Tories question RDR timetable and exam focus
Share
The Conservative Party has questioned whether the 2012 retail distribution review timetable is practicable and suggested there should be more emphasis on experience and on-the-job training.
Speaking at the Aifa annual dinner last night, Shadow pensions minister Nigel Waterson told guests he understood the changes forced on the industry by the RDR are of huge concern to advisers.
He read out a letter he had received from an IFA in his constituency who was concerned the RDR would lead to less people getting advice, that advice becoming more expensive and the mid-market being left to the banks. “I think that is the authentic voice of the sole practitioner IFA,” said Waterson.
Waterson questioned whether the RDR timetable was achievable given the extra qualifications and system changes that were needed. He also questioned whether exams should take precedence over experience and work-based training.
He said: “On the face of it, given the complexity of the system I have described, it seems fair that a higher level of qualification will be required to give out advice.
“But while no-one can object to raising the standards of training and competence, should an emphasis on exams take precedence over on-the-job training and experience? Is the 2012 implementation date practicable given the extra qualifications and changes in systems that will be required to be in place?
Waterson said the two key measures of success from the RDR should be the extent to which the availability of advice and guidance is increased and that it raises the level of consumer engagement with financial services.
Waterson also warned that the RDR may conflict with the current European review of retail financial products “leading to a confused message”.
Previously the Tories have been careful not to offer much of an opinion on the RDR. In an interview with Money Marketing at the Conservative Party conference in Manchester this autumn, Shadow financial secretary Mark Hoban refused to answer questions about the RDR and said it was a matter for the regulator.
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 (80)
Anonymous | 18 Nov 2009 8:56 am
is someone listening at last?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Derek Vivian | 18 Nov 2009 8:58 am
I am 65 and want to continue working as an IFA until at least 70, but if I am reqyired to take any exams to continue I shall be forced to leave the industry. This is not being fair to my clients who all want me to continue let alone to me!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Paul W | 18 Nov 2009 9:02 am
is someone listening at last? Not really it is an election year, just after securing more votes!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Steve | 18 Nov 2009 9:03 am
Don't be silly all these MP's who are making small comments are not that interested in IFA companies, they are quite happy to make comment but that is all it is a comment, if you actually think anyone of these MP's are going to get thier hands dirty on our behalf are mistaken!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
JOHN PHILLIPS | 18 Nov 2009 9:03 am
Is this possibly a MP who understands the market? RDR, if the FSA think that implementing it will give cients a better chioce and service they are mistaken (not for the first time) clients want proper independant advice,not as the questioner says "pushing the clients towards the banks",or maybe thats the FSAs intention.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
michael moore | 18 Nov 2009 9:05 am
forcing qualifications will mean a number of senior IFAs such as my self will probably leave the industry,or seak some form of cover with a group umbrella organisation.With the rise next year of supermarket driven operations they will sell direct products £X per plan what advantage is that .The FSA in my view are looking for greater control.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 18 Nov 2009 9:06 am
If the Tories do focus on "on the job" training and "experience" it will ultimately prove detrimental to the industry. Just because somebody has been in the industry for 30 years does not mean they are any good!! Would anyone out there have an operation from a surgeon that called himself a "surgeon" but did not have the qualifications to demonstrate his technial capability. I for one would choose the surgeon who had proved and demonstarted this technical ability. When will these advisers who cling to their worthless FPC3 certificate get the message - it is time for signifcant change.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 18 Nov 2009 9:07 am
I cannot agree more with the IFA who has written to Mr Waterson. The impact on customers will be the opposite of what Mr Waterson said the two key measures of success from the RDR should be; the extent to which the availability of advice and guidance is increased and that it raises the level of consumer engagement.I am all for our industry becoming a more highly qualified one as I feel it helps to increase consumer confidence. However, this should not be forced on us and should most definitely not have a timescale attached. It should be the adviser's choice!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 18 Nov 2009 9:07 am
Is there any other industry that requires its practioners to start taking exams after 10-40 years doing the job?I am 51 and don't know any other person in any field or profession still taking degree standard exams (in their own time) whilst still working.Furthermore the current exams are merely a test of memory and not competence and the older you are the worse the memory is unfortunately.So this sounds like common sense to the vast majority of working IFA's ,but is anyone listening?Probably not.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
Anonymous | 18 Nov 2009 9:08 am
It would seem that the Tories have now recognised life after RDR is not in the main consumer friendly, and in particular with the bulk of advice likely to be left to be provided by the Banking sector who, were no doubt influential in driving this legislative change in the first place. What a terrible thought for all !
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment