Barrons: Designations and Misconduct: A Surprising Connection

[DHK]

It's an interesting article to say the least.

Designations and Misconduct: A Surprising Connection

AC: Did you compare the different financial planning designations in terms of misconduct levels?

JC: When Pieter and I looked at the designations separately, and controlled for the “bad” factors [including maleness, insurance/annuity sales licensure and dual registration], we found that misconduct went down for ChFCs, but not for CFPs. CFPs’ scores were indistinguishable from advisors with only basic sales licenses.

This was really surprising and more than a little disturbing, since the CFP is widely promoted as “the gold standard” of advice.

There's a lot more, and I don't necessarily like it, but it's an interesting article.

 

[VolAgent]

I think the problem at its core, which was only hinted at, is that at its core this is a sales role trying desperately to be anything but.

 

[tikibarrister]

“JC: When Pieter and I looked at the designations separately, and controlled for the “bad” factors [including maleness, insurance/annuity sales licensure and dual registration],”

So being male is a “bad” factor?

 

[VolAgent]

“JC: When Pieter and I looked at the designations separately, and controlled for the “bad” factors [including maleness, insurance/annuity sales licensure and dual registration],”

So being male is a “bad” factor?

As the article mentioned, it one was of the factors that corresponded to a disproportionate number of bad acts.

 

[DHK]

lol. Lately, I've noticed that the way the term "sales" is used, you can substitute the words "assault" or even "rape". And statistically speaking, males tend to do more "assault" and "rape" than females do.

I don't necessarily agree with the entire article, but I thought there was some interesting points.

 

[Kenneth Busch]

It's an interesting article to say the least.

Designations and Misconduct: A Surprising Connection



There's a lot more, and I don't necessarily like it, but it's an interesting article.

Is there a difference between competence and integrity? I think people like Kitces are touting the CFP and some "gold standard" of competence, not necessarily honesty.

I don't really agree with the CFP being some magic gold standard of competence, but popular bloggers are sure making the push for it to be so.

 

[DHK]

I think competence is knowledge while integrity is acting in an ethical/moral way on behalf of their clients. I don't see how one can have integrity without competence. In fact, without competence, one can easily commit malpractice out of sheer ignorance.

CFP education is a good minimum competency standard, but it's not the "be all and end all". Nothing ever will be.

How to digest financial advisers’ alphabet soup of professional certifications

 

[VolAgent]

I don't see how one can have integrity without competence. In fact, without competence, one can easily commit malpractice out of sheer ignorance.

Not at all. Being ignorant doesn't mean a person lacks integrity. Either you are committed to doing the right thing or you're not. Your knowledge of what the right thing is may be limited and mistaken, but that doesn't mean you aren't trying to do the best you can.

Now, if you claim to be an expert and have knowledge that you do not have and especially that you know you lack, that is completely different.

 

[scagnt83]

Not at all. Being ignorant doesn't mean a person lacks integrity. Either you are committed to doing the right thing or you're not. Your knowledge of what the right thing is may be limited and mistaken, but that doesn't mean you aren't trying to do the best you can.

Now, if you claim to be an expert and have knowledge that you do not have and especially that you know you lack, that is completely different.

Exactly. Big difference.

Harm from malice requires intent.

Harm from ignorance is not necessarily intentional.

 

[Kenneth Busch]

Not at all. Being ignorant doesn't mean a person lacks integrity. Either you are committed to doing the right thing or you're not. Your knowledge of what the right thing is may be limited and mistaken, but that doesn't mean you aren't trying to do the best you can.

Now, if you claim to be an expert and have knowledge that you do not have and especially that you know you lack, that is completely different.

I think there are some really competent people that are just plain dishonest. Maybe some would say you can't separate the two, but to me the Barron's article is proving it.