Speaking on a recent ifa podcast, principal of Moran Partners Financial Planning argued for a college-like structure — an overarching, independent organisation responsible for training and maintaining standards in financial advice.
“What’s lacking is kind of like the medical colleges that set some goals and set some agendas and operate independently of anything else. The colleges, the college of surgeons, the college of general practitioners, the college of anaesthetists, are really tasked with setting the responsibilities and the processes and protocols for that particular sector,” Dr Moran explained.
“I strongly think we need a separate body — not an industry association, but actually a professional standards body — to work to start developing some of that stuff,” he continued.
This organisation, Dr Moran explained, would be adviser-driven but supported by academics, not the other way around.
Moreover, he argued, that a standardised set of processes and protocols would make the provision of financial advice easier for the advisers, the regulators, and the customers.
“It would make it easier for the regulators because they would be able to make a quick judgement… And then from a client point of view, they’re getting more certainty for what we do. And then that doesn’t change the interpersonal relationship, the values-based approach we take. It doesn’t change all of that sort of stuff that we do now, but the outcomes that we are producing become more known and more measurable in that regard,” Dr Moran said.
He, however, conceded that this idea, which essentially translates into a type of self-regulation, is “hard to get off the ground”.
“I think financial advice is an early stage profession, but I don’t think we’re ready to self-regulate just yet because we haven’t got that self-regulatory body in place,” he said.
“We have codes of practise, and we have different associations have their codes operation that you got to adopt and they’re different. They’re all different, slightly different, but they’ve all evolved from compliance. So, the processes they put in place are all compliance-driven processes, not financial-planning-driven processes,” Dr Moran continued.
Tune into the podcast episode here to hear more.
I’m with you Paul, we remain insufficiently supported even now
The sooner we remove product issuers and the FPA from the advice industry the better.
Why won’t the FPA let go of CFP? It is an antiquated American designation that was proven inferior for the FASEA education standards? By all means retain it if it adds value, but why force qualified advisers to sit the same subjects already done? Stick to advocacy on behalf of all members and drop designations. CAs are members of the CA. CPAs are members of the CPA.
The industry must have a designation that is recognised by consumers of the services and product not just the industry – I don’t care what you want to call it but make it a universal earned accreditation. And if you want just get rid of CFP for anyone who won’t do the study or has it under a grandfathered arrangement.
What does it matter Jen? product providers it seems will be providing Financial Advice to consumers for a lot less money than a fully qualified CFP – so what does it matter?
But according to the FPA, all CFP’s are equal ? I’m confused ?
Lets face it with all the conflicting agendas from so many vested interests running in the financial planning industry, the industry is crippled and stuffed. That’s without even taking any discussion of conflicted remuneration into account from whatever view you have. It’s like watching a pack of hyenas fighting over a carcus to get a piece of the action.