FPA’s Tuttle: No health insurance for members yet
Mr. Tuttle recently talked with InvestmentNews reporter Lisa Shidler about the FPA's political efforts, health insurance for its members, and compensation models
The Financial Planning Association has become more involved in politics in recent years — and, in doing so, has seen its membership shrink.
In 2007, the association had 27,000 members. Today, that number is closer to 24,000. Marvin W. Tuttle Jr., executive director and chief executive of the Financial Planning Association, concedes that some members left because they didn’t like the group’s strong political stances. Regardless, the FPA’s chief executive defends the group’s efforts to jump into the political arena — including pushing for a universal fiduciary standard. The group also hailed a provision in recent legislation that calls for the Government Accountability Office to conduct a study on the oversight of financial planning.
Mr. Tuttle recently talked with InvestmentNews reporter Lisa Shidler about the FPA’s political efforts, health insurance for its members, and compensation models.
Q. You’ve lost 3,000 members in three years. What happened?
A. We lost them because of the costs, and some were disgruntled. There were some members who didn’t align with our positions and our political beliefs. Over time, they just said, “This isn’t working for me.”
Q. So why is it so important to become involved politically?
A. We’ve done this because in order to be a legitimate profession and to protect consumers, you need to ensure that someone using the title of financial planner is living up to it.
Q. One of the biggest costs a financial advisory firm faces is health insurance. Why don’t you offer members a universal group health care policy?
A. This has been a long battle for us. It’s all based on the size of your group. Every state is different, but we haven’t been able to make any progress to get a universal state-by-state program. We just can’t get one.
Q. How will the new health legislation affect your efforts to snag a universal policy?
A. We think it’s going to help us in a good way. We have to figure out the timing of the legislation. We want to be able to offer universal coverage. That’s been the hardest thing for us.
Q. Has the FPA considered offering a stance on which compensation model is better — fee-based or commission-based?
A. We’ve been compensation-neutral since Day One. We’ve been very clear about it. If we’re going to be a melting pot of professionals, we need to support those who get commissions and those who get fees.
Learn more about reprints and licensing for this article.
