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,