Citywire published an article today from Peter Jolly, head of distribution policy at Standard Life, which basically says that making the Diploma compulsory for advisers may not be a good thing. An interesting viewpoint but within the article he also says:
‘Getting people to diploma won’t be easy. New recruits will have to get to diploma and I don’t know if it is viable for them. I think the FSA might need to be more flexible about diplomas because otherwise you’ll have a lot of over-qualified paraplanners.’
Now I’m not sure what he means by this or what his views about paraplanners are but it doesn’t really sit well with me. What do you think? You can read the full article by clicking here.
{ 7 comments… read them below or add one }
Is Mr Jolly suggesting that Paraplanners ought not be qualified to Diploma level? This is what take from his comment.
If holding the Diploma is overqualified, then what does he suggest is adequately qualified?
At present I hold the Certificate in Financial Planning but am studying for the Diploma since my personal view is that Paraplanners perhaps should be (or in some cases NEED to be – see Bettys comments in the forum yesterday!) more technically able than advisers.
His comment here hasn’t particularly offended me, as this seems to be a typically narrow-minded, off the cuff comment which you would expect from a Life Office. However, it does underline the fact that Paraplanners are thought of as glorified administrators in the eyes of certain people.
It is my hope that Mr Jolly didn’t think about what he was saying here, and was simply just trying to get his point across, indeed he raises some interesting points as Richard says. Someone really ought to be proof-reading his press releases though…
Hi James,
I agree that you can’t really be overqualified in an increasing technical world. I know several Chartered and Certified paraplanners (we’ve got them in my business too) and it is only a good thing. Most of the advisers I work with value the fact that our paraplanners have invested time to become highly skilled and are the ‘technical experts’ within the team.
We are going to invite him to reply on the site – watch this space.
James, I think you have hit the nail on the head in that I think Mr Jolly thinks of paraplanners as glorified administrators. If the industry has a significant number of individuals, paraplanners or otherwise, qualified to diploma level, then that’s excellent news for the industry in my view.
I, like the majority of you, was concerned by Mr Jolly’s comments about paraplanners being over qualified at Diploma level, particularly as it has taken a lot of hard work and time for me to achieved Chartered and Certified level.
So I phoned him !
Last night we had a conversation during which Mr Jolly apologised a number of times for any offence he had caused to any paraplaners. He said he had not meant to do this at all. He explained that the point he was trying to make in the article was that he was concerned that because now there seems to be a drive to increase the minimum level of qualification for advisers to Diploma, any new adviser entrants to the industry would have to spend some time studying to reach this level during which time they would not be able to advise.
Mr Jolly said he was trying to make the point that perhaps there could be some way in which new entrants to the adviser role could perform some of their adviser tasks whilst they were studying to achieve the minimum level of qualification to be deemed to be competent.
However I’m sure Mr Jolly can explain what he meant in a much better way than I can so I have asked him to let me have a small contribution explaining his comments which we can publish on this site.
He also said he would address any concerns any of you had so if you would like to leave a comment for Mr Jolly, please do so.
Incidentally, as many of you will know we are in the process of arranging a series of regional meetings and these have now virtually been finalised (watch this space). We shall be inviting Mr Jolly to attend one of these meeting so that he gets a much better understanding of what a paraplanner actually does, how we are not over qualified office staff and how we are an integral and valuable part of any Financial Planners team.
I, much like others on here, wasn’t aware that you could have an ‘over-qualified paraplanner’. Is this possible?.
I agree with James, Mr Jolly does give the impression that he sees paraplanners as glorified administrators, but he is not alone in the industry in believing that.
I am sure it was merely a slip but I did allow myself a wry smile that the ‘Head of Distribution Policy’ at a major life office manages to denigrate a group of people who (in the main) are the people who actually place the business with his company.
A nicely placed own goal.
I’m looking forward to seeing what Peter has to say on the subject. It is clearly a bit of an ‘own goal’ based on the reaction on the site and emails we have receievd but I would say that Standard Life does value paraplanners, or at least those here, as they are about to give us quite a bit of support for our soon to be announced Paraplanning Workshops. Not that that would sway our opinion about them in any way of course, but just wanted to let you know that there isn’t a corporate view against paraplanners!
We’ve now posted Peter Jolly’s reply which you can see here on the front page or by clicking the paraplanning category link above.