Future of R.F.P. Designation Uncertain?

In a package entitled "Future Directions", the Canadian Association of Financial Planners (CAFP) announced on February 8^th that it will ask its members to make significant changes to its bylaws at the 2001 Annual General Meeting in June. The following two options concerning the Registered Financial Planner (R.F.P.) designation were presented to members in the mailing:

Option A

Move Ownership of R.F.P. to a Different Organization

This option preserves the R.F.P. as a living designation. R.F.P.s would form a new organization that would be responsible for granting future R.F.P.s, maintaining the standards for existing R.F.P.s and for promoting the designation to the public and the industry.

CAFP would transfer its trademark ownership of the R.F.P. to the new organization on the condition that new organization enter into an agreement with CAFP that stipulates the following:

• membership in CAFP would be a requirement for R.F.P.s, and
• the new organization would not provide programs or services that would compete with CAFP, such as liability insurance programs and/or educational conferences.

It is clearly understood that the new organization

• will be independent of CAFP, with its own constitution and bylaws and board of directors
• will have committees responsible for
  • setting and marking the R.F.P. Ethics and Technical examinations,
  • setting and monitoring Professional Standards and Ethics of R.F.P.s,
  • promotion of its members to the public and industry,
  • finance;
• will have its own newsletter;
• will be financially self-sufficient.

If Option A is chosen, the bylaws would also be changed to delete all references to the "Board of Regents". The governance structure of the new organization would assume the obligations of the current Regents.

CAFP is willing to provide some start up financial assistance to the new organization.

Other Advantages—Option A

Option A would enable the R.F.P. to continue as a separate and distinct financial planning designation.

Disadvantages—Option A

This option

• would not reduce consumer confusion,
• would likely increase the annual cost of retaining your R.F.P. designation.

Option B

Retire the R.F.P.

Under this option, the R.F.P. designation would no longer be promoted or conferred. Existing R.F.P.s would be able to continue to use the designation as they do now. No new R.F.P.s would be granted after June 2001.

The use of the R.F.P. would still be subject to existing standards. The Board of Regents would continue to exist for a period of five years to enforce those standards. However, at the end of five years, the Regents would transfer oversight of the R.F.P. to the CAFP Board, and the Board of Regents would cease to exist.

CAFP would develop a program that would recognize a planner's ability to write a high quality comprehensive financial plan. The details are still to be determined. However, it may be a certificate that represents the planner's successful completion of a special course, or the submission of a sample plan that is at least of the same level of complexity as currently contemplated in our R.F.P. requirements.

If two-thirds of R.F.P.s decide after a period of two years but before the end of five years that CAFP has not kept its commitment to promote excellence in financial planning, then CAFP would agree to transfer ownership rights of the R.F.P. to a new organization. This new organization would be formed for the specific purpose of re-introducing the R.F.P. designation back into the Canadian marketplace. Other elements of this provision are:

• CAFP would agree to subsidize the cost of re-introducing the R.F.P. designation. The amount of this support would be determined in 2001.
• The new organization would agree that:
  • it would only be a licensing body for the R.F.P., not a membership organization
  • it would require all R.F.P.s to continue to be CAFP Members
  • it would be an organization independent from CAFP

If Option B is chosen, CAFP's bylaws would also be amended to restrict the Board of Regents to its current duties with the exception of granting new R.F.P.s and promoting the R.F.P. designation.

A further amendment would delete all references to the Board of Regents in five years if a new organization had not been formed, as outlined above.

Other Advantages—Option B

• would still provide a mechanism to recognize comprehensive plan writing skills,
• would likely not increase membership costs for R.F.P. designees,
• would eventually reduce consumer confusion.

Disadvantages—Option B

• the value of the R.F.P. would fade over time,
• as time passes, it will become increasingly difficult to effectively re-introduce the R.F.P. into the marketplace

The company tracks, explains and analyzes tax and business related law, annually producing over 250 publications in print and electronic form for tax, accounting, legal, human resources and financial planning professionals.