EDIT: IARFC and RFC designation making great progress!

[DHK]

The IARFC announced yesterday that if you have ONLY a life insurance license (or securities licenses for that matter), that it now satisfies the education requirement for their RFC designation. If you have 4 years of experience and pledge to uphold their code of ethics, do annual CE and pay your dues... you can now have the RFC.

Membership Door Opens for Life Insurance Professionals

Here was the IARFC response on their Facebook page:

"This is an important step to bring the IARFC into the future and broaden the scope of the Association and its members to the public we serve.”...Vice Chairman Nicholas Royer.

Here was my response back:

That is the WEAKEST argument I have ever heard! No, you do not give away a certification for no additional work above licensing! Licensing does not mean competency. Licensing means that you are able to be held liable for what you do, not that you know what you are doing.

This is a problem - a HUGE problem for the industry if you "give away" a designation. There needs to be something other than just having 4 years of experience and keeping a license for a while. I don't know what... but something. You do NOT get to cheapen all other certifications by giving yours away without any additional work. In my opinion, someone there is not thinking about compliance, regulations, or public relations. You may want to expand your membership, but this is NOT the way to do it.

I used to hold the IARFC in a high esteem. Now I think of it only as a marketing association - probably struggling financially.

If I think about it... it's like they are offering amnesty for those who are too lazy to study.

"Don't want to study? Can't study and take more exams? Losing cases to your credentialed competition? No problem. Here's some letters for you anyway. WE like you (and your dues)!"

----------

Now granted, their designation says "registered", not 'certified' and not 'chartered'. You're not allowed to put RIA after your name because that's not a designation of advanced study. That's a form of business. But you're not allowed because it can be misleading the public that you have additional qualifications.

 

[Robert Barney]

When you have government regulators who won't police the industry, why should the industry police the industry?

 

[DHK]

This isn't about laws. This is about ethics.

The IARFC has the right to bestow their credentials upon anyone they choose. They own the rights to that and I know they don't have to listen to me.

However, just "giving them away" without any additional work of ANY kind... really cheapens them and devalues other credentials. Hey, even the oft maligned CSA designation (no longer allowed for use in California) had a course with an exam that had to be completed and passed that IMPLIED expertise in financial planning for seniors. The RFC doesn't even require THAT minimum standard.

Now, the IARFC does not really have a "base membership" category. They should, but they don't. They know that they really sell a 'designation'. And since they're coming out with a new accredited one within the next year (MRFC), they figured they might as well academically strip the requirements for the RFC.

Well, for me, that just won't do. So I'm making a big deal about it to them. For an association that professes ethics to be a core tenant, they are looking out for themselves on this one, not the industry or the credentialed financial professional community.

----------

One of my LinkedIn contacts is the President of the IARFC (granted, there's still a chairman and a CEO, but still). I have sent him a copy of my LinkedIn post hoping that he'll help the association to see what they just did, reverse course, and do SOMETHING different.

 

[walthamny]

DHK,

I propose we start our own designation and make money on the side. My general view is thumbs down for all designations. As a business model, it is very tempting to change the business model and lower requirements and see membership income increase in the short run. And who cares about the long run, just start another designation. I almost became a CFP and CPA, I also tried CFA years ago. Now I am a Certified Nut, because I am in this business after so many years. I forgot to look for another job when all others around me left.

 

[scagnt83]

When you have government regulators who won't police the industry, why should the industry police the industry?

Some professional designations do police the advisors who hold them. Go look up the various sanctions/fines/penalties/etc the CFP Board gives out on a quarterly basis to members who commit various infractions. They publish it on their website. The CFP Board probably has a heavier hand than any state or federal regulator.

 

[DHK]

Perhaps we should just start the "John Savage" designation?
"Get all the education you can and then keep it to yourself... because nobody cares."

There's so many designations out there with varying degrees of credibility. I truly LIKED the RFC and the IARFC. I give the IARFC a lot of credit for helping me grow and adjust the way I do business. But to give the RFC away? That's just not good.

 

[pfg1]

There's so many designations out there with varying degrees of credibility. I truly LIKED the RFC and the IARFC. I give the IARFC a lot of credit for helping me grow and adjust the way I do business. But to give the RFC away? That's just not good.

Agree. I know a guy in our area that has an insurance license for 5yrs... never wrote a policy - ever. Now he can be credentialed...

 

[Cornelius]

John Savage? I lean more toward Tom Leykis.

 

[DHK]

I was talking about this guy:
The American College

http://savageandassociates.com/john-f-savage/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74UYxa9cPKU&feature=youtu.be

 

[Cornelius]

I was talking about this guy:
The American College

John F. Savage - Savage and Associates

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74UYxa9cPKU&feature=youtu.be

Oops my bad. People will never know what a person doesn't know until they post.