Push to define may actually confuse
Very fewpeople in the industry would have failed to notice the push to higher education standards that have been going on in recent years, especially after it received a stamp of approval from the Australian Securities and Investments Commission via PS 146.
Such a push can only improve the overall professionalism of the industry and ultimately protect the interests of consumers, however, it has also put in place the groundwork for enormous confusion.
This has come about because the diverse groups that seek to offer advice have also decided to launch a range of designations which identifies them as being qualified and professional.
By this time next year the investing public will be able to pick from a Certified Financial Planner (CFP), Certified Financial Adviser (CFA), Certified Practising Accountant or Chartered Accountant, both with a different Financial Planning Specialist (FPS) designation. These will be administered through the Financial Planning Association, Association for Financial Advisers, the CPA Australia and Institute of Chartered Accountants respectively.
Add to the mix that none of these designations is exclusive of any other, and a financial planning practitioner could have all or any proudly displayed on their office wall alongside any other certification they may have earned.
The problem with having a range of designations available is that it becomes difficult for any of them to become truly widespread and regarded as the peak mark of financial planning excellence in the industry.
Each designation reflects the backgrounds and biases of the holder and in their eyes is a necessary thing, but in the eyes of the investor, what is the difference?
A similar situation exists in the US where a number of designations exist. Despite a few of them having a stronger place than others, they have not further defined the market but actually made it more difficult for consumers to discern between the marks and those who carry them.
It is unfortunate that the wide range of players in the industry feel the need to have a range of planning designations, however, in terms of driving the professionalism of the industry, it may indeed lead to new ways of designating planners.
But, if it does not provide clarity for consumers in selecting an appropriate financial adviser, then those efforts have failed, which would seem to be an odd occurrence in what is universally regarded as an industry which is set to grow by leaps and bounds in the next decade.
AUTHOR
Jason Spits
Recommended for you
ASIC has released the results of its first adviser exam to be held in 2025, with 241 candidates attempting the test.
Quarterly Wealth Data analysis has uncovered positive improvements in financial adviser numbers compared with losses in the prior corresponding period.
Holding portfolios that are too complex or personalised can be a detractor for acquirers of financial advice firms as they require too much effort to maintain post-acquisition.
As the financial advice profession continues to wait on further DBFO legislation, industry commentators have encouraged advisers to act now in driving practice efficiency.
