Synchron director Don Trapnell warned that the current education proposals will force risk advisers to either become full-service financial advisers or leave the industry.
“What’s the point of life insurance specialist advisers learning in-depth financial planning topics when they are not going to advise on them? All this does is push advisers into being generalists, as opposed to specialists,” Mr Trapnell told Risk Adviser.
Mr Trapnell said this would ultimately end in poorer outcomes for clients, as it will be more difficult for them to access advice.
“Research from [Risk Adviser sister site] ifa has revealed that up to 75 per cent of advisers have already decided their retirement date is 31 December 2023,” he said.
“This is terrible for consumers because fewer advisers means more consumers will be forced to seek financial protection from providers advertising on morning breakfast shows, or from industry funds.”
Synchron wants FASEA and the government to instead introduce “a streamlined education pathway” for risk specialists, which would focus on “topics pertinent to risk” – including relevant superannuation and tax implications – but would not exceed what is necessary.
“We are endeavouring to generate debate. We want to go public and talk about the issue. We are encouraging advisers to talk to other advisers, to product manufacturers and to their local Members of Parliament,” Mr Trapnell said.
“If we increase the volume of the debate we hope that someone in Government, perhaps the Minister, will look at the education issue and question whether we really need to over-medicate what is an already heavily-regulated industry.”
firstly I am a “riskie” , secondly, I’m in my 50’s so have NO intention of going to uni.
HOWEVER, I am a FINANCIAL PLANNER who specialises in RISK. You may not use a lot of what you “learn” at uni, but neither will a doctor, a Lawyer, an accountant ect ect.
You have 8 years or there about, get ready to sell, bring on a partner, retire, go to uni, what ever, its up to you. If you truly believe that as a “riskie” you don’t need to be aware of any other facets of financial planning, you aren’t a financial planner, you probably aren’t even a true Riskie, you are probably just an insurance sales person.
Good on you Don…its a pity that there are not more experienced voices like Don in positions of power who can shape industry policy. If there were, then we wouldn’t be having this debate. Don uses the term “over-medicate”…isn’t this more conservative term for “OD”?; and we all know what happens when someone OD’s…Keep fighting Don…
TOO RIGHT DON!! After 33 years I’d stay in the industry past 2022/3/4 if these academic nobodies would heed Don’s advice and created a separate risk qualification and designation under law. As it is I’m OUT come 2022/3, -at age 60 it makes NO sense to skill up and relearn it all – ridiculous. My clients do NOT need me to do that for them and THEIR needs are all that matter. Don is now saying what I’ve said all along that riskies are NOT generalists and NOT financial planners for investments/old age care et al. Thank GOD someone else is now screaming this from the rooftops and thank GOD it is someone with the profile and calibre of Don Trapnell. This looks to be the older riskies last hope to stay and be of service rather than prematurely retire – and currently there are MANY riskies planning to do that.
Well said Don.
Well said Don, common sense as usual.
These comments are the voice of reason, I am a risk adviser of 34 years who refers all $ planning clients as I do not want the responsibility of others funds. Yet I am forced by compliance to study such as derivatives and share trading etc etc which will never be used. It is the one time I am happy to be the age that I am as i will be leaving the industry after almost 60 years of self-employed work (26 yrs in previous occupation) probably later this year