An open letter to CFP Board Chairman Dave Diesslin.

Dear Dave,

Congratulations, my friend. With great hope, I anticipate your 2004 stewardship as CFP Board Chair will be awesome. I can't think of better hands.

We have known each other for what-16, 17 years? I know you, your love of the profession and your integrity. You will do your best and your best is darn good. Accordingly, I have grounded hope that this year CFP Board finally establishes its identity and purpose within the financial planning universe.

At stake: literally a once-in-a-lifetime chance for hiring paid leadership to match the vision and perspective of recently evolved volunteer leadership. Maybe our only chance.

This is the year of opportunity. This is also the year to take dead reckoning on past shortcomings, recognizing possibilities and acknowledging CFP Board limitations.

Obviously, this open letter is not without purpose or agenda. So, please, let me take advantage of our friendship to put some issues into the sunshine. Forgive me if I step on a toe or three but I don't believe we can, or should, shut our eyes to what has been in the process of determining what could be. What "could be" would be awesome. What "is" is too frequently confusing and misdirected.

CFP Board is unique. Its underlying concept is compelling. Yet, it has consistently had trouble with its identity and power. The simple truth has been that CFP Board has time and again fallen short. This may only fail to meet my own hopes but I know I am not alone. Too often this has been rooted in its failure to understand the distinction between its role as regulator and miscellaneous political diversions. Too often, it has succumbed to raw, aggressive expansionism; too often, to ego grounded in threat.

Some four years ago, I wrote an article regarding CFP Board. In it, an old metaphor served to describe it as the proverbial "elephant in the living room" that "nobody talks about."

The observation centered on the notion that everyone knew CFP Board was there. Unfortunately we had no real clue as to its reason for being, or its genuine purpose in our lives. We just knew it was big, ostensibly important, expensive to feed and difficult to avoid. The article was part of the whole CFP Lite conversation. Unfortunately, the "CFP Lite" parts dominated.

Happily, CFP Lite died ignominiously. Regrettably, CFP Board's reason and purpose remained in the shadows. Given the issues engaged and our various stakes, this was too bad.

(CFP Lite, as popularly named, was a CFP Board proposal to expand its sphere through diminished standards, under the misguided notion that cheaper is more attractive. The ostensible logic would have brought more "practitioners" "inside the tent" as "associate CFPs." The ensuing outrage protested the necessary diminution of CFP mark standards and mark holder credibility. We had worked hard, not just for our own licenses, but to give our marks value, meaning and vitality. We objected to their purposeful devaluation.)

Today, four years later, remaining CFP Board issues seem to retain remarkable constancy with original issues. Too much remains unaddressed. Dave, let's take note of our elephant. Indeed, given current issues, what better time?

I know people are trying. I know volunteer leadership generally recognizes certain past issues, as does acting paid leadership. But you know and I know CFP Board can't really move forward until both volunteer leadership and paid leadership are of like mind to do so, and everyone gets to an authentic understanding of CFP Board's heart's core. This means mission and genuine mission identification.

Unfortunately, though personalities have altered, certain negative attitudes and diversions linger and warp. The sheet: Fear. Fear of the practitioner. Fear of law. Aggrandizement of perceived authority and disciplinary muscle. Arrogance. That certain sense of smugness. Legalisms. Stuffiness. Bad manners. Even outright viciousness. Expansionist agendas formed and implemented in isolation. Disregard of practitioners. Bits of deceit; confusing messages. Apparent aloofness with regard to the membership organizations, most particularly FPA. (It is extraordinary that it took until 2003 to recognize that CFP® standard bearers ought to have a special relationship to CFP Board.) The songs may be over but their melodies linger.

Mission misidentification has lead to unwarranted incursions into the world of academia, international efforts of unknown dimensions and implications, inappropriate conversations with large financial service institutions, exponentially expanded staff and a "big man in town" self-image.

Frankly, it takes awhile to get past all of this, even with the most open heart and mind. So often it has seemed the Board was determined to tell the profession and its representatives what would be rather than wonder what could be and listen. Remember those scripted road shows in the early 90s? Remember the rush to legislated practice standards? And, of course, CFP Lite. And other recent decisions.

Even now the communications I receive are authoritarian and cautionary, yet cold. Still no case law. Interesting, because CFP Board is certainly not going to scare its practitioners, yet why else is it done? Obviously markholders will ignore nonsense rules, costing CFP Board authority and credibility. Remember, CFP Board's 14,000-foot mountaintop rests firmly on 13,500-plus feet of its markholders' cheerful, enthusiastic, voluntary support. Literally, hundreds of thousands of hours have been spent to develop meaning. Ideally, it is self-regulation at its very best. CFP Board needs markholders; markholders need CFP Board.

Unfortunately, the call of expansionism has been all too tempting. Titled leadership has too frequently pushed agendas without actively defending them. Too often, this has taken us through inappropriate diversions, leading to conflict with practitioners and membership organizations.

Since the elephant article, CFP Board has gone through two executive directors, a bunch of practice standards and CFP Lite. That elephant seems to still be there; still in our living room; reason and purpose still unknown.

So, here is my best take on our friendly pachyderm. For starters, I perceive the CFP Board still lacks definitive, appropriate mission. The emphasis here is on "appropriate."

My understanding is that the official mission statement, adopted in the year 2000, is: "The mission of the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards is that the public values, has access to and benefits from competent financial planning." Huh!?

Not a bad mission statement for somebody. It says some nice things. It makes financial planning seem important. Who could quarrel? Well, me, for one. It is appalling and entirely inappropriate. Dave, call me crazy but this sounds a whole lot like a practitioner's mission or a membership organization's mission. It is not a regulator's mission.

What's wrong with it? First, it does not express accountability for the organization's actions. How do mere stakeholders measure CFP Board success or failure? Worse, it opens doors to anything and everything. These are generally problems for well-financed organizations with expansionist tendencies.

More problematically, it asserts the appropriate responsibilities of others as its own. Thus, nasty conflict is unavoidable. Confusion reigns.

In my humble opinion, regulators ought not actively care if the public values that which it ostensibly regulates. It is sort of like a motor vehicles department promoting the joys of automobile driving or a department of agriculture advertising carrots. How about the Federal Reserve promoting dollar-based trade? It is wrong, wrong, wrong. Standard-setting regulatory bodies just shouldn't do cheerleading. That job is for its practitioners. It is no good for CFP Board to take this on. It only leads to trouble.

What CFP Board can do is maintain its standards at such levels to justify public perception that these marks mean their proud bearers can be trusted.

Obviously, CFP Board does not provide services to the public. So what's up with "... the public ... has access to ... competent financial planning"? CFP Board cannot create either competency or numbers of practitioners. It can only certify competency or decertify it. It cannot generate competent practitioners. That's for businesses and educators, not CFP Board. Again, its markholders do that, together with the assistance and support of educational institutions and programs and their professional associations. Again, it is not good for CFP Board to take this on. Again, it only leads to trouble.

What CFP Board can do is to assure that those promising competent financial planning have the credibility of meaningful marks.

CFP Board's mission is certainly not that "... the public benefits ...." That is uniquely between advisor and client. CFP Board is not even in the room when the public benefits. Indeed, it is not invited. Who knows if the public benefits? But everyone knows if the marks are meaningful.

Alarmingly, I have heard past CFP Board leadership assert other missions: "The mission of the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards is to protect the public" or "... to lead the financial planning profession."

The first is simply wrong-headed. The second is absolutely the job of FPA and/or everyone else who steps up as a leader of this profession, except CFP Board.

Practitioners do the first by proxy. To assert public protection as a CFP Board mission gets us back to that expansionist agenda and a reality check. After 30 years, we CFP® mark holders are less than 10% of America's ostensible financial advisors. CFP Board has no army or police force. "Protection?" Please. Reality controls, not CFP Board.

The second is wholly inappropriate to a regulator/standards setter. Regulate us. That's all. Give our marks meaning. That's enough.

CFP Board must support and maintain strong standards and practices, above all and at all costs. If CFP Board does this, folks will come to CFP Board. The big institutions will come to CFP Board. The world will come to CFP Board in gratitude that CFP Board has brought unassailable standards and integrity into a financial world too often woefully bereft of either. Don't sweat the small stuff. Test for that which can be tested and have the greatest expectations for that which cannot.

Accordingly, I suggest that CFP Board's mission should be simply to bring meaning and value to the CFP® marks through the recognition, creation and enforcement of standards and practices. Others will worry about education, theory, career path, public perception, legislation, promotion, etc. Just make sure our profession has room to breathe and grow. Establish competency and integrity as norms. Continually reinforce and communicate them. Take care of the fighters, robbers and cheaters. Then, get out of the way. The rest of us can handle it.

At the end of the day CFP Board has only one thing it can control, and that one thing is the CFP trademark in all of its glorious iterations.

And the purpose of the mark?

The purpose should be nothing more and nothing less than to validate to the world that those using it have met and maintained certain standards and complied with certain appropriate practices. Anything outside of "standards" or "practices" inherently should be outside CFP Board's purview.

The issues are minimum competency and integrity, regardless of business model. This is an authentic profession. Demand markholders honor that even if others do not.

This is the biggest of deals. For standards validation to be meaningful, this validation must rest on bedrock. Any deviation from bedrock reduces the validation's intensity, meaning and quality. That means that those sporting the CFP® credential ought to personally reflect CFP® aspirations, not be hustled into a "big tent." Those falling short are not welcome. The public ought not to need "protecting" from the likes of us. Rather, the likes of us ought to imbue the CFP® marks with meaning. That means CFP Board ought to trust most of us most of the time.

This is clear.

This was pretty much the reason CFP Board came into being in the first place. Initial agendas were not expansionist. We created job descriptions, meaningful examinations, solid review boards and procedures and worked to create a viable code of ethics and articulate practice standards. Certification holders/fee payers have never identified expansionism as valuable. Most important, this is what this profession needs of CFP Board.

Expansionist missions have served to justify international efforts, forays into institutions of higher education, public relations campaigns (yes, I know some of this was necessary to protect the marks) and claims for authority over the practices of alleged "financial planners" who do not hold themselves out as CFP® practitioners. More seriously, it has led to courtship of large financial services organizations at the expense of strong standards and practices, not their enhancement. We don't need to be elephants to remember CFP Lite.

Unfortunately, in the course of aggressive, expansionist, agendas, it has felt like the primary stakeholders frequently have been taken for granted. It has sometimes felt as though mark-holders would have more power if we lived overseas, tried to preserve outmoded business methodologies or proclaimed our interests in starting some sort of adjunct financial planning education program.

Let's remember: CFP Board and the CFP® marks ground in the remarkable. Early in my career transition, "CFP," (no ®,) was unknown but exciting and promising. "We" took that opportunity to turn those three little letters into a unique, self-regulating designation meaning something matchless, something absolutely special. "One profession, one designation" rang Kemp's mantra. You remember. And it has been ever thus. On certificants' backs and their blood, sweat, tears, energy and money, and the combined visions of extraordinary individuals, the CFP mark achieved an impressive dominance compared to rival marks and certifications. We markholders sought and craved accountability. "One profession, one designation." Indeed. Now, your legacy and trust.

This profession deserves a solid, focused Board of Standards. I think you and your board are just the folks to do it. Think mission. Think future. Think accountability. Think context and acknowledge that we are all here together, each with different roles. Think clarity. Hopefully, this, in turn, leads to an excellent chairmanship for you, the selection of a superb CEO for all of us and the generation of a superb statement of mission and purpose.

Dave, this is a glorious responsibility. Done right, it frames and validates the financial planning profession and the authentic role of CFP Board as surely as survey stakes frame and validate real property titles. It is enough.

The alternatives generate lack of clarity, loss of prestige and diminished mark meaning.

My best wishes for a great year and for paving the way for many more into the future. If there is any way I can help, please ask.

In profession and friendship,

Richard B. Wagner, JD, CFP®

WorthLiving LLC

Editor-at-Large Richard B. Wagner is principal of WorthLiving LLC in Denver and is the 2003 winner of the P. Kemp Fain Award.