AN ATTEMPT TO STRAIGHTEN ‘SOME COCKEYED NOTIONS’

Based on several recent articles and letters in InvestmentNews, it looks as if some cockeyed notions are circulating about positions taken by the International Association for Financial Planning’s board of directors.

In September, we recommended “the

attainment of the CFP mark for practitioners who hold themselves out as financial planners.” Many IAFP members do not “hold out” as financial planners – and for those who do we’re not requiring attainment of the certified financial planner mark.

Moreover, we’re not saying that the CFP mark is the only designation that financial planners should obtain. We recognize and honor many other credentials.

But we believe that as more consumers recognize the need for assistance with managing their finances, it’s important to unite the financial planning profession behind one widely recognized designation to reduce consumer confusion. Then we can concentrate on the real issues of competence and trust.

Finally, a reader suggested that last year we had endorsed Dalbar Inc.’s Excellence in Advice client survey program. We did not endorse it as a measure of excellence in financial advice; we suggested to our members that it could be effective as a client satisfaction survey.

We took this relatively narrow position because we decided to serve the interests of IAFP members by working with Dalbar to modify the program rather than sit on the sidelines taking potshots.

Dalbar officials have been extremely

cooperative and have listened to our input. They’ve made changes that have significantly improved the program. For instance, Dalbar has agreed to change the name of the

program to Excellence & Trust, which we

believe more accurately reflects the client feedback it measures.

On both of these highly controversial issues, IAFP acted in what the board of directors believes are the best interests of the public, our members and the financial planning community.

RICHARD P. ROJECK

President

International Association for Financial Plan
ning

(Mr. Rojeck also is agency vice president for Cigna Financial Advisors in La Jolla, Calif.)

No, Putnam, my case

is not groundless

In “Funds urged to air personal trades to staff” (Dec. 1), you quote a spokesman for Putnam Investments concerning the pending case of my client Edward A. H. Siedle against Putnam as stating that Mr. Siedle’s charges are viewed by Putnam as “groundless.”

As you correctly noted, this case is presently the subject of an order of impoundment sought by Putnam. It is therefore totally improper for Putnam to be commenting publicly on the case.

I must in response state that I did not file a complaint based upon groundless charges. I look forward to an appropriate judgment and sanctions against Putnam on behalf of Mr. Siedle.

MORRIS M. GOLDINGS

Partner

Mahoney Hawkes & Goldings LLP

Boston

We welcome reader comments. Send letters to

InvestmentNews, 220 E. 42nd St., Ninth Floor, New York, N.Y. 10017-5806. Or send e-mail to [email protected]. Include your full name and telephone number for verification purposes.