- Yes (47%)
- No (34%)
- Not sure (20%)
Our latest poll is talking to advisers whose existing qualifications fall short of the new minimum education standards announced in recent weeks.
In what has been a flurry of self-regulation by the Commonwealth Bank, AMP, NAB and BT Financial Group, the bar has been raised for the minimum qualifications required for advisers operating under dealer groups owned by the big end of town (see: Large Institutions Move on Adviser Education Standards).
If you’re an adviser whose qualifications do not meet these new education levels, regardless of which licensee you presently operate with, do you have any concerns?
While the apparent catalyst for this current round of initiatives stems from the negative publicity associated with the headline-grabbing CBA advice scandal, these announcements reflect what has been a consistent ground-swell of calls for the industry to act on raising adviser education standards – for the sake of the consumer and for the credibility of the advice sector.
There are multiple issues associated with these new standards, such as appreciating the differences between qualifications and designations and determining the extent to which advisers will be able to choose the qualification that meets the new standards, and also best reflects the nature of the advice they deliver. Riskinfo will consider and report on all these issues – but in the meantime, looking at the question of whether you would be prepared to undertake more studies to meet these higher minimum standards, are you on-board?…
Does Higher Education ensure competency and honesty I think not . Just another industry knee jerk reaction.
Having been a adviser for 27 years, I have met people with all types and levels of education, though attaining higher qualifications will not necessarily improve the resulting service provided by Bank aligned or even non Bank aligned advisers, unless the processes that sit behind the advisers are sufficient to check that the advise and service is up to a certain standard.
This could be a expensive time waster, if highly educated advisers proceed to do the wrong thing and the back office does not pick it up.
The end result will still be clients that will suffer and the blame will be passed from pillar to post.
The problem is NOT more education and the call for a never-ending increase for additional “education”. No amount of education is of any bloody good at all if the education the adviser already has is not being properly applied. Therefore proper application, and not more “education”, is the key.
Does one sincerely believe that was I to get a doctorate, in insurance studies, it would improve my capacity as an adviser even an iota? — I think NOT!!
None of this will be my problem as I’ve been CFP since last century, work with a private licensee and will soon retire. Seems to me though, that the Advisers are bearing all the blame for what is a shared responsibility – for Storm, for Agri failures, for Trio, for CBA, for Macquarie, when all the power is held by the Dealers.
Of course there are some crappy advisers, probably too many, but they can’t operate unless someone takes them on and employs or contracts them. “Rogue” Advisers? Who put them in the chair if they’re underqualified, lacking ethics and client empathy?
Who kept them on, setting and knowing full well, the standards under which they were operating but turning a blind eye?……or was it an all – seeing eye, with the other on the KPIs that dictate management bonuses? It’s not about ‘tied” or “independent” . I’ve been both. It’s about what’s right or wrong!
So now Advisers will be brought into line by increasing qualifications. Aren’t the Big Dealers doing a marvellous job of punishing their own bad guys? Completely selfless. Brings tears to your eyes.
CBA management and ASIC – you should hang your collective heads in shame for the damage you’ve done to all the “good guys” who so the right thing and for your patronising response of blaming your own advisers for your Management failings –
– and for visiting your sins upon the rest of us who’ve spent decades looking after loyal clients, clients who don’t give a fig about all this, apart from their concern the bad press might harm us, their trusted adviser.
Can’t say I’ll miss it – I have lots of friends who are clients and clients who are friends. I can walk down the street with a clear conscience after 30 years. Couldn’t do that if I was Middle Management, Bill Shorten or an ASIC bureaucrat, even though my wallet would be much fatter in retirement!
Good luck to the Good Guys….
Yes, Jeremy has used the best words to describe this “an expensive time waster” and I couldn’t agree more. As a pure risk adviser of 26 years, I would challenge anyone to prove to me that sitting in a classroom and spending countless hours and thousands of dollars will help me help my clients better. This is, as Neville (above) says, a knee-jerk reaction by those who have to justify their positions and order others to do their bidding (politicians). It continues to make me sick how pollies and some industry execs can’t just leave the industry alone, leave us alone to do our job. Get rid of the advisers who are bad apples – a simple matter as dealerships and ins coys know exactly who they are. The vast majority of advisers just want to get on with helping clients and this ridiculous situation of meddling politicians has been brought about by dealerships and life/investment coys NOT weeding these bloody bad advisers out earlier i.e. Storm and Combank, just as one example. “self regulate or we’ll do it for you” the captains of the insurance companies were told decades ago – it didn’t happen – were they lazy or just stupid?
Comments are closed.