Financial Standard Comments - Medcraft backs national adviser exam

Comment by Nick Bruining (NCBA)

Nick Bruining (NCBA) — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 13:20:52 +1100

This will shake the tree better than any thing else I can think of.

I know a number of very experienced yet extremely incompetent advisers who were massaged through by former licensees and who now have RG146 status via decidedly dodgy internal training and examination programs. Why? Because they were huge writers of business showing that ultimately it is a sales culture that drives the model and this has to be flawed. Even today, it isn't about the quality of the advice but the quantity of FUM.

I too will put up with the pain of getting my head into the books again but rest assured; this single reform will do more than anything to move us from industry to profession.

Go for it ASIC! One hundred percent in support of this.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Tony R (ITFS)

Tony R (ITFS) — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 14:38:15 +1100

So, let me understand this....extra training means less fraud and dodgy dealings. Maybe someone should check out the stats on police fraud investigations that involve solicitors and accountants. It would be interesting to compare those percentages to frauds involving financial planners. Medcraft might be surprised.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Mr Mister (xx)

Mr Mister (xx) — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 14:40:42 +1100

hahaha......testing competence, when all else fails.....

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Wayne Tonks (Oakmont Long Advsiors)

Wayne Tonks (Oakmont Long Advsiors) — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 15:13:19 +1100

Perhaps ASIC should some of the other procedures followed by SEC. How about the disclosure of additional information requests to issuers of debentures? They chose not to follow that policy but instead obsess about advisor education.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Stephen C (my company)

Stephen C (my company) — Tue, 13 Jan 2015 17:49:13 +1100

I have a suggestion. Why not have a government operation that doesn't go to sleep at the wheel and then grab at straws to try and cover their incompetence.

No amount of education will change a thief or stop criminal behaviour. ASIC with teeth would do fine.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Peter A (Self Employed)

Peter A (Self Employed) — Wed, 14 Jan 2015 10:39:36 +1100

Here we go again. I studied through Deakin University and then achieved my CFP. Why should I have to sit an exam or anyone else who has been practicing as long as I have? Since when is that going to gaurantee, if I had one ounce of dishonesty in me, that I do not act fraudulently or inappropriately when advising my clients?

I agree with Tony R and Stephen C.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.

Comment by Concerned Lifewriter (Australian Small Business Supporter.)

Concerned Lifewriter (Australian Small Business Supporter.) — Wed, 14 Jan 2015 19:09:52 +1100

Have any of these people in parliament, ASIC or other government junket attendees considered that those of us who specialize in life-risk consulting with clients (and that alone) would have to waste our time and money going through fully unnecessary exams that have absolutely nothing to do with advising clients on insurance? What happens if we fail the exam, does that mean we are incapable or can't be trusted to advise on insurance then? What utter rot.

If they can separate us from the 'financial planners' and understand we don't need this (or most of the stuff forced on us by various CPD providers) then the word segregation would start to bring sanity to this circus. "Debt instruments, packaged securities and options" . . . please; give me a break! It would be like having accountants study and sit for exams on life-risk advising - it would make as much sense as that.

Reply to article

For original story, Click Here.