FSI education benchmark applauded, but exam questioned
Industry advocate groups have broadly welcomed the Financial System Inquiry (FSI) interim report’s vow to lift the education bar for advisers, but one has questioned the validity of an overarching exam.
The SMSF Professionals’ Association of Australia (SPAA) applauded the report’s acceptance that advisers needed an educational benchmark, but questioned the validity of a sit down test.
“SPAA does not support the implementation of a national exam for financial advisers as we believe there are too many risks inherent in this approach,” its CEO, Andrea Slattery, said.
“The mere passing of an exam is evidence of past knowledge and financial planning is about practical judgment and understanding the future.
“It is essential that financial planners are continually kept up to date by a system of accreditation that includes continuous professional development that is independently assessed in both technical and practical competencies.”
Support for lifting educational standards for advisers was widely endorsed, with the Financial Planners Association (FPA) and Financial Services Council (FSC) both quick to applaud the interim report’s suggestion.
The FPA was particularly pleased the inquiry raised lifting competency standards and releasing a public register of advisers.
In his speech to the National Press Club, chairman of the FSI David Murray said the report raised some concerns about the quality of advice in Australia and canvassed further powers for the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.
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.
