Here at The Paraplanner we have been involved with the IFP in developing the new qualification for paraplanners. The syllabus has been published today and you can read it here. We would really like to know your thoughts so that we can pass these on. It would also be good to know what title you would like to be able to use once the exam has been passed.
Paraplanner qualification syllabus published
Previous post: Pick a colour on the risk-profiling rainbow
Next post: Mind Mapping Software
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Hi Richard
Many thanks for the email. Have had a quick look through the attachment and just wanted some clarification. Am I right in thinking that once you have the necessary level 3 and 4 exams you are then required to sit a further exam to confirm your understanding of the qualifications you already hold ??
If that is the case then so be it but some of the exams I hold I passed some 5 or 6 years ago so it would be a case of revisiting all the syllabus to refresh myself as I currently use the books as reference as and when they are required in my day to day role as a paraplanner. Don’t get me wrong if it needs to be done then fine but I was under the impression from attending the forum with NMG that people that had already acquired the level 3 and 4 would not need to sit a further exam?
Regarding the title, IFP Paraplanner would be fine or just Paraplanner.
regards
Rob
Thanks Rob. The IFP has come up with the final syllabus and the purpose of this message was to gain the thoughts, comments and suggestions from people like you which are so valuable in the whole process. We intend to ask the IFP to comment in a few days with some answers/clarification on the points raised.
Looks good think your missing a few bits – some suggestions –
Keyman
Share/business protection
Portfolio Benchmarking and portfolio returns assessment
Understanding Modern Portfolio stats & ratio’s and how to assess collective funds
understanding CAPM & asset allocation modelling (brief undertsanding) (pro’s and cons)
Pro’s and cons of fund research houses (quant and qual)
Fund charges TER/AMC
Passive Vs Tracker
Portfolio strategies (satellite core etc)
Thanks Mungkey – great input as always.
Suggestion via Twitter – Qualified Financial Paraplanner
QFP sounds good.
Utterly Brilliant Paraplanner would be better though
The syllabus looks robust and will be a big step for defining the role.
The one thing that I feel could improve the syllabus is having a section on Sales. Even if just to demonstrate an appreciation of the sales/ influencing process that a face-to-face adviser goes through would be useful. I actually think this subject is vital in any FS syllabus and in the case of this qualification would help market paraplanners properly to prospective employers (who quite often are on the “sales” side).
I like QFP as a designation and can’t better it at the moment!
Thank you for the comments. It is really useful to get feedback.
We did talk to a lot of people about the suggested entry requirements. From our research, we found that most paraplanners hold an appropriate exam and many have or are working towards a Diploma or a higher qualification. It was felt that knowledge of taxation was very key to the role of a paraplanner and so we suggest J01 (or equivalent). We don’t want to duplicate what has been tested previously but rather to assess it in a paraplanning context. It may also be some time since these qualifications were achieved so again there is a verification that the paraplanner can apply this knowledge now. We would also envisage this qualification as being a step towards the Certified Financial Planner qualification for those who wish to progress to this.
We do have the option to develop some more specialised units along the lines given by Mungkey Fury and some people have suggested an Advanced Paraplanner qualification so we will keep this in mind.
The NMG research suggested many paraplanners did not want to be involved in a sales role but it is an interesting idea and we will explore this.
Thanks for the feedback on designations and titles – we are actively looking at these and want to find something that works , is not confusing and doesn’t cause trademark issues with other bodies. Any suggestions are most welcome.