Qualifications: How high should you go?

Think! (Or thwim?)

I don’t think it’s quite as simple as being ‘for’ or ‘against’ exams. Starting from the basic – no education or qualification I think most will agree is not ideal. I think a minimum benchmark is also ‘the right’ thing’. But what is the minimum? I would say that FPC is too low. I have come across advisers (as have others no doubt) who are FPC qualified and don’t even understand really simple concepts. On the other hand I have come across very highly qualified practitioners – some with MBAs – who have the commercial acumen of a paper bag. It is also worth remembering that the very highest qualified advisers – ever (some even Nobel laureates) – almost brought the financial system to its knees. In the wider business world the problem is a little simpler. Many on the boards of big business are well qualified, but some of the giants have no formal qualifications at all – Philip Green, Richard Branson and Bill Gates spring to mind. So we must therefore refer on what qualifications are there to achieve? The answer I thing is one word – competence. I would prefer not to be judged on this attribute by our current regulator. I have a suspicion that if they ever had to actually advise clients that they wouldn’t be very successful. The CII? Or similar. I think again the same comment applies. So in the words of Sherlock Holmes “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth”. So until we find a plausible alternative it would seem that formal qualifications are the benchmark we are saddled with. But that raises another issue. Should this just be purely on financial services topics? Sure we all need to know the answers to some of the obtuse and arcane problems we come across. But surely it is the skill of knowing the right questions than memorising the right answers. It is the ability to logically assess a problem and perhaps think outside the box. Too much financial services education seems to me to be product based and being a great conspiracy theorist have a suspicion that much of the curriculum is driven by vested interests. The art is in being able to think. Why should those with a good degree from a Russell University be treated as ignoramuses by our qualifications system? Universities are there (or at least were in my day) to teach you how to think. So before addressing this subject as a black and white issue – think!

Posted by: Harry Katz

Bitter

Paulo's attitude to me sums up all that is wrong with the anti RDR brigade.

Posted by: Ross Perot

Curate's egg

I think the answer is first, as high as you need to and second, as high as you want to. I can empathise to a degree with Paulo's view as no other sector of society is having to requalify having previously met the required standard. This is only possible because the FSA is able to push through a requirement in an unchallenged yet haphazard fashion. This said I do also think that the current level 3 qualification is too low and always has been but again the FSA is inconsistent here. Bank sellers and insurance brokers for example have no minimum qualification requirements but the financial implications of what each advises upon could have far greater consequences than if an IFA advises on a £50 per month regular ISA contribution. Paulo's driving test analogy is probably a poor one. Each day as I drive to work I see someone driving in a manner that is an accident waiting to happen. The police however are like the FSA, they go for the easy target such as people speeding, not the terrible driving behaviours or the manky old trucks that shouldn't even be on the road. To be viewed as a true profession, a combination of qulifications, experience, ethics and processes are required. Whilst the interpretation of'financial services' continues to be dominated by products and their distribution, little progress will be made but at leat taking further qualifications is a tangible step in the right direction. RDR is seriously flawed and unduly influenced by vested interests but to a large degree it is self inflicted and those who continue to kick and fight against it run the risk of proving the FSA is right to impose it, irrespective of reality.

Posted by: Duncan Carter

Let the clients decide

I think Level 42 should be the minimum as they provide "Lessons in Love". I think every adviser should have to describe what level they are and how much experience they have and let the clients decide. I don't think anyone should have letters after their name until they have level 6 or above: It's misleading. At this moment in time the only winner come 2013, will be the internet sites that provide no advice for the 50% of the public unwilling to pay fees.

Posted by: M Green

Timeline

I think (but there is no evidence eitehr way) there are about as many pro RDR as there are anti RDR, but teh majority of us are somewhere in between. I'm inclined to agree with Duncan Carter, level 3 was/is too low and level 6 is too high for most of the general polulations needs. M Green's solution is what I think should have happened with RDR, i.e. no letters after your name without level 6, level 3 stated on business cards as "I have the minimum qualification required to advise you" and then if you've done additional exams, but not got to level 4/6, quote "I have additional qualifications to advise on "XYZ". The FSA already require that to advise on occupational scheme transfers and equity release you have to have additional permissions. They could have done the same with other areas. Consumers are NOT stupid and if they then had a tick list of the qualifications they might want an adviser to have, they'd ask for it and decide from there whetehr they TRUST teh adviser to refer to a specialist where appropriate whilsty looking to them to act as a relationship manager to their general needs. I am working towards my level 4, but will be very ammoyed if the bar is increased to level 6 as a mandatory rather than having requirements for level 6 based on prescribed areas. It does make me laugh that J02 is not a requirement and R05 protection is only a level 3 qualification, when more financial damage can occur with that than porrly handled investments.

Posted by: Phil Castle