Aifa says professionalism rules offer no consumer benefit
Share
Aifa is concerned that the FSA’s final rules on professionalism will not provide any consumer benefit but will merely serve to drive costs up.
The trade body also questions the value of accredited bodies, given that firms rather than accredited bodies will be largely responsible for assessing adviser competence.
Policy director Andrew Strange (pictured) says: “Aifa argued strongly that the organisations best suited to making assessments of adviser competence are indeed firms and we welcome the clarity from the FSA that much of this work will remain with firms.
“However, this does now call into question the value and role of accredited bodies. There is a substantial cost incurred by the industry for the production of Statements of Professional Standing, which themselves will not have to be pro-actively demonstrated to clients.”
Strange adds: “Aifa strongly supports measures to increase consumer trust through professionalism but we fear that these proposals will produce no consumer betterment, for substantial cost.”
The FSA published its policy statement on professionalism yesterday, which confirmed that retail investment advisers will need to hold a statement of professional standing in order to give independent or restricted advice from January 2013.
The SPS will be awarded by FSA accredited bodies.
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
Readers' comments (10)
terry | 21 Jan 2011 1:28 pm
I assume this accreditation will cost money. Whether I can afford it after the Key Data debacle will have to wait and see. No doubt the banks will pay for their employees to continue to achieve sales targets rather than appropriate advice. The only people to gain from this will be the accreditation companies. So I will have a certificate to show I am up to level 4, I will then have a certificate to show I am accredited. Will I need to show the client my driving licence next to show I am qualified to drive to their home. yes I am being sarcastic before someone points it out
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 21 Jan 2011 1:46 pm
Terry, you should probably include your birth certificate as well, just in case!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Philip Curnow | 21 Jan 2011 1:47 pm
I really don't know ahy anbody is confused by these new rules. Obviously the staff at the FSA are aware that their jobs may go when the new regulator takes over - so that are lining up positions with the new/inflated accreditation organisations so that they can keep their snouts in the trough ! Why do these silly people keep thinking that any of this is about consumer benefit ? It has always been about keeping our poor, hard-working and unaccountable fat-controllers in the position we have allowed them to become accustomed to !
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
swanny | 21 Jan 2011 1:57 pm
Hello - is that AIFA speaking.
Bit late comming to the party now.
You had your chance and you blew it.
Oh silly me , you now had your "Review" and you have decided to speak up for brokers.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
DereK Gair | 21 Jan 2011 2:24 pm
AIFA - stating the bloody obvious after the event as usual.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
paolo standerwick | 21 Jan 2011 2:35 pm
As others have said, obvious and too late. So what good does AIFA do for IFAs then? Just another beaurocratic organisation lumped in with the rest whilst looking after it's own interests. Costing the consumer money again!
I'm still waiting to be convinced!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Norm d'Plume | 21 Jan 2011 3:24 pm
What's the betting that this latest FSA edict is because of the caning we've been giving them along the lines that exams passed do not a professional make.
Surely it's simpler and more cost-effective to view one's CPD record to see if it's kept up to date and relevant (drinking G&T at a product provider's good chaps brigade bash shouldn't count any more).
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Julian Stevens | 21 Jan 2011 3:27 pm
AIFA may well have argued strongly ~ but, as ever, did it make a scrap of difference to the FSA's predetermined agenda? Talk is cheap. Results are what count.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Andy Cassidy | 22 Jan 2011 6:30 pm
Let's face it - this guy's had about as much impact as a gnat bite on an elephant's behind. C'mon Stephen Gay, get a grip and sort your team out.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Patrick Schan | 23 Jan 2011 10:00 am
Yes these accreditations are about as useful to the public as the new qualifications for long standing IFAs are.
AIFA getting busy all of a sudden. Too late!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment