This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Find out more here.

Is QCF level 5 the next mandatory step?

  • Print
  • Comments (15)

Exams have always been seen as a necessary evil but it is high time that we embraced them wholeheartedly for their passport-like quality to a better industry. Qualifications hold the key to transforming our industry into one with full professional standing and it should be a priority for company principals to ensure their advisers are up to scratch.

Raising the professional standards of the industry remains central to the guiding principles of the RDR but once we have reached the level prescribed (QCF level four), we must not rest on our laurels. Level four is a sensible base for the profession to be constructed on but having reached this milestone we should continue to ensure that we are moving upward and onward - perhaps QCF level five is the next mandatory step?

Whether advisers choose to take the certified route or the chartered path, there are many benefits to standing on the highest tier of qualification. Apart from distinguishing yourself from advisers that have chosen to stay at diploma level, higher qualifications also mean that advisers are more likely to get professional referral introductions. This would lead to new business being easier to come by, which would have a knock-on effect as their time would be less under the cosh from commercial pressures so they could devote themselves further to quality advice.

For too long, we have been laden with a legacy of misselling skewing the reputation of a profession where the occasional bad apple is certainly the exception, not the rule. This has led to us not starting on a level playing field in comparison with other industries.

The RDR will put us back to square one and it is from this point that we need to spring forward and reinvigorate the industry to raise itself to a standard we can all be proud of.

The key with qualifications is to start off as young as possible. It can only be good for the industry to have bright young professionals coming through the ranks, highly qualified at a relatively youthful age.

Going one step further, surely the holy grail of our profession would be self-regulation, such as lawyers with the Law Society and accountants with the Association of Chartered Accountants.

This would give the industry the reputation that it deserves as long as we keep up the high standards of professionalism.

Some advisers might not make this exacting standard but to move the profession forward, it is a necessary adjustment. Advisers who want to stay one step ahead should look to invest in training staff up to the highest level, increasing the profession’s reputation and benefiting clients.

Sheriar Bradbury is managing director of Bradbury Hamliton

  • Print
  • Comments (15)

Daily Email Updates
If you enjoyed this article, sign up to receive the latest news and analysis from Money Marketing.

Money Marketing Awards 2015
Put your firm forward as the leading practitioner in your field. Adviser and Advertising categories are open to entries - Enter Now.

Readers' comments (15)

  • Well said Mark and the Lifetime Allowance is a very good example. How many consumers have been totally confused by being asked how much of their lifetiome allowance they have used compared to those who might have ended up anywhere near their lifetime allowance, let alone over it!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Anonymous | 19 Oct 2010 2:18 pm

    Alan Lakey | 19 Oct 2010 12:21 pm

    "Some of the wisest people I know have no letters after their name or pieces of paper stuck to their walls."


    You would say that though, wouldn't you? After all, it supports your view that increased qualfications aren't required.

    "Some of the biggest crooks have been chartered, certieid or otherwise 'qualified' advisers."


    Really? Are you able to provide any examples of this?

    short answer is yes:

    simply look on the FSA site, which firms have been fined then see if they are chartered etc

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Melanie - You are questioning the honesty of other advisers in your post, please do not do so.
    I thought we lived in a free society where I am allowed my opinions and I do not have to GET OUT as you say.
    In a free market society, the markets would dictate a need for a move to level 4, 5 or even 6, by increasing the cost of PII to reflect the claims experience associated with having the qualification. That has NOT been the case, so an mandatory increase is actually a distortion of that free market economy.
    Oh and for the record, whilst I have not finished my diploma, I was working towards it, but if I am to be dictated to then the natural reaction is one of two things, fight or flight and I prefer the latter, especially when even before getting our levcel 4's we are hearing siren calls for even higher qualifications which are not being requested by PII insurers yet.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • In 2007, as a young adviser, 20 years old with no financial services expierence i was thrown in front of customers selling investments only having past just CF1 and 2.. i was given 5 weeks of training on the advice process.. No support was available and was not allowed to look at protection for clients.. 3 years on, i have worked for 2 big banks, witnessed bad advice being given on a daily basis for targets only and ignoring what is right for the customer.. I have now done all the CFs and now passed IFS diploma, while starting first Advanced Dip exam in April.. I am now an IFA, and hand of heart believe what i have done to get to where i am is not acceptable.. The CF exams are not of a high standard and the diploma is what a client deserves in terms of knowledge.. If you have worked as an IFA for more than 3 years and have a good record.. That should be enough and grandfathering should be in place.. More regulation of Banks is a must, they sell one thing Structured Products and are not Protecting their clients.. New entrants a diploma is not a great ask and lifting the standards from 2012 onwards will be the right move come 2012 let alone 2015 or 20.. The older IFAs are getting the short straw here and forced to do exams that are worthless to them and a kick in the teeth.. Financial Advisers who want a long career in this, look around we have had it easy and start studying before you get left behind!

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Melanie Samuels

    1 question the same question that is now being asked by MPs and the TSC - 'where is the evidence' ??

    Exams do not equal professionalism any more than experience that is precisely the point there are bad in both and in a Free Market generally they get found out eventually. As far as I am concerned (and I suspect most I know) its not about passing a poxy exam its about the thin end of a wedge.

    Thats why IFAs have the lowest compliants - it aint broke so dont fix it.

    Forgive me if I'm wrong (I am not being patronising) but I suspect you have not been around too long in this industry (and specifically dont recall regulation since 1988) - when you have you will realise just how big the thin end of the regulatory wedge really is.

    This is about the regulator not the IFA

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

View results 10 per page | 20 per page

Have your sayEdit my profile/screen name

You must sign in to make a comment

Fund Data

Editor's Pick


Do you see the value in adviser trade bodies?

Job of the week

Latest jobs

View all jobs

Most recent comments

View more comments