The announcement follows recent changes to qualification requirements for both AMP and CBA aligned advisers, which will see both groups require degree-level education.
NAB Wealth group executive and MLC chief executive Andrew Hagger said MLC “strongly supported moves across the industry” to improve education standards in advice.
Under the new arrangements new financial planners recruited to NAB’s financial planning arms will be required to hold a relevant degree qualification and an advanced diploma in financial planning, or be working towards having one completed within three years.
Existing financial planners will be required to obtain a Certified Financial Planner (CFP) designation by 2017 or a Master designation and a CFP designation by 2019.
“We have recently set new education standards for our NAB financial planners to further build the professionalism of the industry and ensure our clients continue to receive quality advice,” Mr Hagger said.
In addition, all senior planners under NAB will be required to hold a CFP designation from the FPA or complete one within three years of commencement.
NAB financial planners will also be required to continue holding membership with a recognised professional association.
“With an ageing population that is living longer and facing a significant shortfall in retirement savings, the provision of affordable and trusted financial advice to help consumers secure their future is more important than ever,” Mr Hagger said.
“We are committed to making cost-effective financial advice accessible to all Australians.”
Mr Hagger said that MLC also supports ASIC’s proposed national register for financial advisers noting that the group “has long championed transparent financial advice.”
Once again, improving the calibre of adviser education is a good thing for the general public, but let’s call a spade a spade here shall we.
This announcement from the NAB is not based in altruism.
The NAB is simply matching (if not exceeding) it’s competitors PR ‘smoke and mirror’ PR campaigns.
Anything to deflect public & regulator attention from the structural inadequacies found within the big 4 banks wealth divisions.
[quote name=”Neil”][quote name=”Lynette”]What worries me is the emphasis on obtaining a CFP designation – whilst the current CFP requirements are strenuous, the old CFP designation related to the completion of what is now the Advanced Diploma. This seems gross deception to the general public. There is no way that the Institute of Chartered Accountants would allow someone to use the CA post-nominal if it did not relate to the current qualification.[/quote]
Well said Lynette. This seems a gross deception because it is a gross deception.
Jeff, I couldn’t disagree more. Not making ‘old CFP’ holders come up to the standard of “new CFP” holders is unfair to two groups of people. Joe public and new CFP holders.[/quote]
Exactly Jeff. Unfortunately there are too many ‘old CFP’ to lobby the FNA crying “unjust and unfair” when in fact it is “unjust and unfair” to the ‘new CFP’ as well as the unsuspecting public. How is this any different to false advertising on food labels?
[quote name=”Lynette”]What worries me is the emphasis on obtaining a CFP designation – whilst the current CFP requirements are strenuous, the old CFP designation related to the completion of what is now the Advanced Diploma. This seems gross deception to the general public. There is no way that the Institute of Chartered Accountants would allow someone to use the CA post-nominal if it did not relate to the current qualification.[/quote]
Well said Lynette. This seems a gross deception because it is a gross deception.
Jeff, I couldn’t disagree more. Not making ‘old CFP’ holders come up to the standard of “new CFP” holders is unfair to two groups of people. Joe public and new CFP holders.
Lynette,
I am a member of 7 professional bodies and all follow the same process in allowing existing certified members to retain thier status and to take that away from them would be in my view unjust and unfair. Many have been operating under the required standards and regulations and provide very professional services to their clients.
What worries me is the emphasis on obtaining a CFP designation – whilst the current CFP requirements are strenuous, the old CFP designation related to the completion of what is now the Advanced Diploma. This seems gross deception to the general public. There is no way that the Institute of Chartered Accountants would allow someone to use the CA post-nominal if it did not relate to the current qualification.
You can have the most educated planners, but while the management of these planners is left in the hands of those who may never have provided advice, perhaps never sat in front of a client or did so too many years ago, what will change?
It’s disappointing that institutions are enforcing change for their planners (which is warranted) yet continue to allow inappropriate leaders to manage these individuals. As a result, we will simply continue to see a struggle between planners wanting to do the right thing and the business pressures to do something different placed on them by such leaders. Simply, exacerbating one of the current frustrations that leaders are simply interested in the numbers (product sales).
Where is the accountability, education standards and ethical requirements for the individuals in the very important roles of mentoring and managing financial planners? For these are the people who will have significant influence on any real change in behaviour.
Amazing really…all this education and yet at the end of the day it could all go to waste as dealer group management won’t led advisers use any of this new found wisdom thanks to strict compliance and “don’t rock the boat” mentality.
Holding a CFP does Not stop bad or incorrect advice, it comes down to the ethics and morales of the advisers, sadly their were CFP advisers involved in the Westpoint property losses for customers. A robust compliance system will do more to stop poor or un acceptable advice than CFP ever will.