Even if one of the exceptions applies, the BOPR may still find that the transaction violates Rule 607 if the CFP Board designee fails to establish that:
The BOPR urges all CFP Board designees to avoid the practice of borrowing from or lending to clients.
BOPR Advisory Opinions 97-1 and 97-2 allowed for a designee to use the term "fee-only" to describe the compensation received from a specific client, even if other methods of compensation were used with other clients, and to offer "fee-only" services to a client, even if the designee also received commissions from the same client or other clients for other services.
The BOPR has defined types of compensation arrangements.
The BOPR must consider whether the CFP Board designee is a financial planning practitioner (as defined by the Code of Ethics) in determining which, if any, rules have been violated.
The BOPR urges that disclosures under Rule 401 be clear, straightforward and unambiguous so as to be easily understood by all parties.
Rule 402(a) is violated when the CFP Board designee in a financial planning engagement, in the disclosure provided to the client, represents himself or herself as "fee-only" when, in fact, that designee accepts compensation not defined as fees by the BOPR in that relationship or other client relationships.
The BOPR presumes advertisements and/or promotional activities to be false or misleading when they contain the term "fee-only" and the CFP Board designee advertising or promoting his or her services accepts compensation not defined as fees from that client relationship or any other client relationships.