Experienced risk advisers need not re-train
Reforms to the Education Standards Bill should have more practical pathways for existing advisers to transition, and include streamlined education pathways for different disciplines, Synchron said in a letter to the Government.
The independently owned licensee's director, Don Trapnell, said his firm's stance aligns with that of the Association of Financial Advisers, and expressed significant concerns that the proposed reforms could result in a brain drain if long-serving advisers were forced to attain a university degree to continue practising.
He added that while he did not have a Diploma of Financial Planning or a financial planning university degree as he was not a financial planner, he did have almost 50 years' experience as a risk adviser, and formal life insurance qualifications, including Certified Insurance Professional by ANZIIF.
"Given my life insurance qualifications, level of experience and expertise, why should I and risk advisers like me have to re-train?" he asked.
Synchron has also urged the Government to separate disciplines in the education and training of financial planners and risk writers.
"Our letter draws a parallel between the GP and the dentist; they both have to have a basic knowledge of medicine, but then they need to go into their own areas of expertise," Trapnell said.
"You wouldn't employ a GP to perform a root canal, so why should they need to know how to do one?"
AUTHOR
Malavika Santhebennur
Recommended for you
ASIC has issued infringement notices to two AFSLs over financial advisers providing personal advice while they were unregistered.
Australian retirees could increase their projected annual incomes by as much as 51 per cent through comprehensive financial advice, according to a Vanguard study, but cost continues to be an issue.
AMP has announced a senior appointment to its North leadership team, reinforcing the firm’s commitment to the advice industry.
Despite the financial adviser exam being rooted in ethics, two professional year advisers believe the lack of support and transparency from the regulator around the exam is unethical.
