Further to Letter of the Week (14 August) from Russell Orton about the utility of additional qualifications.
Perhaps Mr Orton is confusing experience with knowledge. I am not suggesting that he does not know his stuff, but surely part of the reason for RDR was to make sure everyone giving advice actually has the requisite knowledge.
We live in an age where you demonstrate your competency through licences and certificates by examination, so why should our industry be different? I also am long-toothed in the industry, having started in 1971, but I was quite alarmed at the gaps in my knowledge as I jumped through the qualification hoops to achieve my SPS. RDR has not excluded any experienced financial adviser from trading: they have excluded themselves.
I cannot believe his statements about the product providers being winners because they are not paying commissions. Where does he think the commission came from? These were just fees taken out of policyholders pockets, without most of them really knowing. The providers are not paying commission because they are not taking it from policyholders.
Everybody wants sound financial advice and I am sure they would all like it for free. But those who value advice will always pay for it, provided they know the person given the advice has proven that he or she are suitably qualified.
Being around for a long time is not proof of that.
Gary Pashley
Director
GLD Associates,
Cardiff