Potential Financial Adviser Job, Ethical concerns - urgent opinions much appreciated!

TH1878

Aegis wrote: »

Personally I went down this route and hated it. I never even bothered submitting for a third time because the second time I was failed on a set of pointless technicalities. My report writing is different to the IFP's standard, but my clients love it and understand what I'm recommending they do and why.

The most infuriating thing though is looking at some reports which passed 5 to 10 years ago and seeing how flawed they are. They've obviously upped their standards considerably, but it's ultimately not a test about financial planning but report presentation in their style.

I have benefited so much more from Chartered status than the learning I did as part of my time studying for CFP. Once I hit Fellowship I'm probably going to go down the route of STEP exams, as those are relevant to the type of private client work I do.

Horses for courses Aegis.

I'm Chartered and Certified (and have the STEP diploma) but I value the CFP qualification far more than Chartered because it was harder to achieve (with only 2% of people passing first time - I passed on the second time). Chartered is better as a marketing tool.

With the CII exams, I always think it's just testing your ability to pass exams on a given day which hasn't been a problem fortunately. The CFP course makes you think much more deeply about holistic planning even if, in real life, the reports do not follow exactly the same structure. I completely agree with you about the example case study though - not fit for purpose!

The STEP qualifications are good but the revision material is very dry. Be prepared to put in some long revision sessions.

jamesd

scholes22 wrote: »

My main thought was that rather than going to an heir as unearned wealth (which could simply be used as a means to accumulate more wealth faster than economic growth and thus increasing inequality) an entrepreneurial financial services company and government may be able to use that money due to no advice, in a more efficient and equitable way. Your thoughts and anyone's on that ramble would be much appreciated.

My chief thought after reading that is that your school teachers failed to educate you about the underlying principles of communism and capitalism and why capitalism has been found to work better. So I'll start a little.

Communism: the state owns everything and grants people whatever it thinks they deserve based on their service to the state. The personal productivity incentive is whatever it takes to get things from the state, which in practice doesn't work very well or leads to official corruption, hence the near-universal abandonment of pure communism in ostensibly communist countries..

Capitalism: each person owns things and works to improve their individual condition and that of their family. the state takes from them sufficient to provide whatever basic needs society overall deems necessary for all. In practice in the UK it means around 50+% of the population being net receivers from the state and of the others, most of the revenue coming from the highest ten to twenty percent.

So, when I read you suggesting that the state should take the money and distribute it as it sees fit I see that you're espousing a communist world view of the state having first ownership right, not individuals, and hence that you think or haven't thought that it will be desirable to reduce the incentive to accumulate wealth for family.

It should be fairly clear that if a system of that sort is implemented there will be a mass exodus of those with highest assets, as we saw in the 70s. Also it should be clear that if you're not going to be able to benefit family then you don't have a lot of financial incentive to work, so you might as well retire and deprive society of the ability that has enabled you to achieve unusually well, to the likely detriment of society.

I'm also puzzled by your use of the word equitable in this context. How much of someone's earning power do you think can taken by the state and have it be equitable? Half? A quarter? 98%? Do you think it equitable that around 50% of the population are net receivers from the state, with the other 50% paying for those benefits?

agarnett

As the once Chartered dinosaur whose piece I think got marked down for expounding virtues 3 decades out of date, I must say that I have found all the responses to the OP quite refreshingly thought provoking - we weren't sure at the beginning about where the thread would lead, but the OP must surely have achieved their aim of receiving help to make their big decision.

So I guess we are all wondering, when does the OP start ?

I guess it would be a little dangerous for the OP, but wouldn't it be enlightening to be a fly on the wall as the OP gets into the role - a bit of a blog perhaps - so some of the commentators here (probably not me!) may be able to offer steering advice as challenges and obstacles appear ?

Good luck OP!