Charles Mackinnon talks qualifications

I agree with much of what you say, though not, if I have understood you correctly, with the idea that just because you have passed an exam you are in a position to pass judgement any investment product on offer which is included in your exam syllabus. I still hold to the aphorism that a little knowledge is dangerous; far better to bring in a relevant expert to advise, perhaps an IFA whom you trust.

I believe part of the problem is that the term 'wealth management' has spread confusion, not least in the minds of the FSA, on account of many service providers including that description in their name. As you pointed out, many are large organisations including banks. who are more interested in selling complicated products than managing client assets and client expectations. Others are the less reputable IFAs, who are salesman armed with complicated products who masquerade as investment gurus. When they have passed their exam, I fear that their sales prowess may be cloaked with the legitimacy of an exam qualification.

Alas your assertion that those who set the exams are not qualified may also be spot on and that they have at best very limited experience of dealing with clients, or at worst none at all.

Completely agree with you here Hugh. The notion that those qualified to this relatively new Level 4 or more might give better advice or manage clients affairs in a more efficient and presumably obtain a better performance related service just goes to show that regulators and all those who have vested interests in providing new improved examination processes and sometimes completely illogical and unnecessary CPD are utterly out of touch with reality. The only judges of quality of advice and competence to manage should be clients in the primary instance and only compliance in a secondary instance presuming there might be a problem that any investor client might highlight. What is really disturbing is that age and experience is rapidly being replaced by examination competence and inexperience. I doubt many sophisticated or indeed unsophisticated investors will tolerate being managed by some of these 'worthy personnel' who in the main have not had to build client lists over a period of time. The idea that juicy client lists will be dropped into the clutches of the recent 'exam proof brokers' is hokus pocus. Many competent brokers and investment managers can see through this orwellian process and will adjust their affairs accordingly.