When I first entered the financial services industry, I set myself a goal to become a Fellow.
It wasn’t about collecting shiny badges or flaunting letters after my name. It was about holding myself to the standard I’d expect if I were to trust someone with my life savings.
There are plenty of examples of great financial planners who have chosen not to pursue further qualifications. There are others that have aimed for chartered or CFP and chosen to stop. And then a small minority (I think less than 1%) went all the way to Fellow.
However, the lack of letters does not reflect lack of knowledge or experience, neither will the presence of letters earn you more clients. So, why consider the commitment to further qualifications?
Compared to other professions, financial planning requires less time, training and financial investment to enter
Our industry aspires to be seen as a true profession, akin to law, medicine, or accountancy.
Qualifications play a role in shaping that perception. To understand where we stand, let’s compare the pathways to becoming a solicitor, accountant, doctor, or teacher:
| Profession | Exams | Study Time | Years of Training | Est. cost | Additional Notes |
| Solicitor | Multiple | 3-6 years | 2-3 years | £78,990 |
|
| Accountant | 14-16 | 3-4 years | 3-5 years | £21,356 |
|
| Teacher | 1-2 | 3-4 years | 1 year | £21,535. |
|
| Doctor | Multiple | 5-6 years | 2+ years | £124,895 |
|
| Civil Servant | Varies | N/A | On-the-job | £30,000 |
|
| Financial planner | 6 | 1-2 years | 1-2 years | £3,000 |
|
It’s clear that, compared to other professions, financial planning requires significantly less time, training and financial investment to enter. Does this set us apart from our competitors?
On a professional level, raising the bar could help trust and standards in our field. As financial planners, we carry enormous responsibility: we guide individuals and families through some of the most critical decisions of their lives. Shouldn’t we demonstrate the same level of rigor and commitment as other trusted professions?
There’s an opportunity to redefine what it means to be a financial adviser
On a personal level, further qualifications can offer more than just credibility. They build confidence, enhance your skills, and signal a commitment to continuous professional development.
Those letters after your name might not guarantee more clients, but they could reflect your dedication to being the best version of yourself for the people you serve.
We’re at a crossroads. As the financial planning industry continues to evolve, there’s an opportunity to redefine what it means to be a financial adviser.
FA2B: What’s the best order for sitting exams?
- Could raising the qualification standard help reform the profession? Perhaps.
- Should every adviser pursue advanced qualifications? That’s for each individual to decide.
But whether it’s for personal growth, professional reputation, or simply the satisfaction of knowing you’ve gone the extra mile, it’s worth reflecting on what those additional letters might mean to you—and your clients.
As we strive for greater recognition and trust as a profession, perhaps it’s time to ask ourselves: do we truly reflect the standards we expect from the professions we admire?
Emmelia Powell is a financial planner at Premier Wealth Solutions
An interesting article… and one which rarely views the whole market for professional advice…
Interestingly, none of the others carries lifelong liability, are not resposible for their advice under decisions of others – a Judgement against a case does not leave a lawyer facing ruin, except for negligence.
The others, too, do not have a lickspittle regulator which serves only to keep politicians’ feet from any fire… + a professional body which is actually awake and takes real action (eventually) against bad apples – CII hello….ZZZzzzzz…. and thinks of improvement.
By this I mean NOT finding more covert ways to amrk own homework!
Mainly of course they have history, custom, and standing to fall back upon… lawyers particualrly took ages to be respected – Shakespeare was no fan; and the original meaning of ‘shyster’ referred to lawyers
Ms Powell is right… advisers still have a long way to go before gaining real armour – although, as said by me before here MM… quite why reinsurance to close seems mythical to FCA/CII seems strange, after all, same carriers are already taking premium for annual PI cover – non?
Bearing in mind!! “DB” transfers required additional qualifications and “Complaince”, plus PI, yet, the most costly miss-advising in our industry was “DB” transfers. Integrity, client trust and personal accountabilty is paramount to survive, I have never found an exam on these!!!!
Quite right!…
Possibly because little of those highly desriable traits are shown by the great & the good… FCA… CII… ZZZzzz…
A good article Emmelia with sound, balanced observations. Insisting on the ‘chartered’ qualification (or equivalent) for new entrants would be beneficial, as would properly structured training contracts. I see no merit in insisting on this for those who are already practising, as such retrospection can rarely be justified. Exam syllabuses impart considerable information in a structured manner over a relatively short period, with absorption tested by examination. By no means is retention guaranteed and few advisers aspire to being ‘general practitioners’. I know to examine state benefits carefully if I advise a client who qualifies for them (very rarely) – but do not need the encyclopaedic knowledge of the system the venerable examination boards would no doubt require.
“Thank you doctor. How long did you study for? Oh, you never went to Uni or took exams! But you have had plenty of experience.”
Qualifications are part (an important part) but alone they can be pretty worthless, experience counts as well and a lifetime in financial services is no advantage. In our field there are three important attributes:
1. Good qualifications
2. Experience
3. Experience in a commercial environment outside financial services.
(Too many lack commercial ‘nous’)
I remember when the FPC was introduced as the basic qualification for financial advisers.
There was a great hullabaloo, with existing advisers insisting that they should be grandfathering into the new regime based on their experience and existing knowledge.
To cut a long story short. Grandfathering wasn’t allowed and a lot of the people who claimed to have such high levels of knowledge couldn’t pass the exams and left the business.
I have never heard a financial adviser admit to lacking technical knowledge and I have been in the business for over 40 years. But when put to the test many have been found lacking. Make sure that you are not one of them, by ensuring that you know what you are talking about.