PFS says QCF 3 is fine for bank advisers offering limited range
Share
The PFS says bank advisers should be allowed to give restricted advice with a QCF level three qualification if their product range is regulated or is an extension of the stakeholder product regime.
Money Marketing understands that banks have been lobbying hard to have the minimum qualification for tied advisers reduced from QCF level four to QCF level three under the RDR.
The PFS says this should only be allowed if bank advisers have a very limited range of products available to them.
Chief executive Fay Goddard (pictured) says: “We are happy for bank advisers to be qualified to QCF level three if they are restricted in what they can sell. There could be some form of product regulation, ring-fenced products sold in a certain way or an extension of the stakeholder product regime.
“But if there are no restrictions on what bank advisers can sell they must be qualified to QCF level four.”
Goddard also says advisers offering basic advice must be forced to attain at least a level three qualification.
She says: “If an adviser sells a stakeholder product they need a level four qualification, but if it is sold under basic advice no qualification is required at all. So where is the risk to the consumers more likely to be?
“The anomaly with basic advice is that it is believed these products can’t be detrimental to the consumer, so there is no minimum qualification requirement. That needs to change.”
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 | 50 per page
Readers' comments (31)
Phil Castle | 30 Oct 2009 1:14 pm
So QED, if I merge my business with that of one of my friends who has his AFPC, provided I only arrange and advise on plans that a bank advsier does, does that mean I will still be "independant", provided I refer issues on to him which might requrie level 4?
How does that differ to me remaining a seperate FSA regulated company from him and referring anything deemed level 4 to him (I.e. G60 work) as I would have done before?
It's all starting to come out now isn't it, i.e. the SII and stockbrokers wanting to be exempt from level 4 and ironically those who are GPs could have to be the most qualified and the least to remain independant when quite obviously teh same thing could be achieved by saying you have to have level 4 for specific action!
Lookds like you've been well lobbied Faye, glad I cancelled my PFS membership....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Evan Owen | 30 Oct 2009 1:33 pm
I am lost for words...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30 Oct 2009 1:44 pm
As usual one rule for the Banks.......and everyone else has to qualify to QCF level 4!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30 Oct 2009 1:45 pm
The banks will dress whatever limited range permitted up to be the best thing since sliced bread and the consumenr wont have a clue that the adviser is less qualified - if level 3- than any other adviser because the banks arent going to tell them - Must be a joke ?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Dathan Steele | 30 Oct 2009 1:52 pm
Hmmm
Why am I not in the least bit surprised? The banks have been spreading BS for years and years, why stop now? My particular fav at the moment is Barclays calling their sales guys 'Financial Planners'. A bit ago they had a good rate on cash ISAs, I thought, 'hell, why not'. So I rang up as was told that had to go into the branch and see a 'financial planner'. Ah, so its a loss leader to get you in and flog you a bond, I thought.
So, I thought I'd crack on daft and went in. When the salesman introduced himself as a 'Financial Planner' I said 'wow, I'm studying for my Diploma at the moment, I'm very impressed that someone as young has you has passed the Advanced Diploma, well done!' Of course, he did not even know what Advanced Diploma was, and indeed he was there to flog me a bond! When I explained what I did work wise he was almost apologetic!
Hell, are we really going to let the banks get away with all the mis-selling they have been doing and will continue to do. They need to be properly regulated, and their staff need to have the right level of education, i.e level 4!
Here's a sorry tale about Barclays from the BBC:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6476155.stm
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Matt Kennedy | 30 Oct 2009 1:53 pm
The banks are still a force to be reckoned with. It's their weekly sales targets that have lead to the majority of complaints in the past. Level 3 or 4 will make no difference because the sales targets will remain and be a drag on the whole "advice" sector.
It's their culture that needs to change and nothing so far has made that happen. Another opportunity gone begging.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Alan Lakey | 30 Oct 2009 1:59 pm
I cannot say that I am disappointed with Fay because, frankly, I always suspected that something like this would eventually rear its malformed head.
There need be only one differentiator between IFAs and tied advisers and that is the whole of market scope of the advice.
The quaification argument is a red herring. I could be QCF6 and almost certainly it would not advantage a single one of my clients.
We currently have a permission system operated by the FSA. To advise on opt-outs or equity release one has to pass an examination. This system works because I have the choice as to whether or not to mve into a given area. QCF4 for all is being mandated and will waste tme and money and will likely remove up to 50% of the current IFA population.
IFAs, tied, multi-tied, bank salespersons should all work under the same regime. The last thing we need as an industry is the bancassurers beng advantaged over the very sector that is responsible for the best advice and the lowest complaints figures.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 30 Oct 2009 2:00 pm
Kind of predictable really! Whilst banks will be duty bound to offer Independent Financial Advice if it is specifically requested - how many customers will walk in and say they want "Independent" Financial Advice as opposed to just Financial Advice. I think we know the answer to that.
"All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others" G Orwell - Animal Farm
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Realist | 30 Oct 2009 2:01 pm
Is this really such a bad thing if the same applies to non-bank advisers as well?
If, for example, the outcome of RDR, Mortgage Market Review and Pure Protection Review is that QCF Level 3 is required for ISA, Mortgage & Protection products but anything more complex (inc. ANY pension planning) requires QCF Level 4, I think most IFAs would be comfortable with that. I'd remove these products from the Adviser Charging regime but cap commissions on the ISA product so ensure a level playing field. After all, the protection and savings gaps aren't going to be closed at the non-HNW end of the market by making consumers pay for the advice on what product they should have...
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
David | 30 Oct 2009 2:02 pm
Watched a CH4 programme last night - all the people with Blue Eyes were segregated and then subjected to abuse and mistreatment by the people with Brown Eyes (who were given preferential treatment) - it was an experiment in Racism! Seems to me IFA's are Blue eyed & Bankers Brown eyed! Obviously the agenda is the irradication of the IFA sector. Don't belong to the PFS - never will.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment