That is the view put forward by the FSC in its submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee (PJC) on Corporations and Financial Services’ inquiry into proposals to lift the professional, ethical and education standards in the financial services industry.
FSC’s recommendations are in line with the proposal by the PJC to introduce a regulatory model under which government, professional associations, industry and academia would work in partnership.
The new framework would relate to education and training standards for financial advisers providing financial advice on tier 1 financial products.
“Financial advisers must increase their education and training levels to meet significantly higher standards prescribed by an independent standards setting body,” the FSC said.
“The registration exam must form the gateway to the adviser profession to ensure all advisers meet the required standard prior to delivering advice.”
The FSC said in its PJC submission that it was “impractical to mandate that experienced practitioners undertake degree qualifications, due to the significant level of responsibility associated with running advice businesses and servicing existing clients”.
However, the FSC said it was appropriate to recognise that “experienced” advisers had a competency level higher than that of new entrants.
“[It is] practical to test their technical competence via a registration exam to ensure they meet the increased benchmark. We recommend that the registration exam is set at a standard equivalent to an Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) level seven qualification,” the FSC said.
Further, the FSC said the Financial Planning Education Council (FPEC) should consist of education providers with knowledge of financial advice, experienced individuals with prior experience of the advice industry, an ethicist and an independent chair.
Milo, that would make it like being CFP, haha
[quote name=”Milo”]Bring on the annual exam, I’ll have my paraplanner do it…[/quote]
[quote name=”Milo”]Bring on the annual exam, I’ll have my paraplanner do it…[/quote]
[quote name=”Milo”]Bring on the annual exam, I’ll have my paraplanner do it…[/quote]
[quote name=”Milo”]Bring on the annual exam, I’ll have my paraplanner do it…[/quote]
then?
Bring on the annual exam, I’ll have my paraplanner do it…
Judging from most of the comments, a higher educational requirement is long overdue! standard
[quote name=”Rick”]If you have a relevant degree or more than 10 years experience you should be exempt. New advisers or anyone else can sit the stupid exam[/quote]
I suppose those with a degree or more than ten years experience can sit the clever exam, because they’re that much more qualified and capable.
If you have a relevant degree or more than 10 years experience you should be exempt. New advisers or anyone else can sit the stupid exam
If you have a relevant degree or more than 10 years experience you should be exempt. New advisers or anyone else can do the stupid exam.
For example, a paraplanner could ace a theoretical exam based on information, BUT….
If they don’t have the personable skills, or ability to engage, adapt, communicate, inspire, etc the client, their knowledge means nothing!
Knowledge means nothing if not applied and you cannot test for someone’s ability to take what they know and influence the behaviour of others.
The BEST ADVICE is about being able to impart ideas onto others so they pick them up and run with them and embrace them and WANT to be more successful and satisfied with their finances. That’s true planning, not just knowing some technical crap which ensures a 80 page SOA (that no-one reads) is technically accurate.
SICK TO DEATH of calls for more training “to lift standards”. Sure, set minimum entry levels (at least ADFP) but realise that technical knowledge doesnt equal good advice.
continued…. I also have a SMSF, a margin loan (very low LVR right now), shares, ETF’s, managed funds, investment properties. Have developed property, have traded warrants, options, have used self-funding instalments. I salary sacrifice, have very complex estate planning which I review regularly. My personal insurances are up to date, including cover for my kids. I budget, save, review my budget, update it, save some more. Have a holiday home (building one soon on a block we have), etc, etc.
NO MUPPET CAN TELL ME that someone who does an annual exam, or who happens to hold a uni degree (the only thing I dont have) is better qualified or experienced or has more wisdom to share simply due to that fact….
I’m all for a base level of competence, but real life experience and proof that one walks their talk is a far greater judge of a planners competence than any stupid annual exam.
I started in financial planning in 1999. Have since completed DFP, Advanced DFP, CFP, SMSF Specialist and also gained my Real Estate licence (I give property advice, I dont sell it!). I complete 60+ CPD point annually online via Kaplan, and haven’t included the 3-5 hours a week I spend reading about markets, legislation, etc. Plus the 2 hours a week working on strategies I dont see every day and dealing with our technical team. Excluded from all of that is my passion for investing and related things outside of work which means my down time is spent reading books on investing in shares, property, etc.
So I now have 15 years of on the job experience, have worked for several varying organisations/practices, have read about every investment book ever written, keep abreast of current events, attend regular sessions with economists, fund managers, share brokers, real estate agents, etc…
Doesn’t make sense. Where’s the recognition, reward or incentive for busting one’s gut to complete a commerce/business degree and Masters in Fin Planning? You get pelted with more exam requirements and individual accreditations even after completing the industry’s highest qualifications.
The FSC are the most embarrassing part of the industry.
FSC – pot calling kettle black! Given the FSC seems to be be basically owned and funded by the banks and seeing as how pretty much EVERY one of them has been caught out recently, maybe, they are the ones who should consider what “lift the professional, ethical standards” means, when they clearly lack both.