- Yes (72%)
- No (25%)
- Not sure (2%)
Our latest poll suggests most advisers support the notion that minimum educational qualifications for risk-focused advisers should be treated separately.
In results so far, 71% of advisers have voted ‘yes’ to our question: In future, should the minimum educational qualifications for risk-focused advisers differ from those required of more holistic financial planners? Around one in four (26%) have voted ‘no’, while 3% remain undecided.
…a ‘one size fits all’ approach to minimum adviser qualifications won’t work
The majority opinion is partly encapsulated in this comment made by experienced adviser, Jeremy Wright, who believes a ‘one size fits all’ approach to minimum adviser qualifications won’t work:
“Insurance advice requires much more than what a text book or university lecturer can provide…”
Wright adds:
“The benefit a young adviser will derive from working in the Life Insurance Industry, will come from hands on experience, being mentored and working in specialist risk practices, where most of their knowledge will be learned.”
The alternative view, which supports the proposition that all authorised representatives should be required to have attained the same minimum education level, is outlined in another adviser comment, who argues that education standards for all advisers must be raised:
“If we want to remove the rogues from the Risk and Wealth sides of FP then being degree qualified is the only way to go. You require a uni degree in the majority of professions, it makes no sense and is actually totally crazy that “professionals” who help people with life changing financial decisions can get a qualification in a matter of weeks.”
The answer to this question (and there isn’t necessarily a definitive answer) lies in whether the nature of life insurance advice is sufficiently different in its character and the way it adds value to people’s lives, to indeed be treated as a special case when it comes to minimum educational qualifications.
Do you support the majority opinion in this poll and agree that the nature of life insurance advice justifies its own set of minimum educational requirements? Or do you subscribe to the argument that all authorised representatives must walk through the same educational door before they’re allowed to knock on their clients’ door, irrespective of the advice conversation that will take place on the other side?
Yes, well, as usual Jeremy Wright has hit the nail on the head with his well reasoned comments. The ‘alternate view’ quoted really does nothing to forward the cause, does it? Look at the legal and medical professions. Malpractice in both and scalping patients/clients hasn’t been banished due to “university degrees” has it?! Hardly a day goes by when the daily news tells us of corruption in these fields; doctors defrauding medibank or taking advantage of some poor hapless patient. Solicitors dipping into client trust accounts as their own little honeypot. Absolute dribble that a degree will ensure a better client experience – especially in the ‘risk; area. No degree can instil ‘life experience’ into a neophyte adviser. As Jeremy says, they need one-on-one coaching and development. An experienced adviser is really the only one who can say if his student is worthy and ‘trustable’ to be put in the field with a client’s precious needs. Those who keep saying risk advisers need full FP degree qualifications just don’t know what’s going on out there.
Comments are closed.