{"id":32083,"date":"2016-01-19T13:04:53","date_gmt":"2016-01-19T03:04:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/?p=32083"},"modified":"2016-01-20T06:08:14","modified_gmt":"2016-01-19T20:08:14","slug":"adviser-verdict-keep-risk-advice-qualifications-separate","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/2016\/01\/19\/adviser-verdict-keep-risk-advice-qualifications-separate\/","title":{"rendered":"Adviser Verdict &#8211; Keep Risk Advice Qualifications Separate"},"content":{"rendered":"<div id=\"polls-156\" class=\"wp-polls\">\n\t\t<div class=\"pollHeader\"><strong>In future, should the minimum educational qualifications for risk-focused advisers differ from those required of more holistic financial planners?<\/strong><\/div><div id=\"polls-156-ans\" class=\"wp-polls-ans\"><ul class=\"wp-polls-ul\">\n\t\t<li>Yes <small>(72%)<\/small><div class=\"pollbar\" style=\"width: 72%\" title=\"Yes (72% | 152 Votes)\"><\/div><\/li>\n\t\t<li>No <small>(25%)<\/small><div class=\"pollbar\" style=\"width: 25%\" title=\"No (25% | 53 Votes)\"><\/div><\/li>\n\t\t<li>Not sure <small>(2%)<\/small><div class=\"pollbar\" style=\"width: 2%\" title=\"Not sure (2% | 5 Votes)\"><\/div><\/li>\n\t\t<\/ul><div style=\"text-align: center\"><\/div><\/div>\n\t\t<input type=\"hidden\" id=\"poll_156_nonce\" name=\"wp-polls-nonce\" value=\"3c7ab7efeb\" \/>\n<\/div>\n\n<p>Our latest poll suggests most advisers support the notion that minimum educational qualifications for risk-focused advisers should be treated separately.<\/p>\n<p><!--more-->In results so far, 71% of advisers\u00a0 have voted &#8216;yes&#8217; to our question: <a href=\"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/2016\/01\/12\/different-educational-requirements-for-risk-advisers\/\">In future, should the minimum educational qualifications for risk-focused advisers differ from those required of more holistic financial planners?<\/a> Around one in four (26%) have voted &#8216;no&#8217;, while 3% remain undecided.<\/p>\n<h6>&#8230;a &#8216;one size fits all&#8217; approach to minimum adviser qualifications won&#8217;t work<\/h6>\n<p>The majority opinion is partly encapsulated in this comment made by experienced adviser, <strong>Jeremy Wright<\/strong>, who believes a &#8216;one size fits all&#8217; approach to minimum adviser qualifications won&#8217;t work:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px\"><em>&#8220;Insurance advice requires much more than what a text book or university lecturer can provide&#8230;&#8221;<\/em><\/p>\n<p>Wright adds:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px\"><em>&#8220;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.&#8221;<\/em><\/p>\n<p>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:<\/p>\n<p style=\"padding-left: 30px\"><em> &#8220;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 &#8220;professionals&#8221; who help people with life changing financial decisions can get a qualification in a matter of weeks.&#8221;<\/em><\/p>\n<p>The answer to this question (and there isn&#8217;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&#8217;s lives, to indeed be treated as a special case when it comes to minimum educational qualifications.<\/p>\n<p>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&#8217;re allowed to knock on their clients&#8217; door, irrespective of the advice conversation that will take place on the other side?<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Our latest poll suggests most advisers support the notion that minimum educational qualifications for risk-focused advisers should be treated separately.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":32122,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,49],"tags":[4247],"class_list":{"0":"post-32083","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-compliance-regulation","8":"category-polls","9":"tag-feature"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32083","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=32083"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/32083\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/32122"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=32083"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=32083"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/riskinfo.com.au\/news\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=32083"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}