Why is it that every time someone new becomes the CEO of the CFP Board, they come up with some bone-headed initiative without even understanding the lay of the land? In this guest article, Bob Veres discusses some of the many conflicts of interest that the CFP Board is unnecessarily creating that the advisor community should be aware of. 

Much of this is alarming to me, as it should be to you.

After reading Bob’s guest post below, you will see yet again why I continue to say that Bob’s Inside Information newsletter is a MUST READ for everyone in the wealth management community.

Here’s how to sign up and become a subscriber: www.BobVeres.com.

Initiatives, Agendas and Conflicts

Synopsis:  What is the CFP Board up to these days?

Takeaways:  Amid a number of initiatives, one stands out: an apparently for-profit conference that competes against the profession the CFP Board credentials and regulates.

This was originally going to be an interview with Dane Snowden, the new (and highly-qualified) CEO of the CFP Board who succeeded Kevin Keller on March 16 of this year.  My interview notes include open-ended questions regarding Snowden’s priorities with the nonprofit organization, updates and new initiatives—and generally helping readers get to know the new staff leader of arguably the most important organization in the financial planning ecosystem.

My initial inquiry to the CFP Board’s press office, not long after the transition, was not answered.  My second attempt came some weeks later, where I copied a person I respect on the CFP Board staff.  This message was answered with an apology and a promise that an interview would be forthcoming.  

That’s the last I’ve heard from the CFP Board.

As one can imagine, I was reluctant to keep pestering the person tasked with managing the most important organization in the financial planning ecosystem.  Mr. Snowden was obviously preoccupied with a lot of important activities on behalf of the CFP community.  And besides, many of those activities had been publicized.  I could answer some of the questions in my notes just by reading press releases and articles in the trade press.

Such as…  

Should the Competency Standards require people aspiring to the CFP mark to have earned a college degree?  There’s an Academic Pathways & Standards Working Group addressing the issue as you read this.  (I would have asked whether the brokerage firms were pushing to eliminate this requirement, and probably would have received a diplomatic non-answer.  But there are certainly a number of brokerage firm representatives on this committee.)

There’s an ongoing Artificial Intelligence Working Group, which has already released a white paper (‘Leading the Future: Harnessing AI in the Financial Planning Profession’).  AI isn’t standing still, and I might have been able to gain a hint of an update to share with readers.  What does Mr. Snowden think of AI?  Is it a threat to the profession?  (Perhaps a future press release will tell us.)

The Registration Programs staff that works with the college financial planning programs really ought to be working to tame the confusing diversity of degrees that planning students achieve — ranging from certificates in planning given out to students enrolled in the Family and Consumer Sciences department (what they used to call ‘home economics’) to actual degrees in financial planning given to students studying under the business department—and everything in between.  

I guess I don’t need Mr. Snowden to tell me that Rowan University’s William G. Rohrer College of Business (located in Glassboro, NJ, south of Philadelphia) has established the country’s first School of Financial Planning, with an initial $10 million endowment from Edelman Financial Engines.  This, I think, is a big deal, the first of its kind, and potentially where all financial planning programs will eventually migrate to.  I hope the CFP Board can find ways to encourage other, more prominent institutes of higher learning to follow this example.

I always ask what’s new in the efforts to promote diversity in the CFP population — women, minorities, etc., who are still significantly underrepresented among the credentialed population.  Once again, I can turn to articles describing the new Accelerate & WIN initiative to boost the growth and leadership of female CFP advisors.  Mr. Snowden would surely point to the annual diversity summits and career fairs that connect firms with women and minority CFP advisors, and research that promotes a business case for hiring women advisors.  And at least one Linked-In post describes his personal meeting with the Association of African-American Financial Advisors at their annual conference in 2025, where he couldn’t help but hear some thoughts and ideas about promoting racial diversity in the profession.

What else?  There have been some interesting changes to the enforcement activities around fitness petitions and how they can be resolved—the sort of regulatory minutia that doesn’t seem consequential until and unless somebody is facing censure or suspension. 

And…  what’s this?  There’s some interesting controversy around the nonprofit organization generating substantial (and increasing) revenues from its monopoly on licensing CFP educational programs and content providers.  

Michael Kitces, among others, has noted that there’s a conflict of interest when the same organization controls licensing fees and also produces its own CE content.  This conflict might not be much of a big deal in the commercial marketplace, but the CFP Board happens to be a nonprofit—actually two: the Center for Financial Planning is a 501(c)(3) that must, by law, work for the public benefit and education; while the Board of Standards is a 501(c)(6) that must, by law, operate solely to benefit an industry or profession.

There was some dark mumbling in the comments to Kitces’ post suggesting that the CFP Board might push this conflict to the limit.  But… surely the nonprofit CFP Board wouldn’t act on that conflict of interest by creating its own conference which a) directly competes with the private sector and association conferences that provide CFP CE credits, or b) operate such a conference on a for-profit basis, and c) drain substantial exhibitor revenues from the total pool that supports all of the other conferences and education providers in the advisor ecosystem that it’s pledged to serve.

Or would it?

CREDIT CONFLICTS

The controversy over CE credit fees can be described fairly straightforwardly.  Three years ago, the CFP Board raised its CFP CE reporting fees on CE providers to $1.25 per CE-hour per professional.  I found the back of an envelope handy near my desk, and was able to calculate that 109,289 CFP professionals, each required to obtain 15 CE hours per year (30 over two years, to be precise), at $1.25 per CE hour comes to roughly $2.049 million a year in revenues.  

In that LinkedIn post I referenced, Michael Kitces—whose Nerd’s Eye View organization provides more CE credit opportunities than anybody in the advisor space—noted that the increase took his firm’s CE provider costs to the CFP Board from $13,000 a year to $90,000 a year, and he has seen no increase in reporting convenience to providers or certificate holders.  

Others have noted that the CFP Board has announced plans to raise the required number of CE credits from 30 every two years to 40 after the first quarter of next year.  The back of my envelope is a bit crowded with figures, but by scrawling in the margins, I was able to calculate that this new CE policy would add more than $680,000 in revenues to the CFP Board.

But the intriguing part of Kitces’ post was his speculation that the revenues were going, not to making the CE reporting process more convenient, but to hiring a new Managing Director of Program Development, whose job description includes helping the CFP Board develop its own CE programs.

Once again, one has to suppose that at the very least the nonprofit Board would refrain from competing directly with the conferences put on by other CE providers who have no choice but to pay these CE reporting fees.  And that if it did, the conference would be conducted on a purely nonprofit basis.

Right?

CONNECTIONS MONEY MACHINE

The curious reader can find a description of the CFP Board’s upcoming Connections Conference here: https://www.cfp.net/connections-conference-2026.   

It’s going to be held at the Aria (aka Xanadu) in Los Vegas, October 5-7.  To put a fine point on the recent CE fee controversy, the description touts up to 15 CE credits along with ‘cutting-edge knowledge on the latest developments in AI, fintech, and best practices;’ ‘robust networking connections,’ and ‘three unforgettable days of insights, networking and big ideas.’   

Given how the CFP Board has rejected practice management CE applications from all conferences since the beginning of time (a policy I agree with, by the way), it will be interesting to see if it decides to allow its own conference to offer them for fintech and ‘best practices’ sessions.

We learn that the Board expects 1,100 attendees who will pay $1,095 (early bird) or $1,295 (standard) apiece — making this the largest gathering of financial professionals in the industry.  This is not just a competing conference, it appears to be something of a Godzilla, towering over the competition.  

Moving to the front of my envelope, it appears that the conference expects to take in more than $1.2 million in registration fees from attendees, including (we are told) many C-level executives and senior managers.  (The schedule is not yet posted, but Michael Kitces is listed as one of the two prominent keynoters.)

This is apparently the first time the Connections meeting opened itself to hosting booths in an exhibit hall.  

And did it ever.

The pitch to exhibitors, in the exhibitor brochure, suggests that this is the premier event for showcasing your firm to a premier audience: “For sponsors, the Connections Conference provides direct access to influential decision-makers and a highly engaged audience invested in the future of financial planning.  Elevate your brand, build meaningful relationships and gain visibility at the largest official gathering of CFP® professionals.”

There are only so many marketing dollars available each year to advisor conferences.  The CFP Board intends to collect more than a few of them through the various exhibitor levels:

• Platinum: $200,000, participate in the opening remarks and have a company representative automatically included in a ‘premier session’ panel discussion.

• Gold: $100,000, gets a spot on one of the ‘premier session’ panels

• Silver: $50,000 (and you get a conference panelist)

• Bronze: $15,000

• Supporter: $7,500

Only platinum and gold sponsors get booth space; silver and bronze get a table top.  Supporters apparently get to attend.  

Sponsors also have the opportunity to sponsor the ‘Student Lounge and Tailgate Reception’ (described as a hub for networking, career exploration and informal conversations between students and the sponsoring firm) at $30,000, or they can pay $30,000 to sponsor the Registered Program Directors’ Lounge (described as a private, comfortable space for CFP Board Registered Program directors to connect, collaborate and recharge).

Sponsoring the opening night welcome reception costs $20,000.

Firms can also sponsor a Golf Simulator ($15,000), a Video platform with a rotating camera (each video, we are told, is designed for immediate social sharing, ‘extending your visibility far beyond the exhibit hall:’ $20,000), a headshot booth ($15,000), a ‘Focus and Flow Wellness Session’ ($5,000) and a Relaxation Station ($5,000).

That’s all, right?  Wrong.  There’s an opportunity to sponsor 20 undergraduate students to attend ($60,000), or 10 registered program directors ($35,000), or a student breakfast ($30,000), or a student financial planning liaisons top golf excursion ($20,000), and a Registered Program Director Breakfast ($15,000, two available).

There’s also a Financial Planning Hall of Fame dinner (‘Direct engagement with top-decision-makers and influencers’) where gold sponsors can pay an additional $10,000 for a table and receive verbal recognition from the stage and through social media.  Silver sponsors pay $5,000 for a table.  

I don’t want to leave the impression that the Connections Conference was, in prior years, a nonprofit event that didn’t similarly collect corporate marketing dollars out of the advisor conference ecosystem.  Yes, the 2025 Connections conference in Chicago had no exhibit hall booths, per se, but it did offer tabletop exhibition spaces for $10,000 each.  

There were also additional sponsorships available: 

• Conference Student Lounge ($200,000)
• Connections Cafe coffee bar ($150,000)
• ‘Taste of Chicago’ snack bar ($150,000) 
• Ppportunity to post conversational topics in the ‘Braindate’ Lounge ($150,000)
• the Night One reception ($100,000)
• Branding in the registration area (‘Morning D.J., food and beverage’) for $100,000
• One of two ‘Connections Lunches’ ($75,000 each)
• ‘Pro Bono Experience’ ($50,000)
• Relaxation Station ($50,000)
• One of four Student Sponsorships ($50,000 each)
• One of six TechLab demo stations ($40,000 each)
• One of two ‘Student Competition’ introductions ($25,000 each)
• A chance to introduce one of the four keynote speakers ($25,000 each)
• Branded water bottles at the ‘Hydration Station’ ($25,000)
• Company logo on the room cards in the hotel ($25,000) 
• Chance to ‘play with puppies’ and support a local animal shelter ($20,000)
• ‘Headshot Booth’ ($20,000)
• ‘Paint By Number’ mural ($20,000)
• Two ‘Room Drops’ of promotional materials delivered to attendees’ rooms ($15,000 each)
• Candy Bar station (three available at $15,000 each)
• Three charging stations ($10,000 each)
• Four book signings ($5,000 each)

Perhaps this is a bit obvious, but my take is that the CFP Board has been quietly building a conference money machine, and this year is the full rollout of its revenue model.

FOLLOW UP

I may have mentioned a couple of times that the CFP Board is a nonprofit entity (actually two).  But having run my own Insider’s Forum conference, I think I know a for-profit event when I see one—and this one seems especially grabby on the revenue side.  There’s a rule of thumb in the conference space that two-thirds of the overall revenue comes from exhibitors, one-third from attendee registration fees.  If that’s true, then the 2026 Connections conference is likely to gross more than $4 million.  Perhaps much more.

If I’d had the chance, I might have asked Mr. Snowden whether he believes that the Connections conference has become—or is destined to become—the largest, most profitable CE-provider convention in the financial services space.  Given the recent 26% CFP license dues increase last October, might some of this largesse be used to offset the cost of maintaining certification?

The Board maintains a reserve fund in excess of $20 million, and one imagines that this figure won’t be going down once the conference accounting is complete.  What is the CFP Board stockpiling the cash for?  Is there a future agenda or expensive initiative that CFP certificants should be aware of?

But the biggest question that should be asked of Mr. Snowden, and really the board of directors at the CFP Board is: is there any accountability here?  Can the Board do whatever it wants, including raising CE credit fees, including raising CE credit requirements, including elbowing its way into the for-profit conference scene despite its nonprofit status?  

Also, perhaps: How else does the CFP Board plan to compete with the existing advisor ecosystem, and how aggressively will it pursue these initiatives against the community it regulates?

Perhaps these questions will be answered in a future press release.

This guest post is written by Bob Veres and is republished with his permission. To subscribe to Inside Information and receive additional, ongoing insights from Bob, visit www.BobVeres.com.