Just looking at doing a short course to obtain basic PS146 compliance. Looking at Kaplan (Tribeca) but anybody got any suggestions?
-
Guest - BigFooty Tipping 2026 - Get on! - $500 first prize - Weekly Prizes - Click to Join
PLUS Your club board comp is now up!
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Opening Round
The Golden Ticket - Official AFL on-seller of MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
PS146 training
- Thread starter Brad Goodman
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
I thought they were only up to Play Station 2? Or is it 3?
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2000
- Posts
- 11,505
- Reaction score
- 8,302
- Location
- Victoria home of football
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Eagles
PS146 is the biggest load of rubbish. I don't know why its even relevant anymore, as the standard is so low its pointless. Company I work at was recently interviewing applicants and wanted someone PS146 compliant. As the person would essentially be supporting me and work up to take over my role in the future, my boss included me in the interview process.
I asked basic questions, and i mean basic questions that our receptionist can answer, and they had either no idea or gave such obscure answers it didn't convince me they knew what they were talking about.
PS146 is irrelevant. The qualifications required of Financial Planners is also a joke. Had a client recently come in with a SOA from a major bank. They were gonna leave our practice and in an effort to retain their business we got them in to our office. That SOA didn't address estate planning, put the clients investments into a high risk portfolio (despite the clients being within 5yrs of retirement) and recommended rolling over the super to the bank without addressing the loss of insurance cover. The advice they received bordered on criminally negligent. Some of these planners sit there with a Superannuation PDS in one hand and a Managed fund PDS in the other, and hand out generic SOA's.
With such low standards in the industry, its no wonder FP's are viewed with suspicion.
I asked basic questions, and i mean basic questions that our receptionist can answer, and they had either no idea or gave such obscure answers it didn't convince me they knew what they were talking about.
PS146 is irrelevant. The qualifications required of Financial Planners is also a joke. Had a client recently come in with a SOA from a major bank. They were gonna leave our practice and in an effort to retain their business we got them in to our office. That SOA didn't address estate planning, put the clients investments into a high risk portfolio (despite the clients being within 5yrs of retirement) and recommended rolling over the super to the bank without addressing the loss of insurance cover. The advice they received bordered on criminally negligent. Some of these planners sit there with a Superannuation PDS in one hand and a Managed fund PDS in the other, and hand out generic SOA's.
With such low standards in the industry, its no wonder FP's are viewed with suspicion.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2004
- Posts
- 661
- Reaction score
- 257
- Location
- perth
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Port Adelaide Magpies
PS146 is irrelevant. The qualifications required of Financial Planners is also a joke. Had a client recently come in with a SOA from a major bank. They were gonna leave our practice and in an effort to retain their business we got them in to our office. That SOA didn't address estate planning, put the clients investments into a high risk portfolio (despite the clients being within 5yrs of retirement) and recommended rolling over the super to the bank without addressing the loss of insurance cover. The advice they received bordered on criminally negligent. Some of these planners sit there with a Superannuation PDS in one hand and a Managed fund PDS in the other, and hand out generic SOA's.
With such low standards in the industry, its no wonder FP's are viewed with suspicion.
While I agree with much of what you say, it is unfortunate fact that PS146 is seen pretty much as required training for planners. It is alos unfortunate, as you bank example shows, that the planner industry has not yet moved away from its life insurance sales origins and thus the industry cannot be regarded as professional. Quick question though, why didn't you or your company report that bank example to ASIC? I'm sure they would be interested, it smells similar to the AMP superannuation misselling issue which ASIC came down hard.
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2000
- Posts
- 11,505
- Reaction score
- 8,302
- Location
- Victoria home of football
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Eagles
Dunno. To be honest it never actually came up for discussion. Its not my place to take that action, and I guess the boss has no intention to get involved in what could turn ugly.
I'd be surprised if ASIC wasn't aware of how banks operate. There seems to be a different set of rules for the banks, and a different set of rules for the rest of the financial planning industry.
- Thread starter
- #7
I don't think I would be learning anything new by obtaining PS146 compliance, having done an honours degree in finance, but virtually every ad I see mentions it. At $438 for the Kaplan course (which I could probably do with my eyes closed) I might as well fork out the cash.
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2000
- Posts
- 11,505
- Reaction score
- 8,302
- Location
- Victoria home of football
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- Eagles
Unfortunately HR and recruitment companies are ignorant of what PS146 is. If you walked into a company with your qualifications, a person working in finance would hire you. An HR clown would say you're not qualified because you don't have a PS146 specific course completed
- Joined
- Oct 3, 2002
- Posts
- 18,690
- Reaction score
- 5,152
- Location
- Beaumaris
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
- Other Teams
- Collingwood
Daddy
No one in the industry is ignorant of what it is. It was brought in so the government could put its hand on its chest and state that it has 'regulated' the industry. Initially the bar was set low to allow all of the advisors already in the industry to 'qualify' as a lot were old and not up to studying.
Problem is they have not raised the bar since and it has become a money making excercise. I have done Series 7 and it is similar, goes longer but that is the only difference along with different terminology. It has just become a money making scheme along with the ong-going education requirements.
ASIC is the problem, they sit there and knock a guy out of the industry for not doing a SOA for his family members, yet hacks working in the banking sector churn out utter crap, people inside trade and real estate based 'schemes' burn millions of dollars every year but as long as you do your SOA you are compliant.
Like you I could rant about this for hours.
Abba you have to do it, most will want it. Just grit your teeth and get on with it.
No one in the industry is ignorant of what it is. It was brought in so the government could put its hand on its chest and state that it has 'regulated' the industry. Initially the bar was set low to allow all of the advisors already in the industry to 'qualify' as a lot were old and not up to studying.
Problem is they have not raised the bar since and it has become a money making excercise. I have done Series 7 and it is similar, goes longer but that is the only difference along with different terminology. It has just become a money making scheme along with the ong-going education requirements.
ASIC is the problem, they sit there and knock a guy out of the industry for not doing a SOA for his family members, yet hacks working in the banking sector churn out utter crap, people inside trade and real estate based 'schemes' burn millions of dollars every year but as long as you do your SOA you are compliant.
Like you I could rant about this for hours.
Abba you have to do it, most will want it. Just grit your teeth and get on with it.