Know nothing about pensions - advice appreciated

[Deleted User]

IFA’s training and experience would be important to me.

Minimum Qualifications that are required involve 370 hours of formal training.  The course is very basic.  A graduate would know next to nothing about statistics and would have trouble interpreting basic concepts relating to risk - compared to specialists financial industry employs or engineers.  You pass the test at the end by answering multiple choice questions. Passing mark is 65%.  I would be more than a little concerned that my financial future depends on someone who gets  1 in 3 answers wrong, and thats for multiple choice questions.  

https://www.cii.co.uk/learning/qualifications/diploma-in-regulated-financial-planning-qualification

An accounting student in the UK would be attending 8 to 10 hours of daily lectures for 3 years (not counting self-study). He would be done with financial advisor’s course in 8 weeks. 

Dale72

Does anyone know what happened to that other noobie thread, just in case anyone with a similar question wants to refer to it?

dunstonh

IFA’s training and experience would be important to me.

Even on a bread and butter transaction that the newest trained IFA could carry out with their eyes closed?  I can understand it on more specialist areas but this is really simple stuff.

Minimum Qualifications that are required involve 370 hours of formal training. 

Some need less time. Some need more.  Most of the learning is done whilst working at lower level competency roles, such as mortgage and insurance advisers and geared to be done to allow you to continue working and studying.

Many go on to sit more exams than the minimum.  However, for around 95% of the transactions, the minimum would be fine.    And as many people will tell you about most things in life, you learn more from experience than you do a textbook.  

An accounting student in the UK would be attending 8 to 10 hours of daily lectures for 3 years (not counting self-study). He would be done with financial advisor’s course in 8 weeks. 

That is interesting as a training guide for becoming an accountant (studying AAT) say it can be done with part-time training within 18 months.  Makes you wonder what they are doing 5 days a week for 8-10 hours a day when part timers can manage it in half the time with far less hours allocated.

I assume you are not referring to chartered accountant qualifications as that would be disingenuous as you would need to compare them to the chartered financial planning qualifications, which you are not doing.

Passing mark is 65%.  I would be more than a little concerned that my financial future depends on someone who gets  1 in 3 answers wrong, and thats for multiple choice questions.  

For accountants sitting the ACCA, it's a 50% pass mark.    
 

[Deleted User]

“That is interesting as a training guide for becoming an accountant (studying AAT) “

A technican/bookkeeper isn’t someone I would use to do my taxes. In fact, I don’t. I was referring to an actual accountant. And then I wouldn’t be interested in someone who has auditing experience. Needs to be tax.  And if I need advice on minimizing taxes, then it has to be a specialist who does that kind of planning. Of course if the question is “what fund to buy” then I don’t need an accountant - or any advice for that matter. Its easy and Information is readily available. 

You are right that actually doing the job brings the necessary experience to provide recommendations.  Which is why I suggested to ask about that.  However rigorous selection and training programme are also important.  Both to understand theoretical fundamentals but also to ensure that we are dealing with a hard working and capable individual.  Otherwise selection ends up being based purely on the ability to sell yourself to a client. Does not equate competency.  

dunstonh

I was referring to an actual accountant.

What is your definition of an accountant then as there are multiple qualification levels?

And if I need advice on minimizing taxes, then it has to be a specialist who does that kind of planning.

That is called an IFA.

[Deleted User]

dunstonh said:

I was referring to an actual accountant.

What is your definition of an accountant then as there are multiple qualification levels?

And if I need advice on minimizing taxes, then it has to be a specialist who does that kind of planning.

That is called an IFA.

A university degree which allows one to become a chartered accountant. The kinds of people who work for the big 4 - or smaller versions of EY/Deloitte etc.  In Canada/US its CPA or CA. 

Selected few of them specialize in tax planning and minimization. Its for people who own and run companies (my case), for well off people at CEO level, transboundary issues.  I am sure there will be some well qualified university educated finance professionals under the IFA umbrella doing the same job. 

The need for OP depends on the nature of the business. Most likely he does not need any paid advice at all. 

najan49

Deleted_User said:

An accounting student in the UK would be attending 8 to 10 hours of daily lectures for 3 years (not counting self-study). He would be done with financial advisor’s course in 8 weeks. 

Can you back this up? I’d be amazed to find an accounting student spending 8-10 hrs per day for 3 years in lectures, plus needing to spend additional time self-studying. These lectures seem to be an incredibly poor investment of time.

dunstonh

A university degree which allows one to become a chartered accountant. The kinds of people who work for the big 4 - or smaller versions of EY/Deloitte etc.  In Canada/US its CPA or CA. 

Absolutely bizarre.   

Canuck01

Dunstonh - don't expect Mordko to say 'sorry I was wrong', I had a long boring discussion where I was told that the 2008 crash was a minor blip, no one's retirement savings affected at all, strangely including the ten million people in the US who lost their homes.  Good luck talking some sense into him. 

[Deleted User]

Canuck01 said:

Dunstonh - don't expect Mordko to say 'sorry I was wrong', I had a long boring discussion where I was told that the 2008 crash was a minor blip, no one's retirement savings affected at all, strangely including the ten million people in the US who lost their homes.  Good luck talking some sense into him. 

That’s completely false.  I never said that.  Your memory is failing you. It was a discussion in the context of investing. Of course some people had their retirement savings affected. Those who sold at the bottom would have suffered quite badly. 

I will have said it was a minor blip in terms of long term market performance over an average persons retirement saving period.  Felt bad at the time but the markets recovered quickly and then some.  A balanced portfolio recovered within a year. Nothing compared to crashes in the 70s or 30s. 

Many people in the US who lost their homes often walked out of their mortgages because they were under water and it was way too easy to do.  They basically got rid of debt and improved their overall financial position. And happily own houses today.  

Others should never have been given mortgages in the first place. They didn’t really have these houses to lose. 

It was stressful for many people, but keep in mind that “about 10 million people” is a fraction of 1 percent of US population.