- Yes (50%)
- No (47%)
- Not sure (3%)
Differences in opinion have emerged as to who should be entitled to use the term ‘financial planner’ or ‘financial adviser’. With the final wording of legislation enshrining the term ‘financial planner/adviser’ into law soon to be debated in Parliament, our latest poll is asking:
Should the term ‘financial planner/adviser’ be restricted only to authorised representatives who are members of an approved adviser association?
In their submissions to the Federal Government regarding the enshrinement of the term financial planner/adviser into law, industry associations have delivered conflicting views about who should eventually be allowed to adopt this mantle.
The Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) holds that, as long as the adviser has qualified as an eligible authorised representative, this represents an appropriate level of protection for clients. However, the Financial Planning Association (FPA) has called for a more restrictive use of the term, stating there should be additional criteria limiting its use ‘… to those adhering to professional obligations arising from their membership of a professional body and following a Code of professional practice.’
Meanwhile, the Financial Services Council (FSC) questions in its submission whether it is possible to implement a restriction on the use of terms when the educational requirements associated with licensing have yet to be finalised. The FSC is referring, in part, to the delay to the ASIC project to implement a national adviser exam.
While debate on the final criteria encompasses issues including minimum educational benchmarks and codes of conduct, the focus of this poll is on whether authorised reps should be required to become a member of an adviser association in order to be able to call themselves a financial planner/adviser.
It’s over to you! Should you be ‘forced’ to be a member of, say, the AFA or FPA in order to call yourself a financial planner/adviser? Or should your status as an authorised representative be sufficient? We will look at the other areas of education and codes of conduct in future polls, but for the time being, tell us what you think about our current question…
Whilst the desire to be seen as a profession and have a governing body to be the public face has a strong argument,
this is nothing but unionism in another name.
Great call Don……..if I can call you that?
Qualifications earn you naming rights…………not forced membership!
Control freaks if you as a planner agree to this then you are giving away your independence, control over our industry has gone to far I m all for compliance but THE introduction of an AFSL took away my independence.
To many dealers cant afford compliance and its all pushed by the big Banks, If the banks get rid of you as an adviser then they save millions its not about the public this is all about control and power don’t let them take it away.
This has destroyed the UK and US markets educated derelicts is not the answer to the problem, Regulation of the product providers is the answer.
Compulsory membership to an association is a a threat to the fundamental right of association and is not worthy of consideration in a democratic society. Legislation dictates that it is ASIC’s responsibility to ensure that licensing standards are adhered to. Those who promote compulsory association are merely vocalising their insecurity. Our greatest mark of professionalism is a satisfied client who refers us to his/her friends.
Don, call it what you like, CA, CPA, FPA IFA,AMA, etc are professional bodies. You can’t practice as an accountant without professional recognition. Have you heard of “the bank accountant’– not so for many years. I agree that standards have to be satisfied to be a financial planner and the time has come to lift the bar. What was ok yesterday is not ok moving forward, no trade or profession is the same as it was years ago, that why we have CPD and further education. Consumers are looking for a “sign” that gives them confidence when seeking our services. Just being an AR with no other credentials does not instil confidence. I for one welcome the term to be enshrined and the need to be a member of a professional body. Not for ego, but as Don Chipp once said— it keeps the bastards honest,
This ‘title’ was thrown to the industry as a diversion form being raped, pillaged and plundered by the labor government.
I am an EX financial planner, but because I don’t belong to any industry association by choice, does not make any less qualified than some-one who has walked out of a university course with their shiny new shingle.
And an explanation of what a real financial planner is would also not go astray.
The ordinary person in the street has no understanding of what the term really means.
When people are looking for ‘financial planners’ those prepared to put up their hand have no idea across the spectrum of money management, and likely just as bad as those who seek assistance.
Perhaps better acknowledgements would be such as specialist advisers, as are doctors and lawyers, the very professions the financial industry has always tried to achieve parity with for recognition.
Being forced into an association in order to use the term “financial planner” is typical of the simple idealisms of those who run them.
Compulsory membership of a professional association would go a long way towards meaningful self-regulation.
For this reason, I am for it,.
Jamie you have to be kidding it dictation not regulation, how many on the board of the FPA have full qualifications? I have 25 years experience no qualification in the world is going to replace that.
No FPA CPA AFA should determine if I can enter an industry I have been apart of for 25 years
Financial Planners should be those doing investment.
Risk advisers do risk and you don’t do both.
A risk adviser is not a financial planner nor visa versa, an accountant is not a financial planner nor a risk adviser, educated overbearing idiots may have some knowledge (and some knowledge is dangerous) but they cant put it into practice, Yesterday is gone tomorrow will you have a job or work for the bank?
In my view, its a tough one. Under the regs the licensee is resonsible for the conduct of its AR’s, a licensee has the right to require membership of specific professional bodies of its AR’s if it so choses using this as a way to differentiate the licensee and AR.
Individual advisers may not feel they see value in this, they may feel they have a sufficient trusted relationship with the clients they provide advice to and therefore dont see the need to spend $’000’s per year belonging to multiple professional bodies and paying to attend conferences etc.
If the adviser is qualified and compliant then membership to a professional body should only be required if it is a requirement of his/her licensee or if they chose to be a member themselves.
I for one am a member of 2 professional bodies as I see the value in both being a part of and contributing where I can to the debate and evolution of our profession, so I advocate membership but I dont think it should be compulsory.
Look where these ‘professional bodies” have taken this industry!
They haven’t stood for the adviser or client at all!
They have allowed Government, banks and industry funds to come through to make a huge pile of useless red tape and destroy our industry.
Simply paying an annual membership fee to belong to a professional body does not mean that the advice provider provides quality advice. The legislators need to set a higher level of educational entry with a minimum period of actual supervised experience before the provider should be able to use the financial planner/adviser terminology.
In the past there have been too many so called advisers who participated in a very short course to become RG 146 compliant, but definitely did not have the technical expertise to provide quality advice, and had no intention of acquiring additional skills.
Comments are closed.