Earlier this month, the government released draft legislation to lift adviser standards, suggesting that all advisers must pass a one-off exam to remain in the industry.
Speaking to ifa, Allyn Radford, chief executive of the Deakin University subsidiary that offers credentials to financial planning firms, said he is not convinced the exam is necessary.
“When you consider that financial planning, by its nature, is an industry filled with people who migrate into that particular profession, the challenge is to ensure that when they migrate in, they exhibit all of the right professional characteristics,” he said.
“But I get stuck on the idea that an exam is going to solve the problem. Are you going to test them on their professional ethics? Or are you going to asses them on a body of knowledge that relates to financial advice? It’s a lot to try and cover within a single exam.”
Like the FPA and AFA with their designations, Mr Radford said he will push to get DeakinDigital’s credentials recognised as degree equivalents – which all advisers will need to have by July 2019.
Courses considered equivalent to degrees will be determined by an independent standards-setting body, set to begin operating by 1 July 2016, according to the government’s draft bill.
Mr Radford, however, does not believe advisers with several years of experience should be required to head back into the classroom.
Instead, he hopes what DeakinDigital does, which is offer assessments for advisers and their firms and give out credentials for them to prove their capabilities, will be considered. The program is based on what advisers already know, and does not require them to complete any extra courses, he said.
“The reason we created this was because we kept on hearing from people, who have been in the industry for quite some time, that they don’t want to go back and do a higher degree because they already know that stuff,” Mr Radford said.
“They’ve been doing it in their jobs day in and day out for a long period of time. A lot of them would turn around and say ‘We could actually teach that stuff. We don’t want to sit in the classroom and have to pretend we’re learning something’.
“What they need to do is have that levelled and assessed in a way that tells other people that they know how to do their job and that they can comply with the relevant standards.”
What is so hard about this industry that warrants this level of interference to already quality advice being given by quality advisers?
Why has this been hijacked by all with vested interest for advisers to conform to what is an absolute intrusion of time and cost.
All this because of a tiny minority who do the wrong thing.
How about the FPA do their job and weed out the rouges and leave the good advisers alone. History and track record is everything. Measure the advice given, if you see a problem fix it. If you see an adviser churning commission based products or flogging high cost to the public ban him/her.
Will someone from a governing body or department stand up and stop this absolute circus and one upmanship of courses and education is everything. IT IS NOT! This flogging of advisers who do the right thing has got to cease and recognise quality based on a job being done not an education requirement. I again remind you that every bad apple was educated and met the standard needed. So sick of this circus and tarnishing of good advisers & the FPA standing back counting the future course sales because of it.
The main problem with an exam is that it will be corrupted by those who cannot/will not apply themselves to any meaningful training/CPD. Current ongoing CPD/accreditations are blatantly cheated on so as to make the current system meaningless. The industry should begin by cleaning up the current system and sort out those who cannot pass an accreditation without someone else doing it for them/providing them with answers. After that, we may begin to move to improving standards.
I understand what he is saying and agree with him to a degree…
Unfortunately I have however met plenty in the industry with 20-30 years experience and they do not understand the most basic of financial strategies… All the understand is how to flog products like the ‘good old days’ which is exactly what we are trying to get away from.
If they are going to recognise professional designations I truly hope they differentiate between real CFPs and those who got it for nothing.
Sounds interesting. Degrees aren’t all about knowledge however….they demonstrate commitment and self-sacrifice. Studying for exams and completing assignments whilst your mates are off surfing or earning more money. I busted my butt studying for a degree and masters whilst working, not to mention the thousands of dollars spent. I wouldn’t be too pleased to see a credentials based system receiving a degree equivalent status.
No kidding.