The Financial Planning Association (FPA) has stepped up its opposition to the CFP Board's proposed ethics code changes, with FPA President Daniel B. Moisand stating the new rules would "weaken, not strengthen, consumer protections."

   In comments submitted to the CFP Board of Standards earlier this week, Moisand called for the withdrawal of the proposal, which the CFP released after a three-year internal review.

   "The changes have the potential to adversely affect an estimated 5 million clients of CFP certificants in the U.S. and potentially millions of future clients," Moisand stated in the 8-page commentary. "Protecting the public should be of utmost concern."

   The CFP mark is considered the "gold standard" of certificates available to practicing financial advisors. About 51,000 advisors hold the mark.

   Much of the criticism against the CFP Board's proposed rule changes centers on the way the CFP treats the fiduciary responsibility-the obligation to put a client's interests first-of CFP certificants. Under the proposal, holders of CFP marks would be able to opt out of a fiduciary responsibility so long as they clearly define their role to clients.

   The FPA and other critics argue that a fiduciary standard should be inextricably tied to the CFP mark. In the comment letter, Moisand argued that making the fiduciary standard optional would confuse consumers and undermine the CFP's stated mission of promoting "uniform" standards within the profession.

   "The practical result will be greatly varying standards of conduct for CFP certificants-not a universal strengthening of standards as the CFP Board suggests," he wrote.

   The CFP Board, however, says the fiduciary standard needs to be optional for cases where it is not applicable, such as when educators hold the CFP mark.

   Moisand also criticized the way in which the rule proposals were created, stating the process lacked transparency and was conducted "behind closed doors."

   Other concerns cited by the FPA include:

    The proposed changes obligate the client and not the CFP certificant to figure out whether the certificant will put the client's interest first. "A certificant should always act in the best interest of the client," Moisand said.

    The revised code would allow firms to heavily market the CFP certification to prospective clients while disclaiming a "client's interest first" type of standard in a written agreement.

   CFP Board Chairman Barton C. Francis said all public comments about the ethics code proposal will be considered at the board's meeting in Nashville on October 24. "What I would expect is that we will hear what the feedback is and then that there will probably be some consideration given to some proposals at that time," he said.

   Of the FPA's comment, Francis said he has not yet read it and added, "I'm pleased that they took the time to sit down and provide a very detailed response."

   While Francis wasn't prepared to comment on how he and the board may react to the specific issues raised, he did acknowledge that come of the public comments have been compelling. Speaking of a public hearing held in August, Francis said, "there were clearly some comments that I heard that caused me to pause and think and try to figure out, is there a different way that certain things should be addressed."