Adviser groups answer CPD credit concerns

That is the view of Institute of Financial Advisers (IFA) chief executive Peter Lee.

McMillan argued adviser body claims to be able to issue structured credits were "dubious" unless the credit was related to NZQA content.

Lee agreed that a degree of higher standards around structured credits would be welcome, but denied that meant a return to the national framework.

"If you take the argument to its ultimate conclusion and say everything's got to be NZQA you'd wind up with any presenter at any conference having to go through wrote exercise, tick the box, have a really structured thing, you just wouldn't have conferences then," he said.

He said that while "there was always going to be differences about these sort of things" he was confident in the IFA approach, saying it has had its own guidelines on structured credits for years.

Professional Advisers Association (PAA) chief Edward Richards said that for most advisers, issues around structured credits were not a concern.

"For a start RFAs don't need structured credits. It's not mandatory. Of course it will probably change in the future, but let's not get too excited."

Edwards did agree with McMillan that structured credits "probably should be issued by an NZQA-attributed entity," and said the PAA was looking at several proposals in that area from accredited providers.

"I think going forward, just speaking generally, Dave is right, but I don't think that anybody should be pointing the finger at anybody, be it professional adviser associations, adviser groups or financial providers, until we've all had a chance to bed down the CPD system," he said.

"I don't think the industry can claim to have got it all sorted yet. Everybody has to add more rigour in that area, and I see it happening."

Benn Bathgate is a business reporter for ASSET and Good Returns, email story ideas to benn@goodreturns.co.nz

Comments from our readers

On 26 August 2011 at 9:07 am Fred said:

Why not Universities as arbiters of CPD? There are several & competition is the antidote to complacency. No one institution has a monopoly on innovation, the advancement of knowledge or ground-breaking research.
It is not clear that NZQA have a lock on wisdom. AFA's forced into an NCEA type mediocrity mayu not be the best NZ can do.

On 29 August 2011 at 12:23 pm Another Voice said:

In my view, no Code recognised learning provider can indicate that a 'course' attended by an adviser can be considered as 'structured' learning for purposes of Code Std 18. Whether the time attended qualifies as structured or unstructured under the Code is only able to be determined by advisers themselves.To understand why, you need to read Code 18 carefully. Apart from the criteria as to who can offer such qualifying 'learning' the definition of whether it is structured or unstructured is that it must be at a level appropriate for the finanial adviser services the AFA provides or intends to provide and be relevant to those services. Given these requirements how can a body determine suitability for any given attendee. To illustrate the point, I could attend a workshop or session at a professional body's conference on investment strategy and be awarded one hours structured credit. However, if I am a risk adviser and never intend to advice on investments then the 'learning' was not 'relevant' and never likely to be. If I added this to my required learning register as such, then I would be breaching the spirit of the Code. My suggestion is that qualifying groups providing such learning should issue the adviser a certificate indicating the name of the activity, the hours taken, the date(s) and a brief description of the content and allow the adviser to record in their register as stuctured or unstaructured according to the appropriateness and relevance
for that adviser.

I reached these conclusions (an opinion) after reading and re reading the Code and also specific communications and guidance from the FMA over this very matter.

On 29 August 2011 at 3:06 pm David said:

If one is to read and re read the code it would become clear that "competency based" CPD is being called for. Competency based CPD allows individuals to increase or maintain their knowledge in a particular competency, which in turn would be linked to their Personal/professional Development plan as also required by the code and suggested in the ABS. Structured or assessed CPD should allow an Adviser to maintain or increase knowledge & competence and as such the code sets the base educational level for this at Level 5, similar to the NCFS. If you remove most of the self interest from the debate it all becomes reasonably clear.

Adviser groups answer CPD credit concerns

Conferences would cease to exist in their current form if TNP director of development Dr Dave McMillan’s argument on linking structured credits with NZQA content was “taken to its ultimate conclusion.”

Thursday, August 25th 2011, 9:55PM 3 Comments

Comments from our readers

Commenting is closed

www.GoodReturns.co.nz