Professional planners don't accept commissions: FPA

It's about time the FPA, started getting that message out to the public.

Deal only with a Certfied Financial Planner.

It seems to me that the term Financial Adviser carries more credibility and that's because the FPA haven't educated the public about the standards required to be and maintain the CFP status.

I would like to ask Matthew Rowe in his entire and complete experience as a Financial Planner has he EVER been remunerated via commissions and if he has been so in the past, did he act in his clients best interests then and did he clearly have a conflict of interest in the advice that he gave and as a result, did he put his clients at risk if he was remunerated in that way?

Has Matthew Rowe always and forever only been remunerated by a fee for service model in his history in financial services or is he one of the "converts" that are more than happy to support and create an environment of fear for the consumer in order to espouse that the only way to receive satisfactory advice in the consumers and clients best interests, is for the planner to be remunerated via fee for service only?

I suggest that Matthew Rowe starts preparing for an exodus of members from the FPA.

Clear, concise advice with a range of fully disclosed and identified remuneration models and with the overarching Best Interests Duty acting as a control mechanism on the basis of advice in the clients best interest.

As far as RB is concerned........do you really... really believe that because an individual may have been fastracked through a CFP qualification 10 years ago with their licensee pulling the strings, that the consumer is protected from poor advice, fraud or criminal behavior?

Having a CFP doesn't guarantee that you are competent, aware or honest?

The only reason the FPA has and retains the CFP's as members is because you have to be a member of the FPA to retain your CFP status. (Perhaps that's a conflict of interest!)

Everyone knows when Matthew Rowe quoted the member numbers for the FPA on the Lateline program last night that many of those member numbers are made up of funds management staffers, BDM's etc that are not providing advice to clients or consumers anyway.

In response to Craig's comment about whether or not a CFP designation guarantees competancy, awareness or honesty? I'd like to say it goes a lot further to establishing a guarantee than an unqualified, self tought individual who puts the sign out as a financial advisor and then hides in the shadows when questioned about their activities.

The ongoing education requirement should cover off on the competancy question...and when I did my studies 16 years ago, I never thought of my credentials being "fast-tracked" as you termed it....as for licensees pulling strings? WTF...are you suggesting that the CFP designation wasn't the same process for all at that time? If you are, that's rubbish.

Of course being a CFP doesn't guarantee anything, but at least there are consequences that arise should their conduct NOT meet the FPA standards which are certainly of the highest standard in our industry.

I won't argue with the notion of full disclosure being at the heart of what we do.