Secondary

Continuous Professional Development

In May we published a series of articles on what can be regarded as phase 3 of the Regulatory Examinations: Continuous Professional Development (CPD). It now appears as if a number of training service providers are jumping on this band wagon to capitalise on the opportunity at the expense of advisors who are keen to stay on the right side of the regulator.

Where attending CPD is part of the membership requirements of a professional body, the members will benefit from a CPD points perspective only in so far as its membership of the body is concerned. If you are not a member of a body such as the FPI, then you currently have no obligation whatsoever to obtain CPD points.

In our articles, we cautioned readers against investing in training for purposes of obtaining CPD points relating to the regulatory exams, as this process is still far from finalised. Please visit the    RE library on our website to download a document containing CPD guidelines. We discuss the proposed obligations of the regulator, training service providers and FSPs.

To the best of my knowledge, none of the registration procedures, nor reporting structures, are in place at the Regulator.

SPECIFIC CONDITIONS FOR CPD PROVIDERS
The specific conditions that apply to CPD Providers are:
(1) An organisation that offers CPD programmes to members or employees can apply for recognition as a CPD provider.
(2) The CPD Provider is required to:
(a) annually provide their CPD programme for the next year to the Registrar…
(b) provide monthly registers to the Registrar, updating the individual records of sole proprietors, key individuals and/or representatives participating in the CPD programme…

Despite this, I receive two or more invitations per week to attend CPD training, with some even claiming FSB registration.

If you are considering attending such training, we advise you to study the requirements below (which are not yet law) and to test specifically whether the provider claims that the training will count towards the fit and proper requirements relating to FAIS CPD.

We fully endorse the provision of training, specifically where it contributes towards the professionalisation of the industry.

What we strongly object to, is providers who try and dupe FSPs into parting with their dwindling financial resources under false pretences. Some are even loading their fees to capitalise on the fears of advisors.

We would like to see some kind of censure for such providers, even if it is just a rogues gallery to help advisors give them a wide berth, although I suspect penalties in line with compliance transgressions, would find bigger favour in the industry.

Comments are closed.