In a statement, Synchron director Don Trapnell said he is concerned about the potential for a mass exodus should the draft bill be legislated as is. He added that he is one of those ‘veteran’ advisers who should not be required to head back to school.
“Like the AFA, we have serious concerns in relation to the brain drain that could occur if the proposed reforms are allowed to continue forward. There are very senior, very respected advisers within our Synchron group, including myself, who despite their many years of experience and varied qualifications will be forced to undertake a university degree in order to continue practising,” Mr Trapnell said.
“I have almost 50 years’ experience as a risk adviser and am regarded as an expert in my field. However, I don’t have a Diploma of Financial Planning because I am not a financial planner, nor do I have a financial planning university degree.
“Like many other experienced risk advisers, I hold formal life insurance qualifications, including Certified Insurance Professional by ANZIIF. Given my life insurance qualifications, level of experience and expertise, why should I and risk advisers like me have to re-train? There needs to be a more practical pathway established for existing advisers.”
Mr Trapnell added there should be streamlined education pathways for different disciplines included in the draft bill.
“In our letter, we reflect our long-held belief that there needs to be a separation of disciplines in the education and training of financial advice practitioners,” he said.
“It is presupposed by government that financial planners and risk writers are in the same discipline, but they are not. Our letter draws a parallel between the GP and the dentist; they both have to have a basic knowledge of medicine, but then they need to go into their own areas of expertise.
“You wouldn’t employ a GP to perform a root canal, so why should they need to know how to do one?”
Sadly the university educated graduates typically struggle to make an impact with clients because they are unable to translate what they have studied into the workplace. Is that because the quality of the uni degrees is poor ? Or the commitment of the grads is lacking ? Whatever the reason, the uni grads that are being pumped out of uni are proving to be a huge let down for the profession.
There are many well meaning but misinformed idealists on both sides of this argument. Don is not one of them and that is why he, and Michael Harrison, have been fighting this fight long before it became a public issue. Risk and investment are very different but complimentary issues. Many clients do not want holistic advice. They go to a specialist for more specific knowledge and expertise. If you want to qualify as a GP and a dentist, all power to you but you, and the client, should have the ability to choose.
Risk and investment advice should be separate qualifications. Holistic advisers can choose to have both and continue to provide holistic advice to clients who want it. Being part of a firm who provides holistic advice I fully understand why it should be the preferred path however I also know that many clients simply don’t want it. Rightly or wrongly they believe they know better.
If the government truly does not want to be in the position of telling people what they should be doing with their super then they should not be mandating holistic advice. Or creating a regime where advisers can only provide holistic advice or nothing. Something ambulance chasing lawyers, FOS or the like will see as an easy money win. Return to separate compliance and education standards. In doing so, acknowledge that there are many non degree qualified persons who would be, and in many cases are actually doing so, considered suitable to lecture those who are pursuing degrees. If they are competent enough to teach they should not have to enroll in a course they could compentently teach.
I’m with you Gerry…
Where does the grandfathering of everything end…?
I am pretty sick of financial planners not being taken seriously. Not only do we have to deal with grandfathered CFPs but now we will need to deal with grandfathered education requirements also?
Not hard to have a blemish free compliance record when there has been slim to no compliance in the industry until FOFA…
Don is one of the true professionals in the industry and if only we could be assured that all those who make the same claim of professionalism were the same. I’ve dealt with some great risk advisers but also some other “professional risk only” advisers over many years where a review of their commission statements, SOAs and allegiances to certain insurers may question the professional label. I’m not suggestion the advice has been wrong but I would question whose best interest it is in.
You could look at special education requirements for risk only advisers but when doing risk advice an adviser also needs to be able to ensure that any client needs and final recommendation support the client’s overall position and this requires holistic consideration. If the risk only adviser is is a full service practice and their risk recommendation can be overseen by a financial adviser the perhaps a special stream can be considered. But can you imagine the monitoring and compliance minefield that would create – it would be untenable.
Whilst many well thought and well meant arguments have been made on the education recommendations there continues to be the historic protection of the experienced advisers.
It is 100% time that the entire industry accepts that it is time to stop acting like a cottage industry and take the difficult steps of change to make it a truly professional industry. Its been too easy for too long for product manufacturers, licensees and advisers to make very big incomes.
No offence Don.
The barriers to entry have been far too low for too long and the industry is paying the price for this now.
I understand the issues, but I also think it’s time that advisers who busted their guts for years studying whilst working fulltime got some deserved recognition. You wanted professionalism in the industry…say hello to the trade-offs.
Well written once again and rings true to reality.
Can you imagine how many first class advisers will leave the Industry – and at what damage to the customer experience?