ERROLD F. MOODY JR.

March 29, 1998

Dow Jones Investment Advisor

170 Avenue at the Common

Shrewsbury, NJ 07702

Regarding: a Steep Price for Insurance Advice, March, pg 18

NOTHING IN ALL THE WORLD IS MORE DANGEROUS THAN SINCERE IGNORANCE AND CONSCIENTIOUS STUPIDITY

Just how steep is the price for insurance advice or investments or financial planning or literally any other issue with money when it comes from the mouths and minds of liars and frauds? And how much forgiveness do we give to Dow Jones Investment Advisor, xxxxxx, yyyyyy, zzzzzz  et. al. for refusal to acknowledge the illegal and unethical activities of the same agents in the same organizations they write about each month and where they are clearly aware of such illegal and unethical activity? Just how steep is the price for silence? Just how much does it take to refuse to validate the ethical and moral standards that you undoubtedly teach to your children every day.

How much?

As regards the article itself and the comment of a "little known statute", any reasonable research whatsoever would have indicated that, while the statute may not be known to consumers, it had been taught and tested on literally every insurance exam given in California for the last 25 years to well over a hundred thousand people. That's not "little known". More importantly, NAPFA representatives and other fee only planners were fully aware of the law and its requirements when I broached to subject to them in the early '90s. These individuals knew full well of the guidelines and intent of the law but, since they did not like and did not wish to be involved in insurance- and effectively had little training or interest in it as well- they simply decided that they were going to violate the statute. Yet in literally every issue of your magazine you extol the virtues of NAPFA, IBCFP, et. al. that, by their own admission, are violating the law and their own ethics regulations. Did you not recognize the fact that NAPFA admitted that they were not only violating the law in California, but many other states as well????? Yet that was glossed over as an "everyday occurrence" that should be allowed- even accepted- apparently as long as it is practiced by representatives and organizations you support.

But what is most egregious, and equally the focus of my disdain for their work, is the fact that these agents have violated the very ethical clauses that NAPFA, the IBCFP, and IAFP clearly require.

I would like to know why so many publications- such as Worth in particular- but also yours, since it goes to "professionals"- would endorse illegal and unethical activity in literally every issue? Is it possibly because of the conflict of interest and your own financial agenda? You must be able to generate a substantial amount of income from advertising, promotion, newsletters, seminars and I don't know what else. And due to your national exposure you cannot tell me that you were not aware of the fact that NAPFA representatives and others were not acting illegally and unethically in approximately 15 states-encompassing probably around 25 percent of its membership. Further within that context- and since they are fully aware of the violations- the organizations themselves are based on a lie: that they have ethical standards that require adherence thereto. The IBCFP has been aware of these violations for years and has consciously allowed such illegal/unethical activity to continue by a selected group and number of its representatives. They even elected a representative to the Board of Standards while having full knowledge of the illegal activity of same. The IAFP is also aware of this issue and has done nothing as well. But the only thing you did in your March issue is simply comment about the fact of the proposed merger between the IAFP and the ICFP.

Look at this- the IBCFP recently edicts that any planner using CFP in an Email address will face disciplinary measures. But those same planners could lie even on their ethics course and face no restrictions whatsoever. The IAFP says I would violate the holy of holies by not providing a client an estimate of fees and commissions. But those same planners could violate state laws and face no restrictions by the organization whatsoever. Isn't that convenient?

There's something radically wrong here. I adhere to the law. Yet your comments that I fingured two well-known planners discredits me as some type of moronic stool pigeon against your professed professional planning organization. You didn't, instead, note that I had turned in two illegal financial planners who were violating the law. Big difference in perception and intent. These same planners- as well as hundreds of others-violate the same ethical standards that I am not only "forced" to adhere to as part of my CFP requirements, but also what I have taught in my ethics courses for years. My instruction in ethics categorically demands what all the ethics guidelines demand-conformance to all federal and state laws- and beyond. That's what ethics is all about. However, do you simply determine what laws you wish to obey and which ones you wish to exclude when you discuss morals and ethics with your readers?? How about your children?? Do you make the distinction that young minds must be made to know the difference but those that actively violate those same standards should be allowed to do as they please? That's called moral egoism/situational ethics and is rarely more than a sophomoric rationalization to provide acceptance to offensive behavior.

You indicate that a NAPFA spokesperson says that enforcing the law is a disservice to consumers. Your title says a Steep Price for Insurance Advice. I'd like to know, how steep is the price for insurance advice from an incompetent liar? How steep is the price for investment advice from a liar? How steep is the price for estate advice from a liar? How steep is the price for advice from NAPFA if it supports illegal and unethical activity? How steep is the price for advice from the ICFP/IBCFP if it supports illegal and unethical activity? How steep is the price for advice from Dow Jones Investment Advisor if it supports illegal and unethical activity? How many times should a lack of personal and professional integrity be allowed to pass for acceptable behavior as long as the very people who wrote the standards actively violate such rules??? How many times must people be allowed to LIE on an ethics course and walk away with impunity- while all the time the IBCFP is quoted by you and others as having the highest ethical standards? How many times?

HOW MANY TIMES????

You would not support this type of activity from your own children. You would certainly feel that if your child lied on ethics course, they would have demeaned the very values that ethics stands for and that you supposedly stand for (or do you?) Yet, these same violations by the very organizations you "promote" gets not even a chiding. You had and have conclusive evidence that these organizations have violated their own ethical standards for years, yet you do and say NOTHING. NAPFA does nothing. The IAFP does nothing. The IBCFP does nothing. Admittedly, this may be a reflection of our social times but unless there is some integrity and responsibility, the situation simply gets worse. (Why do you think 11 and 13 year olds end up killing people?)

But, I submit, there are people like me who believe ethics are supposed to mean something and who are willing to stand up for such values. I am not willing to reduce my competency and my ethics to the, obvious, lower or nonexistent standards of the national "professional" planning organizations, nor to the publications that support their activities in order to generate business. I know the excuse of the organizations is to unilaterally protect its members, regardless of violations to their own standards. I'd like to know what is your excuse? Money?

As long as everyone looks away- particularly the press that supposedly reports the truth- ethics and personal integrity becomes just shallow words without meaning. When there are no ethics, there can be no TRUST- the very fabric of the business.

Dr. C. Everett Koop, in a speech Saturday night, bemoaned the loss of ethics by certain physicians and delivery programs due to the change in the health care system. As least they started with high standards. The planning organizations obviously never had such intent.

And you have the audacity to entitle your Editor's Note, BAD BUSINESS. What a crock.

Grow up.

Very Truly,

Errold F. Moody Jr.

CC: Lori Pizzani

Jeff Kenny, CDI

Chuck Quackenbush, CDI