Should all those who deliver a financial advice service be required to have attained the minimum qualification of the NZ Certificate in Financial Services, or its equivalent?
- Yes (83%)
- No (13%)
- Not sure (4%)
Most advisers seem to be in accord when it comes to possible double standards applying to future minimum adviser qualifications.
As we go to print, 83 percent of those taking our latest poll think all Kiwis who deliver financial advice in future should be held to the same minimum Level 5 certificate standard or its equivalent. 11 percent disagree and six percent are unsure.
We reported last week that Financial Advice NZ has taken issue with a number of the Code Working Group’s twelve proposed Standards, including Standard Nine, which relates to general competence, knowledge and skill for all who provide regulated financial advice (see: Minimum Qualification For All…).
The sticking point for Financial Advice NZ, and possibly for many RiskinfoNZ readers, is that nominated representatives of firms, such as banks, may be able to complete all the learning outcomes specified for their role by their financial advice provider, together with the procedures, systems and expertise of the provider.
…in the current form, it misses the mark
The Association has said on this point that: “The Code of Professional Conduct must uphold professionalism across the sector, and in the current form, it misses the mark.”
Do you think Code Standard Nine misses the mark by virtue of allowing this alternative pathway to accreditation for nominated representatives? Or do you think it’s okay for nominated representatives to qualify to deliver regulated financial advice through this alternative route?
Our poll remains open for another week and we encourage you to have your say…