In recent months, the CFP Board has been getting a lot of attention regarding its compensation disclosure rules and its definition of what constitutes "fee only" for financial planners. What started with the public resignation of then-Board-chair Alan Goldfarb - later publicly admonished for his improper disclosure of "commission and fee" compensation - has led to a notice to members, an "educational" webinar, and a series of increasingly problematic news stories, from the schism between CFP Board and NAPFA's definition of fee-only, to negative comments from former DEC members, and most recently a "breaking" news story that the CFP Board's website was allowing hundreds of wirehouse advisors to declare themselves "fee only" in direct contravention to the CFP Board's rules. As a result of this latest article, last Friday the CFP Board converted all of its more-than-8,000 "fee-only" advisors to a compensation disclosure of "None Provided", forcing them to affirmatively re-declare themselves to be "fee only" in compliance with the current rules.
Yet the also-recent announcement that Florida CFP certificants Jeffrey and Kimberly Camarda were suing the CFP Board regarding their own alleged compensation disclosure improprieties make it clear that in truth, the CFP Board's recent struggles are not so recent after all. In point of fact, it appears that the CFP Board has been dealing with this issue since early 2011, and only now, 2.5 years later, has it finally culminated to the breaking point where everything is coming to light. Along the way, it appears that the CFP Board has tried to act with integrity, in a manner consistent with its original Camarda ruling... except, unfortunately, given how problematic the original precedent actually was, sticking to the ruling is just compounding the problems further and further.
Advisors in good faith have acted on the reasonable assumption that they cannot be "entitled to" compensation that no client has ever actually paid, such that it doesn't necessarily matter who the advisor works for... what matters is what the client actually pays (and only then, if a commission is paid, should we be trying to evaluate to what person or entity the compensation was paid and the related parties involved). If the ultimate intention of the CFP Board is to truly change the compensation disclosure rules to what they are now - after recognizing it's a deviation from what the rules have been! - such alterations need to occur through a public comment process that allows the stakeholders to have a constructive role in the discussion. At this point, it seems time for the CFP Board to take a step back, acknowledge that - intentional or not - its current interpretation of the rules is in fact a material change from how the stakeholder community may have intended them when the rules were last changed in 2008, as evidenced by the sheer number of advisors who have been "out of compliance" simply by trying to disclose what their clients actually pay.