Speaking to ifa, Futuro director Dennis Bashford said that if the industry introduced minimum education standards, measured needed to be in place to ensure experienced planners are not driven out of the industry.
“It’s easy to say a degree in financial planning and/or advanced diploma should be a minimum, but there needs to be an open mindedness how this is introduced,” Mr Bashford said.
“There needs to be transitional arrangements in place so that we do not see our industry lose some of its most experienced and valuable people.”
Mr Bashford said one of his company’s best planners is approaching the end of his career and “could retirement tomorrow if he chose to.”
He could be one of the experienced planners the industry could lose if minimum standards were introduced across the board, Mr Bashford added.
“He is not willing to invest the effort in more study. My concern is that unless transitional arrangements recognise people like him and the value they bring then the industry loses this experience,” he said.
However, Mr Bashford said that for new planners, minimum education standards were a must if the industry wants to improve its reputation.
“For new people come into the industry, I don’t think it unreasonable to introduce a requirement of a degree in financial planning,” Mr Bashford said.
“If we aspire to be recognised as a true profession hen there is little choice other than to be going down this path.”
Paul, I am not arguing against RPL and/or experience. Just saying the bar for entrants should be lifted. For those of us in the middle ground, the challenge remains on how to manage the professions needs and these people’s circumstances who have invested vast amounts of time and capital to get where they are now.
ASIC’s idea of an annual or biannual exam is not the answer either. You can never test for ethics and morals in an exam.
Recognition needs to be made that this “profession”is in its infancy. All steps a lifting the bar are not necessarily good or sensible.
We need industry leadership to become a profession and I am not sure that this exists at the moment, hence why its being legislated for us.
I wish I was your stage and I could say bye to the lot of it. I am sick of it.
This helps no-one, including the clients.
Friends. Re prior recognition. I came to the business in 1986 after a prior life as a private practicing and contracting land surveyor with a degree plus 2 years of internship, and years of coal face experience re land and property, mining, agriculture, infrastructure development and so on then 2 years in the real estate industry. The subject matter in Financial Planning is a doddle (but boring). The people and the solutions for them are interesting. All the financial degrees in the world will not help you tell the difference between spin and real if all you have ever seen is paper or a screen. I have just retired happy from 25 years of honest advice and have saved numerous people from scams etc. My case is unusual I admit, but you must somewhere make allowance for prior education and experience. I agree fully that ANY degree teaches you to think or proves that you can “read the manual”. Best of luck.
Ben 100%
Getting a degree is also NOT just about what you learn, although this is obviously crucial and v important. It’s also how you learn to think. Personally I have both an undergrad and post grad degree from a proper uni. Half of my learning was how to think, how to apply what I know, how to critically assess something that maybe my baseline knowledge is not 100% across.
That is one way to reduce the chances of Ben’s second comment of the inadvertent ignorant doing damage.
No system is ever perfect. Lawyers, accountants and doctors can fall on the wrong side of the line but I do know which set of stats looks better and which one’s don’t.
I didn’t join the FPA in 2000 when I cam to the industry due to low education standards, I am still not a member.
It should be min full degree and then one year PY under a professional planner. Can’t be me tho obviously as I can’t be a CFP, something some guys got for nothing!
Jeff, I have worked alongside advisers who destroyed the life savings of their clients. Not because they were dishonest, chasing commissions or ‘going against their teachings’; but because they didn’t understand the risks of the products and strategies they were recommending. I have seen advisers lapse into depression because of the guilt and shame that follow. No profession is perfect and mandatory degrees won’t solve everything. But we must get better and I am sorry if my views don’t suit your organisation.
Ben great response but I am no way stating that the Diploma level qualification is a multi choice only qualification and also its not that easy to obtain. I still maintain that for entry level the bar is set high enough at that level. People that undertake that level are long term advisors and of high quality and commitment to the advice industry. No matter what level the bar is raised too it will not stop individuals behaviours is they choose to go against the teachings and regulations. Many Dealer Groups are now seeking Advanced Diploma Level qualifications and that in itself raises the bar even more and covers many of the areas you have highlighted as concerns. Please remember also that every trainer and assessor must maintain currency in every unit they teach or assess and hence the bar has also been raised from the delivery and assessing side of the equation.
You are wrong Jeff. A degree is essential. Surely we want a profession whereby a) advisers have the mental aptitude to understand complex financial information b) advisers have carefully thought through the research and workings behind financial products and strategies c) advisers make a long-term commitment to the profession as a career. There are too many fly-by-night sales people that drift into our profession, do damage and then exit. We need to stop that cycle. A short course with multiple choice questions is a joke. Unfortunately the banks and Industry Funds want to keep the bar low so they can train call centre operators to provide advice as a retention strategy. That undermines our profession further. As a profession, we must fight against this and raise the bar
Current education requirements are more than adequate, its just once they have their qualifications there must be ongoing support and guidance from the Dealer Licence holders. CPD should be focused on the products and services they provide to ensure ongoing currency in their role. There are many successful advisors and many happy clients, no matter of education will prevent those that feel they can become an over night millionaire and do the wrong thing. Ongoing education is a must but higher barriers to entry unnecessary. Qualifications provide training, education is gained in the roles and via ongoing CPD. No one person is smart enough to know is waiting around the corner with the global turmoil constantly throwing up new challenges.