Journal of Financial Planning; April 2014
Dan Moisand, CFP®, has been a practicing financial planner since 1991. He is a principal at Moisand Fitzgerald Tamayo LLC in Melbourne, Florida, and former president of FPA. He currently heads a continuing education best practices task force created by FPA.
In 2013, CFP Board divulged that it was considering getting into the business of providing continuing education. FPA’s board of directors viewed this as a clear conflict of interest. The referee should not participate in the competition.
Back in the day, what is now CFP Board was made independent from the College of Financial Planning in large part because in order to advance the marks, the education function needed to be separate from the standards-setting and enforcement functions. CFP Board thinks the conflict could be managed; other groups do it.
When I first heard of this issue and the “others do it” logic, I scoffed. I could hear my dad asking me, “If someone you know robbed a bank, would you become a thief too?”
“Others do it” is a weak justification. I couldn’t understand why CFP Board would put the organization in a position to be questioned about the conflict.
CFP Board indicated it felt some CE programs were deficient, but it didn’t share with planners what these deficient programs were. I wanted to know so I didn’t waste my time with a bad program.
I’m sure CFP Board’s Financial Planning Coalition partners, FPA and NAPFA, wanted to know too, especially if CFP Board was talking about them. I hoped that was not the case and don’t think it was, because I have been pleased, generally, with the CE provided by those organizations. If I’m wrong, I’d hope CFP Board would act like a good partner and help the organizations improve.
And there lay the concern. The Coalition is supposed to be a partnership with a common goal—to help advance the profession. When CFP Board decided to look into the quality of CE, did it reach out to its Coalition partners, two large CE providers, to assess the situation? No. Did it discuss its findings? No. Has CFP Board presented any case as to why it is the answer to whatever deficiencies may exist? No.
I’m sorry, but that is just not being a good partner. The profession needs a strong coalition, not a distrustful one.
CE Can Be Improved
Of course, CE can be improved. Keeping the quality high is easily a goal all Coalition partners embrace, but how is CFP Board taking on this conflict of interest the best solution? Do Coalition partners really need to be spending time, energy, and resources arguing about CFP Board’s role with CE?
Well, the good news is it appears CFP Board is reassessing what to do with CE. They have put the brakes on the whole thing and I am hopeful cooler heads have prevailed.
The secret study of an issue membership organizations are well equipped to address followed by a solution from CFP Board without public comment brings back memories of “CFP lite.” It has taken years for the planning community to recover from that process. Butting heads over CE seemed to me to be counterproductive to the advancement of the profession and could badly undercut the trust that has been slowly rebuilt, not just within the Coalition but with CFP practitioners.
For now though, no heels are digging in and FPA is conducting an assessment of the quality of CE. From this assessment, FPA will seek to improve its offerings and make constructive suggestions to CFP Board.
So what makes a CE program good or bad? CFP Board focuses on the content and whether it is relevant to the practice of financial planning. The content must address any of a list of specific topics. The list is revised every several years based on CFP Board’s surveys of what practitioners actually do with clients.
The practitioner community has not always been pleased with the list. It leaves off items related to the business of financial planning, such as marketing, technology, and practice management. For years, the list also did not include “soft skills” such as using a robust discovery process or client counselling skills. I understand this perspective and have few qualms with CFP Board’s list. Sure, I’d like to see a few more topics qualify for CE but overall, it is an appropriate list.
Good CE Content Is Good for Business
As a consumer of CE, the content is important to me, but how I rate a program typically reflects my experience with that program.
I have been fortunate to speak at various organization chapter meetings, symposiums, and conferences over the last decade and have had ample opportunity to see many good and a few bad CE programs. Although I have disagreed with a few presenters on various issues, I have yet to sit through a program where the essence of the content itself was so off topic that I would report it to CFP Board as not worthy of credit. Almost all of my bad experiences were caused by a dull speaker and/or a poorly veiled pitch for a product or service.
The problem of the “pitch” is one that we consumers of CE can fix if we put our minds to it. These programs will go away when practitioners complain and give poor ratings to the sponsoring firms. Most of us have gone to a talk by a wholesaler from “ABC Insurance” entitled something like “Understanding the Tricky Taxation of Annuities” only to sit through an hour of why the ABC Super Duper variable annuity is, in the wholesaler’s opinion, the best on the market with a few tax quirks sprinkled throughout the talk.
If enough negative feedback about the presentation gets to the meeting organizers, they may be motivated to coach future speakers. Note to chapter executives: I love you and know your job can be rough. I am not trying to get you inundated with complaints. I just want better programming. Don’t take the complaints personally; take them to the offending firm.
What ABC Insurance needs to understand is that the best sales pitch isn’t a pitch; it’s great content. A speaker who can talk about the tricky taxation of annuities intelligently with some strategic thinking woven in is far more likely to be liked and appreciated. The speaker and the speakers’ firm make a much better professional impression. Good content is good for business.
I know this may sound simple, but it isn’t easy. I have chaired a few conference task forces over the years, and despite the coaching, someone always seems to manage to ignore the admonitions and goes into all-out sales mode.
Part of the issue is that the economic model for meetings makes this difficult. Organizers need funding from sponsors and sponsors want an audience. I know the organizers hear the complaints, but I am not sure they go much farther. It is tempting to insulate the sponsors from the bad reviews in hopes they will sponsor again. But pandering like this helps no one; not the sponsor, the organizers, or the attendees and their clients.
Share Your Feedback
Many practitioners will not bother to write a useful review. Too many have capitulated and are resolved to just sit tight and get their credits. Maybe they do not want to upset the economic forces behind these programs, but more likely, they offered suggestions in the past but have not seen change.
In the coming months, you may be asked to give FPA some feedback on the state of CE. I encourage you to respond thoughtfully so FPA can improve its ability to serve its members. I don’t know where FPA’s CE assessment will lead. Hopefully, it isn’t to another battle with CFP Board. I am encouraged in this regard. CFP Board has asked FPA for its opinions on a number of issues it finds problematic in the administration of CE, and FPA is compiling its feedback. It is nice to see both organizations being good partners.