One commentator has complained that express broker education is letting down the industry – do you agree?
One commentator has complained that express broker education is letting down the industry – do you agree?
Are Certificate IV qualifications becoming ‘worthless pieces of paper’? That’s what , managing director of Intellitrain group of companies, warned in a controversial opinion piece on MPA Online on Monday.
Being told that your hard-earned qualification is simply ‘a ticket to operate’, or that your new brokers could lack basic competency and compliance skills was bound to antagonise readers. Yet the discussions which evolved in the comments below the piece were detailed, good natured and deeply professional – we’ve picked out the best (all comments are abridged):
Aarong kicked off the conversation, arguing educational requirements were already too high:
“…I think the industry has just gone crazy with compliance and the reason is a fundamental one where brokers are being required to be credit managers. This necessitates more education and really this never should have been the case as the broker market was running just fine prior to the NCCP/regulation requirements…A broker should be able to do a 2 week course with an aggregator and then go out and be a broker.”
Jeff Mazzini picked up on the high drop-out rate of brokers:
“Many new entrants have stars in their eyes when they hear the potential income they can earn but in reality they need to carry themselves financially for up to 6 months or more...Perhaps if there was industry solution overall via solutions from within the industry or representation to Governments to have this professions noted and the need to provide income support system for the first 6 months of operation”
Original author Paul Eldridge responded to criticisms:
“Maybe the MFAA and FBAA should have an entrance exam as a way of creating a minimum education/knowledge benchmark - i.e. if you cant pass this exam, then you really don't have the fundamental knowledge needed to start working in this industry.
…If we don't do something about managing the quality of education provided in this industry ourselves, then ASIC will. This is the cautionary tale - we don't want the same kind of scrutiny that the Planning Industry is facing. Personally, I think the Diploma is sufficient. It doesn't need to be higher. What it needs to be is a quality Diploma.”
Peter Heinrich suggested government control could be harming diplomas:
“A requirement for a training company to retain their license is that they should regularly consult industry on course requirements. I have seen no evidence that the Government department controlling training does that.”
TJ (Ballarat) warned that existing diplomas were being abused:
“I have seen broker groups & trainers "walk" very unlearned and unskilled trainee brokers through the whole diploma in Financial Services (even existing brokers who didn't want to do the required extra learning), inclusive of open book exams and the handing out of past responses to all questions to simply copy”
Peter T agreed education was inadequate, but doubted whether it could really address the broker’s main responsibilities:
“Brokers are problem solvers...To date there isn't a single course available to brokers that addresses creative thinking and problem solving skills. Every Cert IV and Diploma I've seen focuses heavily on compliance and only the most basic loan writing skills…The closest thing I've seen to meeting this need is the MFAA certified mentor program, but even this relies primarily on the mentors experience and ability.”
Paul Eldridge had the last word:
“I agree with you absolutely that the training must be practical. This gets to the heart of my point. This sort of real-world, practical information is what should be taught to people joining the industry and you can't do that by having someone go through a self-paced online course with very little to no trainer interaction and hope that the person is getting any sort of real education or practical knowledge about what is needed to succeed in the industry.”
Can broker education ever reflect the real world? Or is 'learning on the job' just a byword for ignorance? Continue the discussion now.
Are Certificate IV qualifications becoming ‘worthless pieces of paper’? That’s what , managing director of Intellitrain group of companies, warned in a controversial opinion piece on MPA Online on Monday.
Being told that your hard-earned qualification is simply ‘a ticket to operate’, or that your new brokers could lack basic competency and compliance skills was bound to antagonise readers. Yet the discussions which evolved in the comments below the piece were detailed, good natured and deeply professional – we’ve picked out the best (all comments are abridged):
Aarong kicked off the conversation, arguing educational requirements were already too high:
“…I think the industry has just gone crazy with compliance and the reason is a fundamental one where brokers are being required to be credit managers. This necessitates more education and really this never should have been the case as the broker market was running just fine prior to the NCCP/regulation requirements…A broker should be able to do a 2 week course with an aggregator and then go out and be a broker.”
Jeff Mazzini picked up on the high drop-out rate of brokers:
“Many new entrants have stars in their eyes when they hear the potential income they can earn but in reality they need to carry themselves financially for up to 6 months or more...Perhaps if there was industry solution overall via solutions from within the industry or representation to Governments to have this professions noted and the need to provide income support system for the first 6 months of operation”
Original author Paul Eldridge responded to criticisms:
“Maybe the MFAA and FBAA should have an entrance exam as a way of creating a minimum education/knowledge benchmark - i.e. if you cant pass this exam, then you really don't have the fundamental knowledge needed to start working in this industry.
…If we don't do something about managing the quality of education provided in this industry ourselves, then ASIC will. This is the cautionary tale - we don't want the same kind of scrutiny that the Planning Industry is facing. Personally, I think the Diploma is sufficient. It doesn't need to be higher. What it needs to be is a quality Diploma.”
Peter Heinrich suggested government control could be harming diplomas:
“A requirement for a training company to retain their license is that they should regularly consult industry on course requirements. I have seen no evidence that the Government department controlling training does that.”
TJ (Ballarat) warned that existing diplomas were being abused:
“I have seen broker groups & trainers "walk" very unlearned and unskilled trainee brokers through the whole diploma in Financial Services (even existing brokers who didn't want to do the required extra learning), inclusive of open book exams and the handing out of past responses to all questions to simply copy”
Peter T agreed education was inadequate, but doubted whether it could really address the broker’s main responsibilities:
“Brokers are problem solvers...To date there isn't a single course available to brokers that addresses creative thinking and problem solving skills. Every Cert IV and Diploma I've seen focuses heavily on compliance and only the most basic loan writing skills…The closest thing I've seen to meeting this need is the MFAA certified mentor program, but even this relies primarily on the mentors experience and ability.”
Paul Eldridge had the last word:
“I agree with you absolutely that the training must be practical. This gets to the heart of my point. This sort of real-world, practical information is what should be taught to people joining the industry and you can't do that by having someone go through a self-paced online course with very little to no trainer interaction and hope that the person is getting any sort of real education or practical knowledge about what is needed to succeed in the industry.”
Can broker education ever reflect the real world? Or is 'learning on the job' just a byword for ignorance? Continue the discussion now.
