PFS submits RDR work-based assessment plans to the FSA
Share
The Personal Finance Society has thrown its weight behind work-based assessments and has submitted a proposed model for alternative assessments to the FSA.
In its response to the FSA’s RDR consultation paper, the PFS says it supports work-based assessments provided they are robust, independent and have no short-cuts or exemptions.
The PFS submission says there would have to be an appropriate number of assessors who are appropriately qualified and independent and have the time to carry out the assessments. It proposes a mixed format assessment containing a technical knowledge assessment, under exam conditions, alongside an oral or work-based assessment.
The submission says: “The CII believes that any transitional assessment developed as part of RDR should be a mixed format assessment, containing some formal knowledge assessment in exam conditions in addition to any oral or work-based assessments.
“We are working to develop an alternative assessment model to take into account FSA and Ofqual views on the required standard of the process.”
The PFS says the technical content of the assessments and learning outcomes must match the exams on which they are based and be of the QCF Level 4 standard of 37 credits, or 370 study hours.
The PFS response says the Chartered Insurance Institute has considerable experience and expertise in the construction and conducting of a range of assessment methods.
It says purely oral versions of examinations, proposed by the FSA in its RDR CP, are less consistent than other forms of assessment due to the increased risk of subjectivity.
The PFS says it has submitted detailed proposals on a model for alternative assessments to the FSA and is working to develop these proposals into a practical form.
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 (12)
John Blackmore | 2 Nov 2009 2:11 pm
Unless the FSA actually wants to see a 30% + reduction in the number of advisers they will eventually have to stop faffing about and either allow grandfathering or accept that Non-Independent people i.e Sales people do not really need Q level 4 to sell simple products. Work based assessments are simply a fancifull distraction. less than 38 months to go.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2 Nov 2009 2:13 pm
There is nothing like keeping your options open.
I am confused here, nothing new, but who is talking? The CII? Or the PFS? Or are they one in the same? If so, what is the point of having two heads? Is it an acceptable 'professional body' face in place of an unacceptable one with vested interests? The RDR has been dragged out because of this tug of war, it could have been in place a long time ago, albeit without the daft 'professional body' proposition.
On the subject of oral assessments, are they any more subjective than any other form of establishing a standard of knowledge?
Are the best judges of standards your peers? Or a profiteering (they wish) purveyor of examinations?
Is this a monopoly which is destined to exploit exclusivity without any real benefit for consumers? Is this one gift horse which urgently requires the services af an equine dentist?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2 Nov 2009 2:22 pm
Agree with John Blackmore
FSA Clueless are clueless
Nevermind a 30% loss of Advisers, what about the 70% left.
Out of those 70% who has real selling skills
Shambles !
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2 Nov 2009 2:23 pm
The PFS opens its mouth and the CII talks!
Still it make a change form Andrew Fisher and his New Model old style commission ....I mean fees!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Phil Castle | 2 Nov 2009 2:52 pm
I've got one Diploma now and have just worked out that based on the CIIs email back of 7th Oct saying we all need
- Personal taxation: (J01) Personal tax
- Investment principles and risk: (J06) Investment principles, markets and environment
- Regulation and ethics: No existing equivalent J0 unit
I'll have to get JO4 and 5 just to be able to do the pension business I do (despite teh subject matter covering some thinsg I DON'T DO) which means I've wasted time and money on J02 and J03 (sat and failed before, despite sitting G30 10 years ago and only failing by a narrow margin)
So that's 7 J0 papers to sit between now and 1st Jan 2013 just to be able to continue advising my clients despite the fact a lrage part of teh syllabus is irrelevant or simplt requires memory of info which you can find at the click of a button on the net, not application.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Simon Mansell | 2 Nov 2009 2:54 pm
In the beginning there was the LIA. The LIA was a fine institution established by fine men and women who were creative and entrepreneurial.
Then one day the creativity stopped, followed by a merger with SOFA and then the CII takeover. Now the right brain takeover is complete.
Selling is a creative skill and right brain activity. Most sales people have a distinct preference for right brain thinking. Right brainers can develop left brain skills but never the other way around.
Exams and the CII favour left-brain modes of thinking, while downplaying the value right-brain creative thinking. Left-brain scholastic subjects focus on logical thinking, analysis, rote learning and exams. Right-brain subjects, on the other hand, focus on client relationships, aesthetics, feeling, creativity and entrepreneurial skill. They relate to their clients.
RDR is a left-brain apartheid perpetrated against those with right brain skills.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
The Mystery Shopper for IFAs | 2 Nov 2009 3:44 pm
The relevance of all this RDR rubbish is for the FSA staff to justify their jobs and nothing else. They are regulating the product providers and distributors by dictating what qualifications we should hold. Most of the FSA staff are unqualfied themselves, so how can they regulate? The answer of course is they can't.
Why don't they just go and sweep the streets and protect our borders from illegal immigrants? Then they will be serving a useful rather than useless no existant service!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Blair Cann | 2 Nov 2009 4:07 pm
The PFS proposals are a poor attempt at compromise. The FSA's proposals for a so called level 4 qualification across the board are untenable because of the devastating effect they would have on the number of IFAs who will remain in the market. The PFS will be serving no-one at all until such time as they recognise this and throw their weight into retaining the services of those many IFAs who have served their clients well and with integrity and who are being threatened with banishment unless they trek into the exam room. As a cfp I have no personal axe to grind but this whole concept is nauseating. As far as those IFAs who have been doing a perfectly good job for 20 or 30 years or longer,for heaven's sake if it's not broken don't try to mend it
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2 Nov 2009 4:39 pm
What are 10000 very capable professional advisers going to do with themselves post RDR. That's the number suggested that will probably leave the industry. The groundswell of contempt for the FSA continues to grow. Everyone and their mother wants a piece of action. The CII will sell more exams, the PFS will continue to pontificate and the FSA will do what they like and continue with a role that constantly makes mistakes, misjudges the advisers and publicly get their information and management wrong.
So what's new ?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 2 Nov 2009 6:26 pm
Does anybody think that the FSA has put any thought into their own future? If 10,000 advisers leave the industry that currently pay FSA fees, how will the FSA continue when there are only a few advisers left to pay fees to them?
Those that are left will be asked to pay considerably more, which in turn will come from charging clients more!
When will somebody take on the FSA, whom in most people's opinion have failed their statutory objectives?
• maintaining confidence in the UK financial system (anybody out there heard that some of our banks are in trouble). The aim is to ensure that markets are ‘fair, efficient and transparent (Bank of England rate 0.5%, most mortgage lenders charging at least 8x this figure (pro rata in 1991 when the Bank rate was 11%, mortgage rates would have been 88%), if and when they lend, which at the moment they don't, you need a substantial deposit to start with, is this fair to first time buyers?)’;
• promoting public understanding of the financial system. (Bankers get huge bonus's they don't deserve and we the public pay for it, ahh, now I understand)
The performance of the FSA in regulating the industry will be judged against a set of ‘principles of good regulation’. It must be seen to be:
• allocating its resources in the most efficient and economic way; (£400 a night hotel room bills as recently reported in MM)
• ensuring that the costs of regulation are in proportion to the benefits; (higher exam requirements, fewer adviser's, advisers fee's increased, clients charged more).
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment