The CII's apparent failure to manage conflict appropriately, as evidenced by its ongoing spat with the PFS, may lead to a lack of trainees over the next year or so while practice managers focus on changing ships to another certification body.
I am not one of those advocates of more skills-based training programmes, however my opinion is that exams should test theoretical knowledge and implementation thereof.
I have concerns that a more 'practical' qualification may miss out on ensuring the appropriate threshold knowledge is in place to being technically competent, as has been scandalously described across the MBA programmes delivered over the past 20 years (you can read this up in "Threshold concepts in business school curriculum" by Christopher Bajada et al).
I do, however, have every sympathy with the FCA – they have an almost impossible job. They have an industry of behemoths who pump out products for the consumption of consumers, and a profession of a few thousand advisers who individually look after around 8 per cent of the adult population.
It is impossible to regulate both effectively, and I really do feel that we need a professional regulator for the profession, such as doctors have in the British Medical Association.
What has gone on at the CII/PFS is an absolute tragedy, and a real failure to manage conflicts of interest, however, the greater tragedy is that the FCA still thinks advisers need to work for a firm in order to be a professional, and not that they should be celebrated and highlighted as individual practitioners.
We are currently servants of a firm, we should be servants of the consuming public, and the public will not trust us as a profession unless and until this is the case.
Daniel Elkington is a chartered financial planner at Keep It Easy Financial Planning
