Since I submitted last weeks article, AIA have updated the module to remove the mandatory answer requirements and tweaked the questions, which is a step in the right direction.

With the original module release I started off taking the piss and having a bit of a laugh because it wasn't tested, and I couldn't complete it. I uploaded my cert to every qual and added every comment and got to 50% for Life and Health and 100% for certified financial planning. (I'm not a CFP, but they were mandatory requirements to put something.)

Today, the module has been marked off completed for me, but the individual qualification areas are listed at 50%, including the 100% one I mentioned above.

However, there was another thought here for life and medical advisers.

AIA was asking for:

• Copy of NZ Cert Level 5 V1 and appear to have added NZ Cert Level 5 V1 since my initial comments
• Copy of NZ Cert Level 5 V2
• Copy of Bridging course.

Hang on, where's the rest?

The implication of this is AIA expects Level 5 Version 1s or 2 to operate from March 2024. Because we know their system shuts down quoting tools if the learning and development bit isn't done.

The code allows for specific qualifications noted:

• Level 5 National Certificate
• Level 5 New Zealand Certificate V1
• Level 5 New Zealand Certificate V2

Talking to some of the AIA team at a conference last week, they mentioned other qualifications can be added; However, on checking this out it’s for the CFP part of the module. Not something the typical life adviser is going to consider for Level 5 Life qualifications.

An additional point for the code is that those who were AFA's in the prior regime, who don't have any of these three, are also allowed to operate as being "qualified".

• I have no idea who they are or if they exist as I haven't encountered an AFA that didn't have their Level 5 NZ Cert.

Also, my RG146, which I got in Aussie in 2010, is covered under the FMA announcement on the 16th of March 2021. More details here: https://www.fma.govt.nz/business/services/financial-adviser/

The problem here?

AIA as our largest insurer is potentially perceived as big brother in their messaging by not allowing for the other options for proving education, knowledge, and competency.

It could be that those involved in the learning module and communications don't know or understand the picture outside Level 5 because that has been all that has been talked about.

• The education providers have also been ramming Level 5 V2 and bridging down anyone's throat who will listen as well.

My direct discussions on qualifications with the adviser panel to the code working group when they were setting the code; was to ensure that everyone had a base level of understanding for both the legal structures we had and the skill to provide advice. Level 5, whatever the flavour, was considered the same base qualification.

One thing the Code Working Group was conscious of, and have said publicly, is they didn't want to create this massive education industry that we have seen overseas and with other trades and professions here. This was also part of their consideration with setting CPD requirements.

I've covered this in previous articles and discussions, too, so this should not be news to anyone, but it probably is.

Another point around Code Standard 9 I have raised in the past, in support of the bridging course where it is needed, is Level 5 NZ Cert V2 needs an update for CoFI as this is a change in the legal framework we operate in.

• For clarity, CoFI itself doesn't change our formal qualification requirements.

Additionally, on education and our requirements:

• Providers could demand a higher qualification than The Code requires, but they will be pretty unpopular.

Should you have higher qualifications? Probably, but that's your call, not the providers'.

• Providers can require their qualifications to measure knowledge, skill, and competency on their products to provide advice. That's their product accreditation, etc. This is expected and should be done and reviewed regularly.

However, the knowledge, skill, and competency piece is The Code. It defines the requirements in the more general professional advice area that's not provider product-specific.

That's not to say the Code Working Group won't review and update the requirements; I fully expect them to.

• In time, increased qualifications for investment advice and removal of the older Level 5 Qualification and grandfathering is expected.

Code standard 9 has a specific requirement to maintain competency with the advice they give and the legal framework they operate under.

• This is not prescribed, and provided advisers can demonstrate this; it does not have to be from a learning facility or a designated qualification.
• In my case, read Good Returns; there's my learning history for the world to see https://www.goodreturns.co.nz/jon-paul-hale.html . I've covered both the lead-up to regulation and the discussion of it for the last five-odd years.

Again we’re back to my theme of the last couple of months; communication needs to improve across the industry, as does the view and attitude of providers about advisers.

As Skeptical has commented on other articles; CoFI isn’t going to make this stuff any better or easier for us. This is likely and no pushback from us means we sit back and accept this tidal wave; I’m not so enamoured with having more rubbish drown my inbox!

We’re all here as moving parts for the benefit of our clients, the better and smoother we work together, the more efficient and effective we are as an industry.

Smarter not harder please.