- A specialist/niche model (66%)
- A generalist model (16%)
- It doesn't matter (13%)
- Not sure (5%)
Most advisers consider specialisation is the way to go for their future direction and success.
As we go to press, about seven advisers in ten (69%) support the specialist/niche advice model, while only 15 percent have ticked the generalist box.
Our apologies for any confusion that some advisers may have experienced around our notion of the term ‘specialist’, which we meant to apply to either a specific target market demographic, eg pilots, or equally to the scope and nature of the advice being offered, eg estate planning, SMSF structures, transition to retirement, aged care or disability income narratives, to name a few.
This conversation comes from our report on US adviser, Brad Elman, and his presentation at this year’s MDRT Annual Meeting, at which he walked his audience of peers through his own journey, where he commenced his advice career as a generalist before honing his approach to become a specialist adviser (see: The Case for Specialist/Niche Advice).
…even specialists need to reinvent themselves every so often
Of interest also was Elman’s message that even specialists need to reinvent themselves every so often, either as new markets evolve or new opportunities present themselves or as the adviser’s own experiences reveal other areas in which specialisation – whether that be target market or advice narrative – emerges as a new opportunity to add value.
Where do you sit on this question? Are we giving enough support to the generalist advice proposition, which works successfully for many advice businesses? Or do you think that in future, specialisation in advice will become more of an imperative in order to add value to your present and future clients?
Our poll remains open for another week for you to have your say…
I am a specialist Risk only Adviser and have been providing advice to my clients on wealth protection for 20 years. During the last 20 years some of my clients that have sought advice from me are Financial Planners who focus on super and investment advice only as they wanted a specialist to ensure that their Risk Insurances are appropriate for their situation and needs. As the medical profession refers patients for specialist advice to ensure the best outcome the Financial Services industry should be structured in the same way for the same reasons. I can guarantee that as a specialist my Risk Insurance advice would be more appropriate and compliant than the Risk Insurance advice provided by a holistic planner. This specialist designation should also determine the education and ongoing training requirements of every adviser. It’s simple, it makes sense, it’s easy to monitor, the training and education would be relevant to the scope of advice and most importantly everyday Australians would receive affordable appropriate advice.
Protect it,
So if I am reading this correctly then you agree that everyone should complete a degree initially like the medical profession? Then to become a specialist you would need to complete additional training relevant to the specialist area initially & ongoing?
New entrants to complete a degree relevant to the advice they provide. Existing Advisers with years of experience and existing qualifications should only need to complete industry exam to continue to advise.
Comments are closed.