ABI calls for lower qualifications for simplified advisers
Share
The Association of British Insurers has called for lower qualification requirements for advisers offering simplified advice and clear guidance from the FSA and the Financial Ombudsman Service on the liabilities involved.
In its response to the RDR consultation, the ABI says the reforms could restrict consumer access to advice.
It says to avoid this simplified advice processes need to be developed to meet the needs of consumers who are unable to afford, or do not require, full advice.
The ABI says: “To enable firms to develop these services, greater certainty is needed from both the FSA and the Financial Ombudsman Service on how these processes would be judged.
“Current FSA proposals for an individual facilitating this service to obtain the same qualification required as full financial advisers, would also prevent these processes being delivered at an affordable price.”
The ABI says it does not want to see RDR proposals automatically applied to the protection market, as problems in the investment space do not always exist for protection business.
However it says it supports the proposals around adviser charging and efforts to increase the professionalism of advisers.
ABI director of life and savings Maggie Craig says: “We have come a long way on the road to developing a clearer and more transparent advice market. However, as we get closer to the introduction of RDR reforms in 2012, the FSA must realise that firms need clear rules and guidance now. Given direction, firms can develop simplified advice processes, ensuring as many people as possible have access to financial advice.
“The ABI has supported the objectives of the RDR since it began in 2006 and we continue to believe these changes are essential to rebuild consumer confidence in the retail investment market.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Readers' comments (5)
Evan Owen | 30 Oct 2009 12:44 pm
If consumers were confused post 'depolarisation' they will have a headache after this protracted debate.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30 Oct 2009 1:38 pm
When are we as a profession going to stop these continual attempts to water down somthing which is designed to show we know what we are talking about. Let us just accept that we must have a minimum level of qualifications and move on!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30 Oct 2009 3:14 pm
I couldn't agree more with what the ABI says 'It does not want to see RDR proposals automatically applied to the protection market, as problems in the investment space do not always exist for protection business'. This is absolutely SPOT ON. Protection Advisers who either do not want to enter the Investment Arena or who's business structure does not focus or get involved with investments could/should have a different level of authorisation. The is nothing wrong with choice so long as disclosure is clear!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Richard Brown, Managing Director, Moneynotion Limi | 30 Oct 2009 5:07 pm
When is the FSA going to stop bank and insurance company managements calling their sales people "advisors." Advisors implies advice and it can't be given with a lower level of qualification.
What it amounts to is that Insurers, banks and the like want to keep their business model. The statements in the article are rank self-interest.
One cannot be a "simplified advisor." One is an advisor or not!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alan Mcintosh | 30 Oct 2009 7:12 pm
Remember "people buy people" with whom they trust,Therefore the word "advisor" or otherwise may make little difference to the financial industry in the fullness of time, particulary when people are aware of exactly what they are paying in fee terms. One of the main overlooked areas of advice, is from supermarkets, and do not be fooled into thinking that current advised clients shall not shop there for there financial requirements if they think they are over paying for a highly qualified Advisor. The likes of Tesco are just waiting their time while we all squabble over QC3 &4 level.Given the potential fallout rate of the advisor numbers they may already be half way there sadly.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment