The biggest part of my working day is spent in discussions with candidates on the topic of the regulatory exams. Most of the conversations and correspondence originated where candidates were trying to establish the best way to prepare, or required a sympathetic shoulder after having written unsuccessfully. Quite often, a different approach meant a different result, and the follow-on conversation, after passing, usually assumed a totally different tone.
A mini poll on our website shows a tie between those who felt that the regulatory exams made a difference in their business, and those who felt that it added nothing.
I chose one response from a broker which possibly sums up the general consensus of most advisors out there:
I do not have too much of a complaint about doing the regulatory exams, but do protest the effectiveness thereof. The regulators failed to deliver education and testing that will make a meaningful difference to the end consumer and the industry. This is what the debate should be about, and not about whether there is a need for these exams.
If we agree that a different approach could have led to a far wider acceptance of the level 1 exams, how should the level 2 exams and continuous professional development be implemented to achieve this?
Please share your views on our website by clicking here.
