Executive Summary
With the CFP Board's ongoing efforts to continue growth in the number of CFP certificants, the organization has been involved in a number of ongoing initiatives, from its Women's Initiative to bring more females into financial planning, to its decision to convert to a shorter computer-based testing format to make the CFP comprehensive exam less daunting.
In a surprise announcement, though, the CFP Board has just declared that after adding a "Capstone Course" requirement to the CFP curriculum in 2012, and including the requirement for not only new students but also those who are seeking to challenge status for the CFP exam, the organization is now offering to waive the capstone course requirement for challengers who instead simply submit a comprehensive financial plan to be assessed by peer reviewers. In addition, the CFP Board also announced that a wider range of "support" activities will be permitted to count towards the requisite 3-year experience requirement to earn the CFP marks.
While arguably the change to the Capstone course is a positive, the adjustments to the experience requirement may now be opening the door for virtually anyone with a job in the broad financial services industry (or even journalists writing about it) to qualify for "financial planning" experience, despite having absolutely no actual experience being involved in the creation of a financial plan, supporting its delivery, or interacting with a client! And perhaps even more concerning, why is it that both the prior Capstone and Experience requirements were implemented with a lengthy public comment period and process, but the CFP Board now sees fit to change those rules at its own whim?
CFP Board Capstone Course Requirement For Challenge Status
For decades, the standard educational requirement for CFP certification is that prospective CFP certificants must complete a series of (typically 5 or 6) financial planning courses, but those who already have certain degrees or designations - including a Ph.D. in business or economics, a law degree, a CPA license, or the ChFC, CLU, or CFA marks - have the educational requirement waived, and are eligible for "challenge status" to sit for the exam.
In 2010, however, the CFP Board's decided to add a "financial plan development course" to the educational requirements. Also known as the "Capstone" course, the idea was to ensure that students were not only trained in the underlying knowledge of the CFP topic list, but also had at least some training and experience in actually developing and putting together a financial plan. The Capstone course took effect for all students who began a CFP program in 2012 (or later), and notably was required even for those pursuing challenge status. As a result, even a practicing ChFC or CPA who had been delivering their own financial plans for years still had to go "back to school" and take the Capstone course.
In a new announcement today, though, the CFP Board has declared that those pursuing challenge status will no longer have to take a Capstone course, and instead will have an "alternative" Capstone requirement of simply submitting a comprehensive financial plan for peer review (ostensibly similar to NAPFA's own membership requirement). As the CFP Board put it in their own press release:
Financial Plan Development (“capstone”) Course Alternative.
What’s New: Applying only to candidates eligible for “challenge status” who have also met the certification’s Experience requirement, the alternative “capstone” requires submission of a comprehensive financial plan and assessment by CFP® professional reviewers.
What Stays the Same: The alternative “capstone” requirement continues to serve the purpose of assuring the public that a candidate has completed and communicated to a client a comprehensive financial plan.
Although the CFP Board has not provided detail to the rigor of the peer review process or exactly how it will be executed, I have to admit that this seems like a positive overall for the CFP marks. While conceptually the Capstone requirement is certainly a positive - to ensure that those who hold out as a CFP certificant have, at least once in their lifetime, actually completed a comprehensive financial plan! - it was arguably a bit absurd to require those who have actually been practicing financial planning for years or even decades to go back to school for a capstone course. With the "alternative Capstone" requirement of those who actually have experience simply submitting a sample of their work, the process seems reasonably expedited.
The news may be especially appealing for those CPAs who have been delivering financial planning for years, but either did so with "just" their CPA license, and/or the PFS credential, but had never earned the CFP certification. On the other hand, this announcement may be a significant blow to CFP educational program providers like Boston University, Keir, Dalton, and the College for Financial Planning, that have spent the past several years marking their Capstone-plus-Exam-Review programs to affiliated professionals, only to find that the CFP Board may have just waived the Capstone requirement for many likely challengers. Not to mention students who had already paid to go through the CFP Board's prior Capstone requirement and were planning to sit for the exam in 2015, who have now discovered that they didn't need to pay for a Capstone course after all!
Experience Requirement For CFP Certification
Also included in the CFP Board's announcement regarding the changes to the Capstone requirement, was a "new initiative" to expand the definition of experience for the CFP Experience Requirement to include a wider range of "support activities". According to the CFP Board's press release:
Expanding the Definition of Experience Requirement to Include Support Activities.
What’s New: To recognize the breadth and depth within the financial planning profession as part of its Experience requirement, CFP Board will now review activities and responsibilities reflecting financial planning knowledge and competencies that indirectly support the financial planner and/or the financial planning process. Depending on duties and responsibilities, partial or full qualifying credit may be granted. New experience positions or duties that are eligible, such as employee benefits administration, financial planning compliance, or journalism (financial planning topics) will be considered on a case by case basis.
What Stays the Same: Candidates for certification must still meet CFP Board’s Experience requirement of three years of qualifying financial planning experience. Alternatively, candidates may choose an accelerated two-year apprenticeship Experience option, working under the direct supervision of a CFP® professional and having responsibilities in all steps of the financial planning process.
Notably, under the CFP Board's rules, providing direct support of personal delivery to the client for any of the six steps of the financial planning process was already eligible under the experience standards. Thus, the primary impact of this change is that it grants experience credit for anything evenly indirectly touching the financial planning process - as the CFP Board notes, including a job in compliance, employee benefits administration, or even financial journalism.
Arguably, this change to the experience requirements is far more concerning. The fact that such a wide range of "indirect" experience now qualifies basically means the CFP Board has blessed the experience requirement on anyone who has any job in any way attached to the financial services industry! Or as the CFP Board's announcement acknowledges, even jobs outside of the financial services industry, like simply writing about financial planning, but never actually being involved in its delivery or in working with a client in any way, shape, or form. Does that mean any personal finance columnist with a weekly (or even monthly?) column for the past 3 years has now satisfied the CFP experience requirement? Is there an audience requirement? Can anyone just launch their own personal financial planning blog for consumers, call themselves a "journalist", and meet the CFP educational requirement after 3 years' worth of posts, never having actually interacted with a single client, or even discussed financial planning with another human being?
When coupled with the CFP Board's decision to implement the 2-year apprenticeship option in 2012, what was once a 3-year requirement for real financial planning experience, has now been watered down to 2-years of actual planning experience or 3 years of "anything that has to do with the financial services industry." It's hard to see how this is anything but a lessening of the minimum experience standards for CFP certificants, allowing an even wider range of not-actually-financial-planning-or-client-related experience to still be eligible for the CFP exams.
CFP Board Changing Rules Without Stakeholder Input Through Public Comments?
Perhaps most notable about the CFP Board's announcement, though, is the fact that it implemented these changes without any public comment period (and even worse, announcing it on a known-to-be-slow news week when it is less likely to be seen!) - a significant change, given that the current experience requirement was itself only established after a public comment period in 2011, and similarly that the current Capstone requirement was only implemented after a public comment period in 2009. In other words, the current rules were established after a specific process to gather stakeholder input and provide feedback before implementation... and now the CFP Board has decided to change those rules to accomplish its own goals, without re-engaging planners for any input.
In fact, it's notable that the CFP Board has not engaged stakeholder input on any of its recent changes or initiatives. The last time I can recall the CFP Board had an open comment period on anything was back in 2012 (unless anyone can think of something more recent?), with changes to the bankruptcy disclosure requirements and then also potential changes to the CE requirements later that year. And those comment opportunities occurred after a flurry of comment periods in the preceding years on everything from updates to its disciplinary process to the aforementioned changes to the experience requirement and the addition of the Capstone course.
Which raises the question - especially given the CFP Board's ongoing debacles regarding its compensation disclosures as well - of whether the CFP Board is risking further loss of support from its stakeholders by not including them in the process of an ongoing litany of rules changes and new initiatives? Is the CFP Board really serious about stakeholder input, or is the organization now just using comment periods strategically as it sees fit for its own ends instead? And how exactly does the decision to reduce the CFP experience requirement and offer the CFP marks to those who have no actual financial planning experience serve to advance the CFP Board's mission to protect the public?
So what do you think? Are these "new initiatives" an improvement to the CFP marks, or a watering down of the requirements for CFP certification? Should the CFP Board have engaged in a public comment period before making the changes? Share your thoughts in the comments below, or email the CFP Board's Board of Directors at [email protected]!
CFP Board Softens Experience Requirements For New CFP Certificants & Reduces Capstone Requirement For Challenge … http://t.co/5rTzuebIKO
Making a change as significant as waiving the need to take even one class deserves a public comment period, no doubt.
These changes will allow a licensed attorney (eligible for challenge status) to use the CFP designation simply by demonstrating a passing ability to generate software output and by taking a computerized exam?
I wish I could say this move is surprising, but as you mentioned, they seem to have perfected the art of the tone-deaf PR fumble with their stakeholders.
-Elliott Weir
Elliott,
To be fair, the exam is no joke, and I hear anecdotally that challenge status applicants actually have an even WORSE pass rate, because they tend to underestimate the scope of the exam and the breadth of the financial planning body of knowledge.
That being said, the importance of adding the Capstone course came from CFP stakeholders, who affirmed it in the public comment period when the requirement was added, and it’s very concerning that the CFP Board would just eliminate it after going through a public comment process to add it.
Personally, I actually think the Capstone change was reasonable (and the experience change is the more concerning of the two), but again still should have been part of a public comment process for such a significant change.
– Michael
Lawyers can practice law as soon as they pass the bar exam there is no experience requirement to hang out a shingle. The RICP and ChFC designation also have very easy experience requirements to meet.
I do not see the CFP Board relaxing experience requirements as a good thing at all… http://t.co/VCa1iRVGac
CFP Board Softens Experience Requirements For New CFPs & Reduces Capstone Requirement For Challenge Status http://t.co/xb5AK8JR1x
.@MichaelKitces raises legit concerns over recent @CFPBoard behavior: https://t.co/Q3B7eLOXs5
Michael, thanks as always for keeping us in the loop. The experience requirement is critical, and where it takes place, as in under the guidance of a CFP certificant, fully engaged in a planning practice, matters. The depth and breadth of knowledge required to do comprehensive planning well is substantial, and any move to award the CFP to those who don’t have the experience, education, or intent to do planning well, reduces the value of the marks. Not sure what action to take, but would encourage the CFP board to focus on being a standards organization, rather than a membership organization.
Randy Brunson
I see this as the CFP Board promoting the “marks” but not necessarily the profession of financial planning. The result is likely to be increasing numbers of CFP’s, fewer of whom are practicing financial planning. Not a positive outcome in my opinion.
Shhhhh. What is that I hear coming from one of those subrosa meetings in that fancy, tall building? Oh, it’s the wirehouse bosses telling their teams of sales reps, oops I meant advisors, to get that CFP behind their names now so that they can really con their so-called clients. “Look at me; I’m a CFP. Trust me. Confide in me. Give me all your money.”
If the CFP Board sees an onslaught of wirehouse con-artists lining up at their door, they best rethink what they’ve just done or undone.
CFP Board Softens Experience Requirements For New CFP Certificants & Reduces Capstone Requirement For Challenge St… https://t.co/M322pVx8aZ
“Shhhhh. What is that I hear coming from one of those subrosa meetings in that fancy, tall…” http://t.co/TPx5wVjxYX
Looks like it’s CFP-Lite(TM) now. Seesh. https://t.co/5RWmZwYzfo via: @MichaelKitces
Very disappointing! As a recent CFP certificant (passed the November exam) and long-time CPA, I invested considerable time and money to take a Capstone Course.
The “back and forth” in requirements reflects very poorly on the level of professionalism associated with the CFP credential. Requirements have changed very little in the 30+ years since I
earned my CPA.
I sincerely hope that the value of my CFP credential is not “watered down” by these changes.
I will be writing a letter to the CFP Board!
Smacks to me of a return to those glory days of yesteryear, when the CFP BOS was so driven to expand it’s dues paying membership that they tried for “CFP-Lite”! While that shoddy initiative was based on lower standards for the education & exam requirements behind the mark, this new lightening of the experience standards seems much more dangerous- sort of a “stealth” run at basically lowering the relevant experience hurdle to the bare minimum. Maybe the CFP BOS should just make the experience requirement something like: “Answer yes or no- Have you ever been inside a building where they are involved in any way with the financial services industry?”
Sam,
It looks to me like that’s exactly what they just did. :/
– Michael
Whew, comments starting to roll in already! “@CFPBoard Softens Experience & Capstone Requirements” – http://t.co/9gAQTMhclk
Having challenged the exam myself, I must say the capstone course was a joke. I didn’t receive any value for the amount of money I spent to complete the course. I think my total time on the course was 10-15 hours over 1 weekend. However, the board was a bit more challenging when submitting my experience and I don’t think changes should be made to incorporate those non related services just to increase the number of certificants.
Thank you for opening up debate and comment on this subject. As someone new to the
profession, I think the capstone is essential learning and experience should be
more flexible. Not all regions provide a robust market for financial planning experience opportunities, but with a solid educational background in financial planning, one can begin providing services through alternative channels.
Regarding earlier comments about the CBT, in November 2014, I passed the CFP®. I cannot compare the CBT to the old format, but I will say I worked intensely hard to master the
concepts, and I would not wanted to have spent one less hour in preparation. In my experience, the exam was rigorous, and I think the testing format was well done.
In the summer of 2014 I took a capstone course in completion of a graduate certificate in family financial planning from Iowa State University’s GP Idea program. The capstone course was the most important class I took: pulling together all facets of the process into a comprehensive
plan. In my experience, for the individual entering the profession, the capstone course is essential training.
Lastly regarding work experience, I must find an opportunity to practice the studies I completed successfully, and I see very few opportunities for a career-changer in the area where I live.
In my region there is great need for financial planning, but none of the firms in the area want, as they’ve told me: ‘new competition.’ It is disheartening and I am a little surprised that so few have a positive and abundant view of the potential for providing services.
However, I do see where I could use my writing background to build experience, and I think for some of those entering the profession that experience is actually the most difficult criteria to
achieve. Perhaps by opening the experience requirement, more who are dedicated to the profession will be able to begin practicing while maintaining the high standards of the mark? I would argue many can meet the high standards of the profession through a more open interpretation of experience.
I have similar issues in that I passed the exam July 2014 and my prior work experience doesn’t add up to the 3000 hours needed to gain the CFP. The new requirements may enable me to meet the requirement, but I need to take a harder look at the new regs then analyze my work activities over the past 10 years before sending anything up to the CFP Board. In order to get the experience needed (I need 11 more months), the only thing I can realistically do is hang up my own shingle and become an RIA. I can’t leave my current job to practice full time, so I need to practice on the side to gain the additional hours. I don’t know if that scenario is optimal for the profession or the designation. If an existing advisor was willing to let me apprentice part time, I’d jump at the chance so I could really learn the ropes. Per Sarah’s note, the RIAs who I’ve networked with are happy to share best practices, but are luke warm to anything that would give me hands on experience. I’d be happy to do whatever grunt work needed to be done to be involved, but I guess it’s not a win -win proposition for an existing advisor. My strategy is to set up my practice, be choosy about who I serve and what I do (likely friends and family, and focusing on general financial planning and investment planning ), and in the meantime continue to acquire competency (studying for my EA) and look for opportunities to learn.
I get the reaction by those who have already earned the CFP, but there needs to be a path to achieve the requirements of the designation that don’t dilute it, maintain the quality expected of a CFP practitioner, and enables those who seek to become a CFP with a clear path. To go back to the doctor analogy, there are recognized programs that enable someone to become an MD. A prospective MD needs to get into a residency program. Maybe we need something like that for CFP practitioners. I’d also offer that it could be win win if the CFP Board gave CE credit to CFP RIAs who sponsor a CFP apprentice.
.@CFPBoard softens experience req’s for new CFP’s & reduces capstone req for challenge status via @MichaelKitces: http://t.co/KbdLFjTJ7T
Wow…this makes me disgusted. The planning profession needs a true professional designation, not a watered down version from a non profit consumer protection agency.
I’ll take the other side on this. I think there should be some flexibility regarding the experience requirement. As a former personal finance journalist for many years, I think I should have been granted at least some experience credit. (I was turned down and put in my three years as an adviser before receiving certification.) I think Mary Beth Franklin of Investment News is at least as qualified by way of her experience as many people who work for advisory firms.
Helen,
I think writing provides a wonderful reinforcement for learning the technical body of knowledge that is financial planning. I’ve met a number of journalists who I’d easily wager know as much of the technical information of financial planning as most CFP certificants, and I certainly have nothing against them!
But the point of a professional experience requirement is to have demonstrated application OF the professional knowledge in an applied context with clients. And studying it and reading it and writing about it alone don’t accomplish that. If it was enough to simply have demonstrated technical competency, there would JUST be an education and exam requirement, and not an experience requirement.
To put it in context, can you imagine having a doctor do surgery on you, even though the doctor has never actually seen a patient or been involved in surgery, simply because the doctor has studied anatomy extensively and written about it for years but never been a resident or fellow?
While I realize that financial planning has not yet reached the professional status of doctors, relaxing the experience requirements are a step backwards from achieving that kind of professional recognition in the first place.
– Michael
“To put it in context, can you imagine having a doctor do surgery on you, even though the doctor has never actually seen a patient or been involved in surgery, simply because the doctor has studied anatomy extensively and written about it for years but never been a resident or fellow?”
To further put this in context, the current requirements would allow selling scalpels, collecting patient intake information, or teaching courses about surgery to qualify an individual to use the designation. Experience is certainly important and there is a good argument to be made for increasing the standards to require actual supervised surgery (comprehensive planning), but such requirements could not be realistically implemented at this point (it would require alienating a large segment of current designation holders and substantially decrease the potential revenue for the issuing organization). Given this reality, the “experience” component of this designation is relatively meaningless and it is more comparable to a voluntary bar examination. So long as this is adequately expressed to consumers, I don’t see anything wrong with actually expanding qualified experience even further (because most of it is meaningless anyways).
John,
A fair point that the CFP Board’s experience requirement doesn’t currently meet an ‘aspirational’ doctor analogy.
But then again, if the experience requirements continue to move backwards instead of forwards, it never will, either. :/
– Michael
All of you using a doctor or CPA analogy are just scaring the heck out of me… Are you really suggesting that certified financial planners should be federally “licensed” and let loose on the public without supervision audit or control??
Before some of you go any further may I suggest you sit down with a copy of “Questions a Legislator should Ask” by Shimberg & Roederer and Demystifying Occupational And Professional Regulation” by Shimberg and learn the difference between Registration, Certification and Licensure…
Your insinuation that the people in this thread don’t understand the differences between registration, certification, and licensure seems unfounded. The CFP is a voluntary certification and I don’t see how any of the medical analogies are making descriptive or normative claims otherwise. The analogies are merely a means for comparing overlapping characteristics that may or may not exist in various settings.
John, it wasn’t an insinuation and the fact that you believe there are overlapping characteristics between a non-existent profession and a real “licensed” profession proves my point. The suggested reading stands…
The “experience” is meaningless unless there is a way to judge the quantity and quality of it. Residencies work for doctors because they are each approved, accredited, and it is a barrier to entry. I don’t think a realistic way exists to implement this for financial planning. To me it is meaningless it exists to look good on those financial designation comparison charts.
So..basically, the year after I get my designation, the CFP Board has 1) shortened the test, 2) removed its capstone “requirement” and 3) lessened the experience requirement…. And we are the “Gold Standard” ???? I’m so confused right now.
CFP Board Softens Experience Requirements For New CFP Certificants … http://t.co/nJeyJhqzGR via @MichaelKitces
I’m concerned there wasn’t a public comment period, but so long as three years of insurance sales is qualified experience, I fail to see the big concern with allowing financial journalists to acquire the designation. I might even suggest that your average journalist probably gives better financial planning advice than your average financial advisor.
I would like to see some empirical evidence that the vast majority of industry experience (i.e. sales) actually improves the quality of advice consumers receive. If it does not, it may be worth questioning whether the experience requirement provides much value at all. More than anything, the designation is a signal to consumers that at one point in time an individual passed an exam. This has value, but it’s limited.
It’s also noteworthy that professors already have the ability to acquire the designation without actually having face-to-face client experience.
Send them an email…Contact the Board of Directors
[email protected]
Great reminder Jason, I’ve added a note about this to the end of the post as well. Thanks! 🙂
– Michael
I think what is getting lost overall is that the “Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards, Inc. (CFP Board) was founded in 1985 as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization that serves the public interest by promoting the value of professional, competent and ethical financial planning services, as represented by those who have attained CFP® certification. – See more at: http://www.cfp.net/about-cfp-board/about-cfp-board/history#sthash.anuVK3mv.dpuf” It is not a professional organization.
Jason,
The CFP Board’s 501(c)(3) status makes this even more problematic.
Which part of protecting the public interest is served by lowering the experience standards to obtain CFP certification, in a change unilaterally implemented without a public comment period, after the current/prior level was set WITH a public comment period as affirming that it was the right level to protect the public?
Setting membership standards as a membership organization is one thing, but as you aptly point out the CFP Board is not a membership group. On the other hand, lowering standards as a non-profit organization established to protect the public without a process of engaging the public for feedback…
– Michael
.@CFPBoard softens experience req’s for new CFP’s & reduces capstone req for challenge status via @MichaelKitces: http://t.co/OrFwkEDMWH
@MichaelKitces: CFP Board Softens Experience Requirements For New CFP Certificants & Reduces Capstone Requirement … http://t.co/ySsdEATt3n
CFP Board Softens Experience Requirements For New CFP Certificants & Reduces Capstone Requirement For Challengers http://t.co/kiU7jJ4DK1
.@CFPBoard softens experience req’s for new CFP’s & reduces capstone req for challenge status via @MichaelKitces: http://t.co/xFfE2s0Sx3
It seems the board is trying to help the big institutions qualify their brokers and other employees as CFPs so they can offer “planning advice” along with trading support. The giant firms have been trying to do this, but could not get enough CFPs. Looks like the robo-advsiors just got a boost. Wall Street wins consumers lose, once again.
William,
Actually, most of the wirehouses have now launched salaried training programs that put candidates onto teams doing financial planning support work. Those positions in “big institutions” would have easily qualified under the old work experience requirement. In fact, many/most of them probably qualify under the accelerated 2-year “apprenticeship” experience standard.
The CFP Board’s announcement itself indicates who “benefits” from this – employee benefits administrators, compliance folks, and journalists who want to become CFP certificants. It’s not about wirehouses.
– Michael
CFP Board Softens Experience Requirements For New CFP Certificants & More | http://t.co/TDVB5YpKJm http://t.co/6VEpG4w65n
I sympathize with those who worry that the new, more broadly defined experience requirement will dilute the value of the CFP marks. But as someone who completed the CFP certificate program at the University of Virginia, including the capstone course, and passed the CFP exam on the first try in the old two-day, paper format in November 2013, I was frustrated that there was no way for me to use the marks under the previous experience definition.
I answer advisor questions every day about how to optimize their clients’ Social Security claiming strategies as part of their unique retirement income plans. I discuss cash flow and lifetime income concerns, tax consequences and impact on Medicare costs. I often review investment and insurance options as part of the strategy. I also respond to individual consumers who contact me after seeing me on television, hearing me on the radio or reading my blog on http://www.investmentnews.com.
But under the old rules, there was no way for me to satisfy the experience requirement unless I quit my day job and apprenticed with a financial adviser. None of my more than 30 years as a personal finance journalist, including 13 years as the tax and retirement editor at Kiplinger’s Personal Finance magazine,counted toward the three-year work experience requirement.
I am passionate about exposing financial advisers to the latest research and ideas about redefining retirement income strategies. The financial services industry continues to evolve to accommodate a new generation of retirees who will live longer than previous ones, most of them without the guaranteed income of pensions nor protection of retiree health benefits. The financial services financial planning profession needs to evolve, too.
I am thrilled that the CFP BOS will now renew CFP candidates’ non-traditional work experience on a case-by-case basis. I hope my experience will satisfy the new requirement.
CFP Board Softens Experience Requirements For New CFP Certificants & Reduces Capstone Requirement For Challengers http://t.co/qC9WS1cWih
I am very disappointed in this direction. It makes me seriously question how long I will continue to pay my own dues — if we allow the significance of the designation to be diluted, it will essentially become meaningless — and worst case, the public will learn to stay away from people who are CFPs — in essence at some point the ball starts rolling down the hill. That point comes when the public, who we are supposed to be looking out for their good — recognizes the CFP as nothing more than a marketing scheme.
This is more than disappointing.
Looking at the individuals that were on the board prior to December 31st, 2014 will reflect a very uneven distribution of individuals that did not hold the CFP designation versus those that held the designation. More importantly, those that held the designation seemingly had not practiced financial planning or were in a management position where the marks were moribund.
This parting shot from the past Board members is truly embarrassing. How can one consider employee benefits a prerequisite to experience as a CFP? Yet, there was certainly a board member with that background. Financial Journalism? If I write a few scientific articles will that make me a certified junior astronomer?
When considering the credentials of the academicians on the past board, how does lecturing to students translate to the actual experience of managing client financial needs? Don’t do as I do, do as I tell you to do. That’s always worked with my prospects, how about yours?
Finally, is there some sort of incentive for the Board to grow the ranks of CFPs? If so, was the intent to do so no matter what the cost, even the watering down of our own designation? By the way, if there is an incentive for the Board to get more certificants, are we paying to have our own marks watered down as well as compensating members of the Board for doing so? Isn’t that the whole idea behind conflicts of interest?
Perhaps that’s why there was no public comment period.
More importantly, how does this benefit the public by granting a CFP certification that will be of a dubious lesser standard? How does this benefit the public by upholding the certification as the recognized standard for excellence for COMPETENT and ethical personal financial planning.
Based upon the actions that the Board has taken in this past year, and again failing in its duties as an overseer of the standards it was asked to uphold, can anyone of us be proud of where we now are of our organization or its Board?
Disgraceful
As a program director, it is odd they didn’t contact colleges ahead of time. CFP Board requires registered certificate programs to maintain 45 contact hours in a case study/capstone class. Will the new case also require 45 contact hours? I’m interested to see. Thank you for pointing me to the right discussion!
Craig,
As I understand it, there are contact hours required at all for the “alternative” capstone requirement. The challenger would “just” need to prepare a comprehensive financial plan, and submit it to the CFP Board directly to go through the new peer review process. Programs offering a capstone course would be bypassed entirely.
– Michael
Is it a revenue driver for them? Or pro bono? I guess that will come out soon.
Craig,
Not clear. I suspect there will be “some” processing fee, though I don’t really think this was a revenue-grab. I suspect it was simply a response to the subset of highly-experienced challengers who really DIDN’T need to take a capstone course because they really HAVE been doing real financial planning for a decade or two, and were complaining that they wanted the opportunity to still challenge for the exam as they could in the past.
Strictly speaking, I think this was a reasonable change, though I think it’s concerning that the CFP Board implemented the rule with an extensive public comment process but altered it without such input. The experience change, on the other hand, is more overtly problematic and risks the perceived quality of the marks in my view. :/
– Michael
Oh! feeling not happy to read this update. 🙁
nursing capstone project ideas
Thanks for detailing CFP Board Capstone course requirement for challenge status
capstone research paper
Nice article about CFP challenge status program training
And now, just a year later, the Capstone Requirement has changed again. Instead of submitting a comprehensive financial plan for CFP review (in addition to having a CFA or Ph.D. in a related field, etc.) and satisfying the experience, you must once again take a Capstone class. This time an “Alternative” Capstone class that is three times as expensive as submitting the comprehensive financial plan was ($1285 versus $485). The class has to be taken in a six week online course, meeting virtually online three times a week or in a five day in person workshop. So, there’s that.