RG146: Have your say

by |

Last week’s article on RG146 standards caused a bit of commotion among Wealth Professional readers.

Comments ranged from readers calling RG146 “a joke”, to others saying the requirement was “more than enough for anyone to complete and enter the industry.”

“I completed the RG146 course 3 years into my career as a Planners Assistant. I already had the knowledge I needed to get started in the industry but not the qualification… yes RG146 taught me what I already knew. But it was a better option than going to uni full time for at least 2 years than starting again,” said another reader.

Wealth Pro has decided to gauge just how the industry feels by posting a poll on our website and calling for you to have your say.

What do you think the requirements should be to become a financial planner?

  1. RG146 is enough
  2. A mandatory tertiary qualification
  3. A number of years’ experience
  4. None of the above, something new

Take part in our poll here.

  • Shane O'Grady on 11/04/2013 8:10:58 PM

    I think RG146 is enough to get entry into financial planning, however it's rediculous to think someone with RG146 ONLY could possibly give quality financial advice. While RG146 alone is considered acceptable, we will continue to be referred to as an 'industry'. When we consider RG146 as a gate opener and the add experience and ( insert cool idea here) , we become a profession. If we let anyone in, seriously what is the standard?

    Lets look at RG146, overplayed with experience. Experience is where the true learning occurs.

WP forum is the place for positive industry interaction and welcomes your professional and informed opinion.

Name (required)
Comment (required)
By submitting, I agree to the Terms & Conditions