The CISI told Financial Planning Today this week it was due to hold further talks with counterparts at the CII over moves to develop a Paraplanning standard.
A form of Paraplanner ‘kitemark’ has been discussed for some time and Paraplanners involved with the Powwow movement have begun developing the idea. Read more here.
Following the news of the involvement of the professional bodies in the initiative, Mike Malkiewicz DipFA, owner of Peterborough firm Clear Paraplanning, wrote to FP Today.
He is against “additional Paraplanning qualifications” and said it was time for those not in favour of the Paraplanning standard to put a different opinion forward.
Below is his take on the Paraplanning debate.
To react and comment to the piece on Twitter use the hashtag #Paraplanningdebate
Paraplanning debate - Mike Malkiewicz’s views
As one of the “vast minority” recently described as not wishing to see an additional Paraplanning qualification, I thought it was time that the hitherto silent minority had an opportunity to air their views.
Professionalism appears to be the hot topic among Paraplanners. So, why is so much blog space and typeface being devoted to whether Paraplanning should be regarded as a separate profession?
If we agree that a financial adviser is a professional who helps individuals manage their finances, then Paraplanning is a fundamental function of the profession.
Paraplanning is not and never can be an autonomous profession; that does not devalue the role of the Paraplanner, in fact, the opposite is true.
A financial adviser cannot function without Paraplanning; although of course they can function without a Paraplanner if they choose to do their own Paraplanning.
Having started a Paraplanning business two years ago from being an IFA for over 20 years, I have read with varying interest the many articles about Paraplanning qualifications and its professional standing.
Initially I dismissed these as “froth” to fill up column space and promote various individuals and businesses.
Latterly the involvement of CII and IFP (now CISI) shed a new and to me, worrying light on the matter.
Surely two professional bodies would not get themselves involved in such frivolity? There again, why shouldn’t they react to a perceived demand like every other commercial organisation?
To me, the solution - if one is required at all - is that we all remember that the profession is financial advice. I would say there are two main components to delivering professional advice:
1. preparation and research (Paraplanning)
2. interaction with the client (fact finding and advising)
These components require some different skill sets and traits as well as some common ones.
The gateway qualification to the profession is at level 4 (Higher National Certificate level) and I believe that everyone directly involved in the preparation or delivery of advice should hold this qualification. I would describe administrators as being indirectly involved in the process as their skill set is more transferable among other professions.
The gateway qualification should have a wide enough syllabus to accommodate both of the components necessary to provide financial advice.
The first step to a professional position in the financial advice sector should be a traineeship, which supports the trainee through the gateway qualification and provides the trainee with work experience in all aspects of the financial advice business.
Having undergone the traineeship and attained the qualification, it should not be too challenging for trainees and/or employers to judge where the best match between job and job holder lies – preparation and research or interaction with clients, or both.
I firmly believe that the traineeship should be as broad based as possible and should not point the trainee in any one direction, I believe three years is the optimal length. From my own experience, a shorter timescale produces an unfinished result and a longer period is off-putting for most trainees and employers.
Authorisation should depend upon the level of interaction between the professional and clients.
I know that there is a tendency towards Paraplanners being directed towards attendance at client meetings and there is no issue if this is to take notes however any interaction involving interpretation (such as fact finding), arranging and managing as well as of course, advice, should be carried out by an authorised individual.
So here, in my simple world, lies the answer to the great qualification/authorisation debate, which is currently taking, up so much space.
As someone who has been involved in both components of the profession (both collectively and individually) I think that both offer fantastic opportunities to young people who want to contribute to the financial wellbeing of others.
They will learn how the world of commerce and finance works (and never stop learning) and pass part of this knowledge on to every client they meet.
In conclusion, I think that a kitemark or any standalone Paraplanning qualification is unnecessary because:
· A standard already exists at occupational level under the Financial Services Skills Council FSPPP08
· It will cause confusion about what Paraplanning actually is
· Standards for financial advice are already in place
· There is already too much emphasis on qualification collecting and too little on job experience and on the job training.
To react and comment to the piece on Twitter use the hashtag #Paraplanningdebate