GIPS best practice, but UAPS is good alternative CFP exam isn’t outdated or too broad-based

I read the story “Group floats new performance standards for retail advisers, CFA Institute pushes back” (InvestmentNews.com, Sept.

I read the story “Group floats new performance standards for retail advisers, CFA Institute pushes back” (InvestmentNews.com, Sept. 11) and the comments made by Jonathan Boersma, executive director of the global investment performance standards at the CFA Institute, with great interest.

His suggestion that global investment performance standards “pretty comprehensively address all the issues” fails to take into consideration the reality that many financial institutions aren’t able to comply with GIPS, which is the intent of the universal adviser performance standards: to fill a gap that exists within our industry. We have emphasized repeatedly that UAPS isn’t intended to compete with GIPS but rather to provide a standard for reporting for which a real need exists.

Rather than be critical, it would have been better had Mr. Boersma acknowledged the needs that exist and aren’t being met by GIPS. We believe that the GIPS standards remain “best practice” and encourage those firms who can meet its requirements to do so.

However, for those who can’t, UAPS offers an alternative.

David Spaulding

Founder and CEO

The Spaulding Group Inc.

Somerset, N.J.

I was bemused by the letter from Larry Miller, president of Asset Management & Planning LLC in West Columbia, S.C. (InvestmentNews, Sept. 9).

He says: 1) that the CFP exam is outdated, and 2) it requires a level of expertise in all areas.

First, it is ironic that Mr. Miller proclaimed parts of the exam outdated, when it is obvious that he took the exam prior to 1993 when the Certified Financial Planner Board of Standards Inc. instituted the comprehensive exam, versus the individual-topic exams.

Second, more than 68,000 CFP practitioners might disagree with his notion that the exam requires too much information retention. In fact, most practitioners likely think that the CFP exam is a base point of entry for those who want to practice financial planning, that it provides a basic level of requisite knowledge, and those who desire expertise should further enhance their education of the various topics by additional levels of training and practical experience.

There are a variety of factors that go into selecting a planner, but if I am a prospective client evaluating two candidates in first-impression meetings — one with a CFP, one without — who do you think is going to take the early lead in my selection process?

Michael Anderson

VP of financial planning

and wealth manager

True North Advisors LLC

Dallas