- I support the Pathway as currently proposed. (37%)
- I do not support the Experienced Pathway. (21%)
- I will only support the Pathway if it includes both the sunset clause and the Code of Ethics unit. (19%)
- I will only support the Pathway if it also includes a 10-year sunset clause. (14%)
- I will only support the Pathway if it includes the requirement to complete the Code of Ethics unit. (7%)
- I remain unsure. (2%)
The majority of Riskinfo readers support the Government’s proposed Experienced Adviser Pathway, but a significant proportion of that support is conditional on the inclusion of one or both of the FAAA’s two proposed amendments.
As we go to press, around one third of poll respondents (34%) support the wording of the Governments’ Experienced Adviser Pathway exposure draft bill ‘as is’. That support, however, jumps to just under three in four (73%) if one or both of the FAAA’s two proposed amendments are adopted, where the majority of this additional support is contingent on the inclusion of both the 10-year sunset clause and completion of the Code of Ethics Unit recommendations.
The results so far closely reflect the internal member poll conducted by the FAAA a few weeks ago, in which 70% of the combined adviser association’s members support the Experienced Pathway if the two amendments are adopted.
…there will always be differing opinions, viewpoints, vested interests…
On the other side of the coin, around one in four of those voting in this poll (26%) reject the entire notion of an Experienced Adviser Pathway – an initiative intended to give greater recognition to the experience gained by long-established financial advisers of good standing. As one reader has commented, though, “…there will always be differing opinions, viewpoints, vested interests, anger from those who sacrificed family time, money and Business growth in order to pass onerous and time wasting courses…”
While it appears a broad consensus will never be reached on the legitimacy of the Experienced Adviser Pathway, it also appears that the majority of advisers and the broader industry are in favour of the proposition, and it will probably become a question of whether the Government proceeds with the current draft wording or accepts one or both of the proposed amendments which will have the effect of ‘tightening’ this avenue to minimum adviser qualifications.
Our poll remains open for another week and we welcome your thoughts, as always…
An argument for or against the experienced Adviser Pathway is an argument that needs to include economic reality.
For instance, if there are less Financial Planners who do Investment advice, then it can be an economic boom for those Advisers remaining as they can be selective and charge higher fees.
Though not a good position for the vast majority of Australians who can no longer afford to attain advice.
For the wealth protection Advice market, if there are insufficient Advisers to write the volumes required to maintain a viable and profitable Insurance Business model for the Advisers and Life Insurers, then “we get what we have got,” which is rising and unaffordable premiums, more disgruntled clients and a never ending cycle of “catch up,” trying to save existing clients and NIL time to get TRUE New Business in the door, which leads to higher premiums again, more lapses and a slow death spiral that benefits no-one.
It is self-defeating for all Australians, including those Advisers who decry those experienced Advisers who dared to question the insane logic that forced thousands of great Advisers to make the decision to leave the Industry for NIL BENEFIT to anyone.
To make matters worse, it appears from the figures that many Advisers who were forced to sit erroneous and in the risk space, mostly irrelevant studies, seemed to have an epiphany that even though I hated doing it, then why should not EVERY ADVISER be forced into doing it, which has unfortunately made it easier for the Education lobbyists to push their agenda of “comply or die” and for them to tell all the world that pushing out experienced Advisers who could and did write the most Insurance Business, who were the backbone of the Industry, though committed a Capital offence of not holding a newly printed certificate, should be economically burnt at the stake.
The problem of course, is by more people joining in and saying ‘burn the witches,’ it is leading to further declines in specialist risk Advisers, less holistic Advisers who want to be involved in risk advice and as there is no readily available data, possibly NIL NEW people entering the Insurance advice Industry due to it being a maze of complexity, with little perceived gain.
They used to lower people into a pond or river to see if they were witches.
If they drowned, then maybe they might have been innocent. If they did not drown, then they must have been witches and were burnt at the stake.
Either way, because of petty jealousy or a way to get an advantage that created a reign of terror for all the population, there were no winners until a proper set of rules and more importantly, “COMMON SENSE” was installed which finally brought stability.
What we have all been through was a witch hunt and the main perpetrators being the Education and Legal lobbyists, expertly went about their business of whipping up hysteria to bring the population over to their way of thinking.
And what a great job they have done making Billions of dollars for themselves and the Audit / Regulatory / Public service sectors, who have dined out at ALL OUR EXPENSE.
Comments are closed.