Financial Standard Comments - Industry body applauds move to define financial planners

Comment by Paul Meleng ()

Paul Meleng () — Mon, 29 Aug 2011 13:48:08 +1000

There should be only one Qualification and that is to have met the education requirements and to be Authorised or Licensed.
Membership of a "Professional Association" should be voluntary for individual advisers or planners. Not everyone agrees that they are beneficial.
Given a compulsory franchise on the term they will soon become corrupted. What is the difference between that and compulsory union membership?
Financial Planning is such a generic term I find it hard to see how a law can stop somebody from describing themselves as such if that is in fact what they do. It is like "Lawn Mowing" .

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Certified Adviser ()

Certified Adviser () — Sun, 04 Sep 2011 19:08:45 +1000

You are missing the point completely, this is actually one of the reforms that is being welcomed by adviser's who put stock in education and not just knocking off a Dip Financial Services at the local training house.
Its about taking financial planning (advising, whatever you want to call it) from being an industry and moving it to a profession.
The idea is being able to help a consumer discern from Jim's mowing and the local guy who wants to cut your grass on the side.
And the idea of comparing a serious advice practice to lawn mowing...what were you thinking?

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Paul Meleng ()

Paul Meleng () — Tue, 06 Sep 2011 13:27:48 +1000

Your sincere views are respected. It is good that you are passionate about becoming a profession. "Lawn Mowing"used to illustrate a generic term vs a proprietory term not to compare the work. Whereas "Licensed" whatever has the weight. And if that is not enough then why isnt it?
When you get upset it pays to still keep reading and thinking properly and try assuming the best of the other fellow.
I spent 20 years as a successful and respected practitioner in a real profession, degree qualified and then 2 years under articles followed by practical exams by a Licensing Board comprising Govt and Industry members, The experience was that the industry organisation was good at sharing quality improvements etc but that the guts of it was the License and initial qualifications. Lose the license = lose the job and business, Whereas some of the leading lights in the industry association were in practice the least ethical (though technically correct) practitioners. Self promoters tend to be that way.
It could be useful to the fledgeling Financial Planning "profession" to consider the views of older professionals thoughtfully.
So in the real interests of the Financial Planing "profession" struggling to shake off the sales conditioning I stick to my sincere and deeply considered and experienced view. I do not miss the point. I have understood it very well.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.