Remove 'exam' from education draft material: AFA
The Association of Financial Advisers (AFA) has called for flexibility from the standards setting body for new professional standards, saying it should not be limited to a "traditional school-like exam-setting".
In its submission to the government on the revised professional standards framework for financial advisers, the AFA said the standards setting body for the new professional standards should use its discretion to set up appropriate "adult-learning assessment methods" to ensure advisers met competency standards, instead of just exams.
The AFA has called for the word ‘exam' and ‘examination' to be removed from the Exposure Draft material, and instead replace it with "appropriate assessment" or "approved assessment" to give the Standards Body flexibility in creating assessment methods.
The AFA argued that the Australian Qualifications Framework prioritised application of skills and delivering advice in practice and did not necessarily encourage a single pathway of assessment.
"Having ‘exams' as the method of assessing whether advisers can demonstrate that they can apply their higher skills and learning with the required levels of autonomy, judgement, responsibility and adaptability may not result in the outcomes sought by the framework," the submission said.
"The ability to communicate and relate to people, as well as skills and knowledge recall is critical."
The AFA also proposed a mandatory requirement for advisers to become a member of a professional association like the AFA and the Financial Planning Association (FPA), and a consideration for advisers to acquire a designation.
Both the AFA and the FPA called for clarity around who would ultimately be responsible for the advice provided in respect to Section 961B of the Corporations Act 2001, stating that it was not clear whether the responsibility fell on the provisional relevant provider or the supervisor.
If this section was to be amended, the FPA proposed that both the supervisor and the advice provider should bear responsibility for the inappropriate advice.
While the corporate regulator may penalise supervisors with enforceable undertakings, fines or banning orders, this might not be appropriate for the relevant provider.
"It might be an appropriate penalty to extend the professional year of the provisional relevant provider and require them to seek out a new supervisor to ensure they are appropriately supervised," the FPA submission said.
AUTHOR
Malavika Santhebennur
Recommended for you
Sequoia Financial Group has declined by five financial advisers in the past week, four of whom have opened up a new AFSL, according to Wealth Data.
Insignia Financial chief executive Scott Hartley has detailed whether the firm will be selecting an exclusive bidder for the second phase of due diligence as it awaits revised bids from three private equity players.
Insignia Financial has reported a statutory net loss after tax of $17 million in its first half results, although the firm has noted cost optimisation means this is an improvement from a $50 million loss last year.
With alternative funds being described as “impossible” for fund managers to target towards advisers without the support of BDMs for education, Money Management explores the evolving nature of the distribution role.
