by Jenha White
For the purposes of authorisation there has been an increase to eight qualifications and 11 designations which are treated as having satisfied the requirements of specified Unit Standards.
Additions to the original proposal include registered legal executives, NZFMA accredited individuals and the Certificate in Financial Services from Adviserlink for specific Standard Sets.
Code Committee chairman Ross Butler says the Committee got into the heart of many of the qualifications from a consumers' point of view.
"We were seeking to ensure those qualifications would give consumers the confidence and trust to know they were of a level and content in line with the National Certificate in Financial Services (Financial Advice) (Level 5) (NCFS-5)."
Butler says the listed qualifications came up regularly in the consultation process and he acknowledges that there will be a lot of other qualifications from other universities, training providers and from overseas that will have been left out.
"So we're asking the Securities Commission to make an assessment with applications from individual degrees that are not already mentioned."
A decision was also made around those in the process of completing their designations.
"There will not be any relief unless those advisers are at least at level 5 in the assessment process.
"This code is essentially a road code for financial advisers, you can't go on the road as an AFA unless you show you can understand the code, the act and the consumer laws."
The draft code has also introduced a sunset date of three years for qualifications currently exempt from assessment in Standard Sets C, D and E.
"We are hoping that over the next three years training providers would seek to move their qualifications forward so it is at least possible to identify components of NCFS-5."
Butler says this view has been encouraged by the Minister of Education who said last week that there are far too many qualifications in New Zealand which is confusing to students and employers, with a need for standardisation.
"In the future, someone doing these qualifications will be able to pick them up to see what they will need to do to pass the requirements to be an AFA as well as the other subjects for the qualification."
Massey University is working with ETITO and is already looking at launching a qualification which will be directly equivalent to the NCFS-5, before the middle of the year.
Massey University director of financial planning and senior lecturer in banking Dr Claire Matthews says this is because the higher level 7 diploma's it offers don't directly map over to NCFS-5.
ETITO manager of strategy and corporate relations Michael Frampton says nothing in the draft code changes the planning that has been underway for months or causes any concern.
"ETITO continues to work closely with the Code Committee in preparation for the assessment system to support the authorisation of advisers."
From 16 April, advisers will be able to make reservations for competency assessments on ETITO's booking engine and assessment will be available from 1 June with the exception of Standard Set B, which will not be available until after the Code has been approved.
Butler says as a result of New Zealand's competency requirements Australia is considering a move to meet an equivalent to level 5 competence to create harmonisation of minimum standards that apply in both countries.
"New Zealand and Australia have many of the same product providers and employees moving between the countries.
"There is already a harmonisation of protocols between KiwiSaver and the compulsory Australian Superannuation scheme and with documents to underpin public offerings. For financial advisers going between the countries we need that harmonisation."
Jenha is a TPL staff reporter. jenha@tarawera.co.nz
« Draft code of conduct finally out | [The Code] Draft Code adds momentum to financial adviser regulation » |
Special Offers
© Copyright 1997-2024 Tarawera Publishing Ltd. All Rights Reserved
The whole process & result surrounding the 'Code of Compliance', has become somewhat twisted & entangled in a, 'what else can we add, to really make it complicated & untenable', atitude.
My View, not that it's ever like;ly to have any affect on a pre-ordained outcome, is as follows:-
Having a Cert on the wall doesn't make a person capable or honest, nor does it make a person a financial planner.
Appeasing a bunch of so called industry standards, doesn't improve the morals/ethics of a would be advisor.
The new code allows an 18 yr old, with minimal to no life skills, to attain a so called qualification, hang the 'certificate on the wall, appease the authority(s), & go out & create havoc in the market place.
As for the 'consumer confidence', that will suppossedly be increased due to the new regime, it is clearly unfounded & at best wishful thinking.
I have been practising in the risk industry for 26 years, & have never had a corporate entity or individual client, ask to check my credentuals.
To basket the sale of 'term insurance' or any insurance for that matter, in with the term 'financial planner', is a joke & indeed a travesty.
Risk management & financial planning have never been in the same ball park, & never will.
I admit, that numerous 'insurance agents' changed the outward perception of what they do by calling themselves 'Financial Planners'. This was largely because they were failing as 'insurance agents or brokers, & they indeed were/are intimidated by the term 'insurance agent', god knows why. So there is definately merit in having a distinction made between a financial planner & an insurance broker. However, it appears that the 'distinction' has not been made at all.
Personally, I am a specialist risk management broker. I do not invest money for people. I place insurance covers to protect financial risk & impending financial disaster. End of story.
I have been in this business long enough to not need to attend inane courses that repeat every thing that has ever been said before.
It's not possible to gain a certificate by way of education, to hang on my wall that will reflect my many years experience.
I would respectfully suggest, that the activity of selling & placing 'any' style of 'Term' insurance product, should not be tainted by the words 'finnacial planning', & indeed, should be completely separated from the 'Financial Planning' label.
I also stronly urge the view, that a grandfather clause in the 'risk management' area, be included in legislation, in that as long as a broker such as myself with many years experience, & not delving in financial planning, be excempt from the requirement to have 'annual practising certificates', higher education, etc. There is nothing to be gained by persons of my experience, suddenly having a 'certificate' appear on the wall.
Certainly, belonging to a professional body such as the LBA is a must, & of course being accountable for ones actions is mandatory, but the palava attached to the new regime does nothing to benefit 'purist risk underwriters' or their clients (the consumer).
I wonder if the broker who gained his Uni Degree 35 years ago will have to re sit the exam. Mmmmmm??
Thankyou in advance for at least perusing this dialogue, however little to no effect it will have.