RDR: FSA to be more flexible on alternative assessment
Share
The FSA is to be more flexible on alternative assessments for “those who do not wish to sit oral or written exams” under the retail distribution review, admitting that its previous proposals for oral exams were too restrictive.
In today’s RDR consultation paper the FSA says it will offer alternative forms of assessment on an ongoing basis, not just during the transitional period.
The paper says: “We consider that this additional flexibility will enable awarding organisations to cater for those who do not wish to sit written or oral exams.”
On oral exams, the paper says: “We conclude that oral equivalents are too restrictive a definition and that we should allow other assessment methodologies to be used, provided they meet the requirements of the relevant qualifications regulator.
“We have received feedback that suggests that allowing alternative assessments only as a transitional provision hinders their development. As a result, we are proposing that these methods be permitted on an ongoing basis rather than just for transition.”
The FSA points out that OfQual allows its awarding bodies flexibility in assessment methodology, such as practical assessment and coursework.
The FSA says the Financial Services Skills Council will publish final standards for the content of the new QCF level four qualifications in March 2010 and OfQual will approve the first new qualifications in June 2010.
The regulator says study materials are likely to be available from October 2010, and new entrants to the industry from then onwards will be able to use the new qualifications.
The Association of Independent Financial Advisers welcomes the FSA’s new approach to assessments.
Director general Chris Cummings says: “We welcome today’s decision by FSA to be more flexible in their approach to alternative assessments. The removal of the expiry date for such assessments and extension to new entrants sends a positive message to the profession, and to those organisations that could assist with the delivery of such proposals.”
Cummings adds: “Today’s consultation paper from FSA is a welcome step forward in the debate on professionalism within the RDR. Aifa supports initiatives to improve levels of trust and consumer confidence in financial services, and urge FSA to build on that which works.”
The paper says that alternative assessments must meet all of the following criteria:
• all parts must be assessed at, or above, the equivalent of QCF Level 4;
• the content must meet the FSSC exam standards (current or new);
• the award (qualification) must be made by a recognised awarding body (such as OfQual or QAA); and
• the assessment methodology must satisfy the requirements of the qualifications regulator (OfQual for vocational qualifications and QAA for academic
qualifications) and must be robust, including rigorously high standards of anti-plagiarism monitoring by the awarding organisation.
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 (25)
David | 16 Dec 2009 11:47 am
So we will not know the actual exams required until June 2010 and study materials will not be available until October 2010. That means many advisers are going to have just 2 years to get qualified. The CII have said that on average it takes two and half years to get to Diploma.
The timescale is very tight. Especially if you find exams like G60 or J05 or others are not acceptable.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
George Emsden | 16 Dec 2009 11:56 am
Hmmm. Wondering if this is quantitative easing for professional standards????
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16 Dec 2009 12:09 pm
Total shambles.
I already have JO4 & JO5 as I tend to do a lot of work relating to pensions. For the majority of people the largest savings pot is often a pension scheme, but this is not deemed a core area by the FSA.
Total shambles and a waste of a year studying to get these!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16 Dec 2009 12:09 pm
I am glad THE FSA has thought this one through, it really gives me the confidence in them!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Tony Silver | 16 Dec 2009 12:13 pm
Perhaps a flicker of light at the end of the tunnel?
I am one of those advisers who has no intention what so ever to take yet another written or oral examination in order to be allowed to earn less and less, or at best stand still.
I have said and will continue to say that the IFA community is not and has never been the problem with the Financial Services Industry. The problem is the banks and bank assurers who have been driving this witch hunt against IFAs for years, in order to regain more and more distribution. The problem is and always has been that the level of competency within the banks is lower than even FPC level. The Chartered Insistute of Bankers in Scotland has realised this and are pushing their members to study up to our basic standards - the English equivalent should follow their lead.
It will interesting to see what compromise alternative assesment to exams and oral tests comes along & there's little point in hitting the books until the FSA and Skills Council work this out.
Hey ho - at least Christmas is nearly here.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Martin Smith | 16 Dec 2009 12:51 pm
This looks like good news. Lets hope it turn out to be that. We all need to be compliant, but exams are not the way forward.
Taking a lawyers as an example they do not take further exams once they become qualified even though law's change all the time. A barrister will be appointed a Queens Counsel (QC) on application without the need to take an exam.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16 Dec 2009 12:52 pm
Once again, the bleating old men who cling to their worthless FPC3 certificate have got their way and do not have to do exams.
I am bored listening to them witter on about years of experience - it is probably years of doing a bad job.
If they are that good - just get on with it and do the exams.
From an already Diploma qualified adviser.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Andy | 16 Dec 2009 12:55 pm
Tony - have your comments about advisers who work for banks been formed after you've completed lengthy research and investigation, or are you wholly reliant on 3rd hand information?
I've worked for a number of organisations and have experienced good and not so good advisers at all of them. All organisations (without exception) have dealt with the poorer advisers appropriately.
I now work for a Bank (for the first time) and can honestly say, their advisers are head and shoulders above those at the previous 4 organisations I've worked for that offer Financial Advice.
Back to RDR:
Many comments over the last year or so are from people who believe that because they've been in the industry for a long time (and haven't developed themselves more than the absolute minimum needed to stay in the industry) they should be excluded from the requirements. They miss the point, in that it is exactly because of people like them that the FSA had to introduce RDR including the exam requirements.
I've worked in the industry for nearly 20 years and obtained AFPC many years ago (so have the qualifications needed for RDR). I'm not saying it was easy, just that we all had the same opportunity to take these exams at any time we had wanted previously and that as the "experts" many people claim to be, surely a few more exams shouldn't be too hard?
If people can't pass the exams in the time given, this more than demonstrates that they should not be allowed to give advice to the public as they do not have sufficient knowledge....
Pass the exams, stop complaining.....
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Joe Kirby | 16 Dec 2009 1:38 pm
In the experience versus qualifications debate, would you rather be out at sea in a force 8 gale with an experienced sailor or some numpty with a piece of paper that says he/she is a 'qualified' day skipper.
It pays to have been around the block a few times, but unfortunately there will always be some know it alls who think otherwise!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 16 Dec 2009 2:20 pm
I completely disagree with the sailing analogy. I have been at sea with qualified Yacht Masters and frankly they had no idea while I have sailed with people who have no qualifications what so ever but have experience and they made the correct decsions when it mattered.
The only gripe I have is that their is only sittings for the exams every 6 months! Lets face it exam technique is very different to 'Good Advice'. Its like saying every one who passes the driving test is a good driver but we all know that is simply not true as not all drivers look to see what might potentialy might happen in front of them as do all good advisers!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment