Separate adviser authorisation opposed
Creating separate categories and qualification requirements for Authorised Financial Advisers depending on their specialisation would be a backward step, industry representatives say.
Thursday, February 21st 2013, 6:00AM 
5 Comments
by Niko Kloeten
A recent survey showed support for registered financial advisers having to be qualified. That prompted suggestions that there should be different qualifications for different types of advice, such as mortgage, investment and insurance.
But Professional Advisers Association chairman Peter Leitch said that would not be helpful.
He said the most important thing was the skill, knowledge and competence of individual advisers.
“I don’t think it’s relevant whether they are an AFA or an RFA as long as they are skilled in what they are advising on.”
Institute of Financial Adivsers president Nigel Tate also did not support the idea.
“I don’t believe it’s good for consumers because there’s so much inter-relationship between mortgage advice, risk advice and financial planning advice,” he said.
“If that process was initiated I would be an authorised insurance adviser, an authorised mortgage adviser and an authorised investment adviser.”
But Tate said it was likely that at some point all advisers would have to meet some sort of minimum qualification to operate in the industry.
“It will mean there’s no difference in having the two different brands; whether they are called AFAs or RFAs is irrelevant in my view.”
Niko Kloeten can be contacted at niko@goodreturns.co.nz
| « AFAs unhappy with regulation | Leitch: FMA looks set to crack down » |
Special Offers
Comments from our readers
Agree entirely. Actuaries specialise in valuation or pricing, lawyers - commercial or criminal. Specialisation and developing extended expertise in a specific financial services area makes good sense. Nobody would rely on a GP for a cardiac operation - you would seek out the services of a cardiac specialist, no? This doesn't imply a separate specialist adviser representative body - only that the specialist is recognised as having advanced expertise in his/her chosen area. Makes perfect sense.
I find it incredible that the leaders of 2 of the supposedly "professional bodies" oppose a suggestion that clarifies the situation for Jo Public, especially when the term "Financial Adviser" is so generic and cover such a multitude of disciplines that it is virtually meaningless to the public.
It might be understood by both Peter & Nigel but they are steeped in an 'industry' which is renowned for overuse of jargon to the detriment of clarity.
I want to clarify that I am all for regulation to have some standards in the industry and weed out the cowboys, but didn't expect this.
Sign In to add your comment
|
|
Printable version |
|
Email to a friend |
Would not "life & general insurance and mortgage adviser or broker" be enough? compared with just RFA, at one glance on the name card, which one do you think prospects have a better idea of what you are doing?
No wonder the insurance and investment industry is in such a sad state, and we are not highly regarded. sigh!