ANZ endorses competency exam, higher CPD bar
ANZ has broken ranks with a number of its financial services counterparts, in backing a national competency exam, higher continuing professional development (CPD) requirements and a planner-funded last resort compensation scheme.
In a submission to the Senate Economics Committee's Scrutiny of Financial Advice inquiry, the bank said a national competency exam would give consumers confidence that their planner meets an industry benchmark.
It recommended the US Financial Industry Regulatory Authority's Series 7 exam as an appropriate blueprint.
It also said increasing CPD requirements for planners to a minimum 40 points per year should be considered, alongside "increasingly weight on ethical conduct".
ANZ also firmly backed planning firms being insured to compensate all customers of poor advice if the licensee does not have the financial means to cover losses.
"When dealing with other people's money, a high bar of professional responsibility must be set, particularly in order to prevent the systemic risk that clients of individual financial firms are unable to seek redress where poor financial advice is given," it said.
"Those firms that choose not to participate in an industry insurance scheme should demonstrate an adequate capacity to provide redress to those who have suffered loss in extreme cases."
Recommended for you
With AMP advisers moving to Entireti and Insignia being the subject of a private equity bidding war, how can deals be navigated to ensure minimal stress and uncertainty for staff and advisers?
There are seven key mistakes that financial advice businesses need to steer clear of in 2025 to avoid hindering their business growth and profitability, according to Adviser Ratings.
The FAAA has secured CSLR-related documents under the FOI process, after an extended four-month wait, which show little analysis was done on how the scheme’s cost would affect financial advisers.
While advisers are increasingly eyeing private markets and alternative investments, two reports have underlined the lack of investor understanding that persists among both advisers and clients.
