Diploma-grade financial planning education is seemingly being handed out in cereal boxes, with a number of registered training organisations offering qualifications within weeks, sometimes just days.
So incensed are industry participants over the state of the short course offerings, the corporate regulator has been asked to step in.
AMP used its submission to the Parliamentary Joint Committee to voice its concerns that the minimum entry levels for financial advisers are too low.
“This is a significant contributing factor to advisers providing advice on products that they do not fully understand. It is now the time to act decisively and raise the professional adviser qualification standards,” the submission said.
“Regulatory Guide 146 (RG 146) issued by ASIC sets out the minimum education standards for financial advisers, however, no minimum experience or ongoing education standards are mandated by this guide.”
The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Australia (ICAA) has also called for the quality of education to be raised in the financial planning industry.
“The financial services industry continues to grow in complexity. This includes the products, services and in areas such as taxation and social security. As a consequence the need for technical professionals providing advice to Australians is critical,” the ICAA submission said.
“The financial planning industry widely accepts that there are deficiencies in the current education framework for financial planners. Technical expertise, the level of education and consistency are vital to the overall financial advisory services regulatory framework.”
ASIC also agrees the state of the advice industry’s education requirements needs attention.
In its submission to the inquiry, ASIC announced its financial advisers team is reviewing RG 146 with a view to improving training standards and intends to put forward proposals for change in consultation with industry and other stakeholders.
“However, some members of the advice industry have argued that raising training standards would lead to increased costs to advisory groups and therefore to consumers,” ASIC’s submission said.
“This would ultimately affect access to advice. ASIC will need to take these factors into account when considering changes to the standards in RG 146.”
What’s your view on the current state of financial advisory education?
Do you believe it is too easy for individuals to become financial advisers?
Should there be greater scrutiny of industry education standards?
