 'strategy' when the certificant is flush with $20 million in reserves

With a large surplus the add on makes little sense. Is the name of the game to build a big war chest ronso what with? Let's give the next generation a break and charge establishes CFP's additional fees if required to maintain the brand.

There are very few brokerage/insurance industry organizations which support advisory services. The FPA is counter weight to the brokerage/insurance lobby which opposes fiduciary duty, the best interest of the investing public and the professional standing of the advisor in advisory services, thus merit support. The recent proposal that CPF certificate holders must act in a fiduciary capacity rather than just aspire to is the beginning of professional standing in advisory services which makes the CFP incredibly valuable. This fills the leadership vacuum in financial services on advisory services that the brokerage/insurance industry can not or will not fill. Though the CFP Board can not be that overt, my hope is professional standing in advisory services will be the end result. I have been critical of the CFP Board for not being more forceful on professional standing and delineating fiduciary duty as required by statute--yet if they did they would need every bit of their revenue to promote an industry redefining brand built on expert fiduciary standing.. SCW

Maybe they are saving up for the loss of all the broker/salesman CFP holders who will bail when required to put clients first via the new fiduciary rule? The would be legit. Course they can't say that.

Won't be long before clients start suing the CFP Board, when some random advisor with ",CFP" after his name loses money for a client. Better stock up that war chest for lawyer retainers. With a new Fiduciary landscape will come increased litigation.

Theorist, With a prudent process authenticated back to statute, the likelihood of litigation is minimized, Especially when it comes to performance as specifically delineated financial services are put back into the financial services business. The poor broker is left hanging. SCW

Well, Stephen Winks the reality of litigation is not as simple as you might project or hope! The prudent process, while wonderful and filled with unicorns and rainbows is thrown out the window when markets turn down. So, as you recall from your FSC planning and partnership peddling days all good things may not be as they seem. !

Contra, Rainbows and unicorns are the only protection you can rely upon when you are subject to an advisory services misrepresentation complain. Named fiduciaries built on an authenticate prudent process have no worries. SCW

Stephen - A quick review of the below link crushes your assertion as "prudent process" in the hands of RIAs is far from fool proof <a href="https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/12/19/the-year-in-review-sec-enforcement-actions-against-investment-advisers/" rel="nofollow">https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2016/12/19/the-year-in-review-sec-enforcement-actions-against-investment-advisers/</a> As any practicing Fiduciary (myself included) understands, there is litigation waiting around the corner regardless of how prudent and process oriented one may believe they and their staff are day in, day out. As the markets correct, the best securities litigators know the roadmap and you should take the time to understand this roadmap as well. To think otherwise, much less to espouse such thinking, is silly at best!

The material you suggest me read makes my point. The more granular the definition of advice the easier to scale advisory support. As a practicing named fiduciary, you can appreciate that "retail brokers" are not supported to act in a fiduciary capacity by virtue of institutionalized conflicts in their b/ds. For example, how do retail brokers explain that 40% of the earnings on their clients retirement assets are lost to brokerage fees, commissions and administrative cost--a clear violation of fiduciary duty. It is silly to equate a retail broker's inability to act in a fiduciary capacity to named fiduciary services offered by RIAs. The fiduciary rule requires the b/d to materially adapt its advisory services platform to be consistent with prudent expert standing. To achieve scale and streamline cost this requires prudent process authenticated back to statutory duties so ably described by the PwC material you referred to me. By the way, PwC agrees with me. SCW.