- 1,411
A distinction I do not follow.
EDIT: IARFC and RFC designation making great progress!
- Thread starter DHK
- Start date
A distinction I do not follow.
- Thread starter
- #12
- 11,453
Laws and legality are about MINIMUM acceptable standards of conduct.
By law and right, the IARFC can designate whoever they want with their designation.
Ethics are about the HIGHEST standards of conduct.
Just because you CAN do a thing, it does not mean that you MUST do that thing.
----------
And yes, you can be unethical and still follow all the laws.
----------
My best solution for the IARFC would be that they offer 3 tiers of membership - similar to the NAEPC. With the NAEPC (National Association of Estate Planners and Councils), you can join as a base member, you can obtain the AEP designation, or you can obtain their EPLS credential (for attorneys).
Base membership: You have a base membership where you can join and agree to support and practice by the code of ethics. Allow all members to display membership logos, but not designation logos.
RFC designation: Take an approved course of study with a concluding exam. This can include various trainers and coaches, or even their current Financial Planning Process course.
MRFC designation: Those who submit a written plan and successfully pass the proctored comprehensive exam.
It's not hard to have standards AND grow at the same time.
By law and right, the IARFC can designate whoever they want with their designation.
Ethics are about the HIGHEST standards of conduct.
Just because you CAN do a thing, it does not mean that you MUST do that thing.
----------
And yes, you can be unethical and still follow all the laws.
----------
My best solution for the IARFC would be that they offer 3 tiers of membership - similar to the NAEPC. With the NAEPC (National Association of Estate Planners and Councils), you can join as a base member, you can obtain the AEP designation, or you can obtain their EPLS credential (for attorneys).
Base membership: You have a base membership where you can join and agree to support and practice by the code of ethics. Allow all members to display membership logos, but not designation logos.
RFC designation: Take an approved course of study with a concluding exam. This can include various trainers and coaches, or even their current Financial Planning Process course.
MRFC designation: Those who submit a written plan and successfully pass the proctored comprehensive exam.
It's not hard to have standards AND grow at the same time.
- Thread starter
- #13
- 11,453
I just saw the Facebook video promoting this designation and the "easy" requirements to obtain the designation. So I posted these comments on their page. However, I expect, like last time, that they'll be deleted. I posted a link to this thread, just to show that there is concern about this move... and that it's out there. I doubt they could make the mods here delete this thread.
You don't have to comment if you don't want to. I'm just posting this "for the record". (Yes, I know I need a hobby.)
I still think the IARFC has set a negative precedent with this move. There is a book called The Incomparable Salesmen by Perrin Stryker. This book discusses the formation of the MDRT and the founding of the CLU designation and The American College by Solomon Huebner back in 1927. https://www.amazon.com/Incomp.../dp/B000EB5P7I/ref=sr_1_1...
In the book it also talked about that some agents did not want to take the classes to become a CLU, so another designation was created - the "ALU" or "Accredited Life Underwriter" - based on 'experience' only. Huebner was FURIOUS. He specifically stated something to the effect of "You've KILLED it! You're going to destroy the work that we're trying to do!" (Today, there is an FALU designation in Canada - but I digress.)
With your new life insurance license ONLY requirement... you are doing the same thing to the vision of Solomon Huebner. No matter how you justify it, that's what you're doing.
While I could guess that Loren Dunton would not approve of the current direction of the CFP designation, I'm not sure that Loren Dunton would approve of bestowing a designation without ANY additional form of education or additional examination. I was okay with it being a part of a pre-approved live study course or something... but at least it was something.
BTW, to have made this move AFTER having had your designation vetted by various states... is a "bait and switch" move on regulators. I remember the article where the IARFC was so pleased that it was approved in Nebraska. I doubt it would be approved today with the current standards. And this association talks about ethics being a core component... I'm not sure you're doing right by the public and advisors on this.
In California - where I am - there are various "senior" designations that have been banned - the CSA having been one. While I don't agree with that decision, it's interesting that THAT designation is banned - which required additional exams... and the RFC is still allowable even though it has an even LOWER requirement today and is not considered a "senior" designation. If only the State DOI knew? I wonder what THEY would think of your requirements change?
If we remember back 10 years ago when all that was going on, the reason these designations were banned was because it implied a financial expertise. Well, without additional coursework required, the RFC ALSO now implies "financial expertise" - and can be used for financial abuses. Regardless of how it is used, offering a designation without additional educational requirements... is misleading the public.
http://www.insurance.ca.gov/.../Senior-Designations.cfm
LOL - they banned me from the page and deleted all my comments.
So, I contacted the NAIC regarding my concerns and received this response:
And I forwarded the response to the membership chair and public relations people of the IARFC.
You don't have to comment if you don't want to. I'm just posting this "for the record". (Yes, I know I need a hobby.)
I still think the IARFC has set a negative precedent with this move. There is a book called The Incomparable Salesmen by Perrin Stryker. This book discusses the formation of the MDRT and the founding of the CLU designation and The American College by Solomon Huebner back in 1927. https://www.amazon.com/Incomp.../dp/B000EB5P7I/ref=sr_1_1...
In the book it also talked about that some agents did not want to take the classes to become a CLU, so another designation was created - the "ALU" or "Accredited Life Underwriter" - based on 'experience' only. Huebner was FURIOUS. He specifically stated something to the effect of "You've KILLED it! You're going to destroy the work that we're trying to do!" (Today, there is an FALU designation in Canada - but I digress.)
With your new life insurance license ONLY requirement... you are doing the same thing to the vision of Solomon Huebner. No matter how you justify it, that's what you're doing.
While I could guess that Loren Dunton would not approve of the current direction of the CFP designation, I'm not sure that Loren Dunton would approve of bestowing a designation without ANY additional form of education or additional examination. I was okay with it being a part of a pre-approved live study course or something... but at least it was something.
BTW, to have made this move AFTER having had your designation vetted by various states... is a "bait and switch" move on regulators. I remember the article where the IARFC was so pleased that it was approved in Nebraska. I doubt it would be approved today with the current standards. And this association talks about ethics being a core component... I'm not sure you're doing right by the public and advisors on this.
In California - where I am - there are various "senior" designations that have been banned - the CSA having been one. While I don't agree with that decision, it's interesting that THAT designation is banned - which required additional exams... and the RFC is still allowable even though it has an even LOWER requirement today and is not considered a "senior" designation. If only the State DOI knew? I wonder what THEY would think of your requirements change?
If we remember back 10 years ago when all that was going on, the reason these designations were banned was because it implied a financial expertise. Well, without additional coursework required, the RFC ALSO now implies "financial expertise" - and can be used for financial abuses. Regardless of how it is used, offering a designation without additional educational requirements... is misleading the public.
http://www.insurance.ca.gov/.../Senior-Designations.cfm
LOL - they banned me from the page and deleted all my comments.
So, I contacted the NAIC regarding my concerns and received this response:
And I forwarded the response to the membership chair and public relations people of the IARFC.
Last edited:
You want the industry to self police . .so government doesn't have to step in .. The government will be hearing from interest groups within the industry to make their decisions.. it's not like they have any expertise.
regularAgent
Super Genius
This designation is more for FPA (Financial Planning Advisor).
This are the requirement for the IA-RFC:
Candidate must meet all of the following requirements:
Undergraduate or graduate financial planning degree, or have earned one of the following designations: AAMS, AEP, CEP, CFA, CFP, ChFC, CLU, CPA, EA, LUTC, MS, MBA, JD, Ph.D, or completed a CFP equivalent, IARFC-approved college curriculum.
Four years full-time experience as a financial planning practitioner.
Non of this works: a life licence, CEs or REP
This are the requirement for the IA-RFC:
Candidate must meet all of the following requirements:
Undergraduate or graduate financial planning degree, or have earned one of the following designations: AAMS, AEP, CEP, CFA, CFP, ChFC, CLU, CPA, EA, LUTC, MS, MBA, JD, Ph.D, or completed a CFP equivalent, IARFC-approved college curriculum.
Four years full-time experience as a financial planning practitioner.
Non of this works: a life licence, CEs or REP
- Thread starter
- #17
- 11,453
Your post was incomplete and with outdated information. If you looked it up on FINRA's designation page, that would explain it.
http://www.iarfc.org/documents/RFC-REQUIREMENT.pdf
Here are the educational requirements:
Education. Hold (ONE) of the following is required to satisfy the education requirement:
That's why I believe they did a "bait and switch" move with regulators by lowering the requirements.
http://www.iarfc.org/documents/RFC-REQUIREMENT.pdf
Here are the educational requirements:
Education. Hold (ONE) of the following is required to satisfy the education requirement:
- Earned a Bachelors’ or advanced degree in Business, Finance, Economics, or a related field.
- Hold one of the following professional designation: AAMS, CFA, CFP, ChFC, CLU, CPA, EA, JD, LUTCF.
- Hold a Series 65 Securities license or one of the following combinations:
Series 6 & 63,
Series 6 & 66,
Series 7 & 63,
Series 7 & 66. - Hold a Life Insurance license.
That's why I believe they did a "bait and switch" move with regulators by lowering the requirements.
regularAgent
Super Genius
jboussea, FINRA is specialy dificult with,
Working with Senior.
Being in compliance (All its forms)
Managing Partners and Director
REPs
FPA
etc... selling according to compliance for life insurance an anuities agent
No, they are not police, they are the regulators and law maker.
Working with Senior.
Being in compliance (All its forms)
Managing Partners and Director
REPs
FPA
etc... selling according to compliance for life insurance an anuities agent
No, they are not police, they are the regulators and law maker.
regularAgent
Super Genius
I can really tell anything about this designation, I don't know what to do with it or what is good for.
----------
correction: I can not
----------
correction: I can not
- Thread starter
- #20
- 11,453
Since they stripped the more stringent requirements, it's not good for much of anything anymore.
It used to simply be an "alternative" to the CFP designation, denoting a planning approach. The IARFC mission has been about helping advisors to better help their clients to spend, save, invest, insure, and plan wisely for the future - what financial planning is as defined by Loren Dunton - the founder of financial planning.
I still think it's a good organization/association... but the RFC designation itself has lost credibility for those looking for a designation.
Back in 2010, the WSJ wrote that the IARFC may be "pumping up" credentials... but back then, there was more stringent requirements. Today, that article is more relevant:
https://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~charvey/Media/2010/WSJ_October_16_2010.pdf
Most designations, if they revise their requirements, make them more stringent, such as what the CFP has done over the years. But to give the RFC away... as it was once considered a designation of value... is preposterous.
It used to simply be an "alternative" to the CFP designation, denoting a planning approach. The IARFC mission has been about helping advisors to better help their clients to spend, save, invest, insure, and plan wisely for the future - what financial planning is as defined by Loren Dunton - the founder of financial planning.
I still think it's a good organization/association... but the RFC designation itself has lost credibility for those looking for a designation.
Back in 2010, the WSJ wrote that the IARFC may be "pumping up" credentials... but back then, there was more stringent requirements. Today, that article is more relevant:
https://faculty.fuqua.duke.edu/~charvey/Media/2010/WSJ_October_16_2010.pdf
Most designations, if they revise their requirements, make them more stringent, such as what the CFP has done over the years. But to give the RFC away... as it was once considered a designation of value... is preposterous.
Similar threads
