[Weekly wrap] Thorny issues for advisers

This week featured stories on two issues that always tend to generate debate among Good Returns readers: CPD and the RFA/AFA divide.

The most heated debate was around the issue of where the FMA should be focusing its monitoring of advisers in the early stages of the new regime: should it be looking at the authorised financial advisers (who have already had to prove their qualifications as well as character) or the registered financial advisers (who aren't as heavily regulated)?

As you would expect, responses were mixed on this tricky issue.  On the one hand, it could be argued AFAs have already had to prove themselves to a much higher standard than the RFAs, therefore they are less likely than RFAs to have problematic conduct. 

However, it could also be argued that it makes sense to look over the shoulders of AFAs to preserve the integrity of this class of adviser; AFAs have chosen to hold themselves to a higher standard therefore they can only expect tougher monitoring.  And it would be a PR disaster for the government (not to mention the industry) if AFAs were found to be dodgy.