Response to last week’s Robert Reid column on Aifa offering qualifications, headlined, Dumbing down is dumb
Level six ought to be the bare minimum for anyone wanting be called an IFA. I certainly would not want to take complex advice from someone with only level four. I would, however, be happy to be sold a simple product on a commission basis from someone with level three or less.
Rather than mess around with level four and destroy an industry, why not let all the professionals get on with level six and let the remaining 95 per cent of us continue to sell on a commission basis and help close the savings and protection gap?
The products sold could be regulated and restrictions placed on what could be sold.
I agree that the qualifi-cations should be difficult but make them more relevant to our job. If the CII stops trying to catch us out and concentrates more on testing the knowledge we require to do our job, I, as an IFA, would find it much easier to study. You would not have other comp-anies working hard to bring other examinations out.
We should all take note that raising standards only benefits people who remain in the industry. I came into financial services when you needed FPC 1, 2 and 3 to trade and remember the dinosaurs that were in the industry before then. The people who knocked on the doors were happy to transfer final-salary pension schemes to personal pension contracts with no understanding of what they were doing.
Have I missed something? How can the proposed Aifa QCF level five qualification be a dumbing down from the CII QCF level four RDR required qualification? At least we know now who is to blame for the largely irrelevant content of G60. Thanks a lot, Robert.
I agree with the article, it is all about making things easy for those who cannot be bothered. I do also think that sometimes the CII exams are a little bizarre in content but, with one or two exceptions, you can chose the exams which suit you the most, so why bellyache?