Consumer Press Takes Note Of IMCA's CPWA Designation And Its Focus On Ultra-High-Net-Worth Individuals; Not Good News For CFPs

But the way CFPs are positioned is not great for those holding that designation.

 

The consumer press is generally blind to distinctions among professional designations for financial advisors, but this story breaks with that history and indicates the consumer press may actually be getting smarter about professional issues.

 

How often do you see coverage about differing designations of financial professionals? Have you ever seen a story explaining the difference between a CLU or ChFC versus a CFP?

 

In paying respect to the CPWA, a new designation created by the Investment Management Consultants Association, Paikert may have overstated how well recognized it is.

 

My guess is most people have no idea that a CPWA is a Certified Private Wealth Advisor and calling it "widely recognized" is a stretch.

 

But Paikert's short article does succeed in raising the issue that professional designations for advisors are different. He touches specifically on the CFP versus the CFA certification, and then singles out CPWAs for being focused on issues relevant to ultra-high-net-worth individuals.

 

If the consumer press starts picking up on the theme that the CFP is not the best designation for advising UHNWIs, that would indeed pose a serious issue to the CFP designation's dominance as the premier designation for advisors.

 

Challenges to the CFP business model and the positioning of the CFP versus CFA are issues we've covered on A4A recently, which makes this story noteworthy.    

 

 

 

 

 

 

This Website Is For Financial Professionals Only