Mortgage brokers may need new qualifications
Share
The FSA has announced it is considering carrying out a risk-based review of exam standards for business that does not fall under the RDR, meaning mortgage brokers may be required to update their qualifications.
The FSA has today published proposals to strengthen its competence requirements.
The regulator says it is looking at the content of qualifications for non-RDR activities and whether these would benefit from reform, including mortgage advice, equity release, long -term care insurance and pension transfers.
The FSA says it will consider the introduction of alternative assessments for non-RDR activities and plans to update examination standards every three years.
The FSA states: “We do not have a view on the level of difficulty of the qualification required or indeed the level of difficulty of the current qualification that applies to existing activities outside of the RDR.
“However, we are primarily concerned with ensuring that any qualification is fit for purpose and areas examined cover the actual activities and skills necessary to perform the associated role.”
The FSA says it has not sought evidence of market failure that will support a review of these exam standards, but its research suggests that firms believe the existing content of qualifications does not accurately reflect the role individuals are performing.
The FSA says: “We believe there is a case for carrying out a risk based review of the remaining non-RDR related appropriate examination standards to ensure they remain up to date and relevant.
“We also are aware that, at present, written examinations are the primary qualification assessment methodology used but we can see no reason why we should not permit use of other assessment methodologies for non-RDR activities.”
If you enjoyed this article, sign up here to receive daily email updates from Money Marketing and Follow @_moneymarketing
View results 10 per page | 20 per page
Readers' comments (20)
Graham Carver | 4 Jun 2010 11:37 am
Excellent News for the fat cats at the FSA and at least it keeps the Training industry in business. Come on FSA you are killing the industry. Perhaps the FSA should review its own failings first.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4 Jun 2010 11:39 am
While we are at it can we have a minmum qualification for MP's seeing as they are the ones who leave all the mess for the rest of us!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
acc | 4 Jun 2010 11:52 am
Fit for Purpose - FSA - Conflict?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Terry | 4 Jun 2010 11:53 am
Are we going to be in the same position as before where we have taken appropriate exams in Mortgages, Equity Release, Home Reversion and Long Term Care and some idiot declares that they are not acceptable and not worth the paper they are written on. Having taken many exams on various subjects I am getting hacked off that they are now declared worthless. Can someone explain to me therefore why I wasted my time trying to keep up to date.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4 Jun 2010 11:55 am
By golly what efficient "research" by the FSA. They believe they've found a cash cow and oh boy do they intend to milk it.
I recall reading earlier this week that there are hundreds of people at the FSA earning over £100,000pa.
Justify that!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alastair Clarke | 4 Jun 2010 12:11 pm
All of us transacting mortgages have already taken and passed exams. I transact Protection business and B & C, which are all regulated to hell currently. They need to get a grip on the really dangerous business-Banks/Lenders and those handling client moneys rather than trying to prove their use in this area.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4 Jun 2010 12:19 pm
Can anybody (please ensure brain is in gear first) tell me of ANY other profession where this is mandatory? CPD yes but here we are doing CPD AND being re-examined. And why? For no real reason apart from the one that it gives some people highly paid jobs for which we are paying.
Come lets get real here the FSA are OUR employees not the other way round!!!Strange it is to have an employee that earns several times what I do.
Wouldn't stand scrutiny in business so why does it when it is unaccountable?
Why can't they just come out with it and ban us all? It's what they are trying to do after all. Go on cut to the chase. At least it would be an honest way of dealing with things.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4 Jun 2010 12:20 pm
As a person who deal with purely mortgage brokers for a while I have to say that this is good news. I doubt if I came across half a dozen out of the hundreds I dealt with in sub prime that I would trust to a family member.
The industry must stop knocking the wealth management side and turning a blind eye to a group of people whi are simply making 'a bit on the side' to other activities.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Matt Sutton | 4 Jun 2010 12:23 pm
Surely the issues of poor advice come from the high street branch network where half the advisers dont have and dont need the CeMAP and associated qualifications to sell. Perhaps this is the area the FSA should be focusing on and not the qualified consultant offering wider, and dare I say it, far superior advice.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 4 Jun 2010 12:28 pm
So when will they be introducing new exams to work at the FSA?? Or not needed for £100k pa?
I'm guessing they would say something like"The FSA says it has not sought evidence of market failure that will support a review of these exam standards"
Lucky for them after the banking fiasco!
Perhaps they should take a hard look in the mirror. Just a thought.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment