Exam provider and professional body, the CII’s subsidiary the PFS, has passed its work place assessment proposals to the FSA for approval. A huge amount rests upon this, not least the prospects for very many IFA businesses and certainly many individual advisers. The PFS wisely suggests that a combination of oral “exam-style” assessments and workplace assessments are the way forward. It should be applauded. If it can get more advisers over the finish line, so to speak, then two cheers for the organisation. (I reserve the last cheer because of the huge amount of the money the professional body is making from the RDR).

There will be IFAs who may find this route to QCA level four to be attainable rather than pure exams whether oral or written.

This site would rather that the process also involved a bigger compromise which would see the deadline extended and ways found to allow IFAs who do not pass quickly enough to continue in business. The fear is that Ken Davy’s assessment of many IFAs’ prospects of making it past the line without grandfathering may well prove correct.

However back to the assessment proposals. Perhaps it is best to leave the CII and PFS to get on lobbying for acceptance of this route. But even this feels a little unfair.

The Money Debate’s misgiving is that the industry must rely on the CII and others not make it too difficult when, in a bid to gain FSA acceptance, it must be seen to be stern test.

With exams we know that some advisers can pass, they have encountered such things before. Some journalists are even embarking on the journey too, such as my erstwhile colleague at Money Marketing Gregor Watt.

But who is to test this workplace assessment? High fliers will, well, fly through no doubt. But what if it is too stern for others? Can we have a guinea pig for this too? Not much point testing Mr Watt on his journalistic day job so he can tell us about it later. Too much seems to rely on the FSA acting as god in this process even though long term it still probably plans a professional standards board to take care of such things.
As such there is surely a case for other industry input too, say from IFAs on the practitioner panel. Isn’t that one of things it is there for to provide some balance on regulatory issue? A balanced RDR process. Now there’s a thought.

This entry was posted on Monday, November 2nd, 2009 at 10:24 pm and is filed under Regulation and Politics. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.