I want to become a Paraplanner-a career change-seeking some advice

Rowena

Para-planning is a name shared by two different occupations in the financial
services industry. In some organisations a para-planner is effectively a
factory worker using software to take the scrabbling of a financial planner
and turn it into a meaningful set of recommendations for an adviser that
meet a compliance standard.

This role involves very little research or meaningful analysis. A comparable
occupations would be an underwriting assistant or a loans officer.

The second type is a more interesting role where the para-planner is better
educated and skilled than most of the advisers serviced. Here the
para-planner is more of a trainer/coach.

The main focus of the role is to assist advisers by increasing their
knowledge of strategies and their application.

To answer your questions

I wouldn't call financial planning a quiet job however some of the best
advisers I've seen spend most of their time listening rather than talking.
It is very client focussed but they have to influence people to consider
making decisions that may differ from some of their long held ideas.

Post by unknown
2. What exactly do I need before I can become a para-planner? I learned that
I need a DFP and need to be PS146 compliant and of course, some experience.
But what experience is enough to get to be a para-planner?

Policy Statement 146 does not require Para-Planners to be PS146 compliant
(PS146.17) however most licensees require their planners to hold
qualifications that meet this standard. Looking art your qualifications it
isn't clear whether you would gain any credit towards PS146.

Post by unknown
3. What is a good entry into this industry? I have developed a bit far in my
banking career and my current salary is obviously more than entry level. I
would consider an entry level position in this industry if the salary is
reasonably lower than my current salary. What kind of positions can I
choose? Financial Planning Assistant/Admin? Superannuation Admin? Funds
Admin? or Life Insurance Admin?

Personally I couldn't recommend anyone become a para-planner. The plan
writing tools available now/being developed reduce the role to data entry
clerk.

With the downwards pressure on commissions in Australia planners will need
to cut costs and doing their plans themselves is an obvious area to reduce
costs.

My 2c worth

unknown

2004-06-17 06:07:57 UTC

Thank you EEEK for such a detailed explanation. That sounds a bit
disappointing, though. I started as a DEO and don't want to end as a DEO. My
friend once said there are some kind of Underwriting positions in banks like
in Insurance companies which involve analytical skills. Have you got any job
titles so that I can do some research? Or how about Underwriter positions in
Insurance companies? Do you think it might suit my situation?

Post by EEEK
Rowena
Para-planning is a name shared by two different occupations in the financial
services industry. In some organisations a para-planner is effectively a
factory worker using software to take the scrabbling of a financial planner
and turn it into a meaningful set of recommendations for an adviser that
meet a compliance standard.
This role involves very little research or meaningful analysis. A comparable
occupations would be an underwriting assistant or a loans officer.

Travis Morien

2004-06-17 14:16:56 UTC

Yes, there are firms out there like that. The FPs that specialise in
mass produced financial plans flogging the same old products require
very little from their paraplanners. Such firms may not even employ
professionally qualified paraplanners, often paraplanning positions
are a promotion for the receptionist.

Post by EEEK
The second type is a more interesting role where the para-planner is better
educated and skilled than most of the advisers serviced. Here the
para-planner is more of a trainer/coach.

I don't know about the trainer/coach bit. The firm I'm moving into
shortly employs paraplanners who are unlike either of the descriptions
you have given above.

Many paraplanners from the more professional firms that produce proper
advice* are on a career path that makes them essentially trainee
financial planners. New recruits, usually uni graduates, are taken
into the firm with a view to training them as paraplanners, getting
them up to a particular level of experience and skill and then letting
them become advisors after a while.

* Professional firms that produce proper advice, as opposed to the
mediocre "sausage factory" places that only change the names and
addresses on their documents and keep flogging the same "plan" over
and over. Many of the firms that advertise in the Yellow Pages are
"sausage factories" because it takes so much time to prepare proper
comprehensive advice that the best advisors are kept busy by small
numbers of referrals, rather than needing a dozen leads a week.

These graduates are generally expected to study toward the Diploma of
Financial Planning while they work, many firms insist (although this
isn't a legal requirement) that their new recruits be PS146 compliant
(which means the first four units of the eight unit DFP should be
complete).

Paraplanning can be either a stepping stone to a career as a full
financial planner, or it can be a career in itself. There are many
paraplanners who have no intention of ever working direct with clients
so they instead concentrate on technical proficiency.

There is an enormous amount of technical knowledge required to be a
good paraplanner in a good firm. It is the paraplanner who usually
runs the numbers on various scenarios and has to find the optimal
solution taking into account tax, social security, risk etc. The best
financial planning firms prefer their advisors to have worked their
way up as a paraplanner for this very reason, it is felt that the best
advisors are highly experienced and technically competent.

If you want to see which firms to AVOID as a paraplanner (or as an
FP), check out the job ads for rookie financial planners and see which
ones recruit absolute beginners with no previous experience in ADVISOR
roles. These are usually the firms one should avoid as both an
employee and a client because they unleash poorly trained people on
the public essentially in a sales role. They are the 70% that give
the other 30% a bad name.

(The big insurance company's and bank's dealer groups are the ones
that tend to employ the most rookies as absolute beginners and my
first employment, which was not an experience I remember with
fondness, was with such a group.)

In my firm paraplanners are not coaches at all, nor are they clerks.
They are highly skilled future financial planners who's job is to turn
detailed notes and fact finding information into a comprehensive
financial plan (or at least a final draft) which is then passed on to
the planner who will check it and make changes if required, before
handing it back for a final check and printing.

It is partly my job, as a financial planner, to coach the paraplanner
to prepare plans the way I want them done. The paraplanner is
required to have a high level of skill and understanding of the
technical aspects of the job, including an ability to effectively use
the more advanced features of sophisticated modelling tools like
Visiplan.

There are of course junior and senior paraplanners, those who don't
feel they could bring in new business and just want a nice back office
job can stay in that role for many years, becoming a highly
experienced technical guru who is supposed to know the business inside
out. Such paraplanners are paid very well, as you would expect.

Post by EEEK
The main focus of the role is to assist advisers by increasing their
knowledge of strategies and their application.

I'm generally more knowledgable in technical issues than the
paraplanners, the requirement is that a paraplanner be technically
good enough to understand the strategy I've designed (which they must
number crunch and optimise) so I can spend more time speaking to
clients and generating business.

In a good financial planning firm there is no room either among
planners or paraplanners for technically inept people who try to bluff
their way through.

Paraplanners aren't there to teach me anything, they are there to
crunch the numbers and produce written reports on strategies I've
designed.

Of course in the "sausage factory" firms nobody really bothers with
high levels of technical competance. The paraplanner may be an
ex-receptionist with no formal qualifications, the planner might even
be a CFP but this doesn't amount to much if the advice being given is
all just product flogging.

It matters a lot whether you are working for a really good firm or one
of those firms that give the minority a bad name.

Post by unknown
1. Are there any more advanced analytical or mathematical or research
positions that I might suit? I learned that Financial Planner might be a
higher position and might earn more money but I don't want a too
customer-focused position as I prefer a quiet job, I mean, not too much
talking involved.

Well that is certainly the truth. A very good financial planner I
know here in Perth once threatened to charge a client a "Personal
Investor" fee, for all the time she wasted answering his questions
every month after he'd read whatever crap PI was writing in that
particular issue.

I've had a few clients who read these magazines, but after a couple of
years they get the message that journalists are not very good
financial advisors!

Examples being:

1. Large numbers of articles arguing that "value" was "overvalued",
so investors should swing back into growth stocks and managers.
Clients questioned my heavy tilt to value funds, especially the
Dimensional Fund Advisors Australian Value Trust. Twelve months on,
DFA Aust Value outpaced the general market by more than 10% and my
value managers (PM Capital, Platinum, Maple-Brown Abbott, Investors
Mutual etc) have delivered very good returns.

2. Much criticical journalism of Challenger International, a stock I
was at that time (Nov 02 - Jan 03) recommending to clients. Every
idiot and his idiot dog was accusing them of being Australia's answer
to Worldcom due to their "dodgy accounting". Soon after that Packer
took over the company and clients made very good money. The
accounting concerns were massively exaggerated.

3. Enormous volumes of print spent bashing the agribusiness sector, I
was recommending Timbercorp (then about 50c) and Great Southern
Plantations (then about 60c), which if you believe the press was sheer
madness. Twelve months on: Timbercorp is about $1.50, Great Southern
is about $3.00 and I still think they're undervalued.

I can't even begin to explain how much grief I've had trying to get
regular newspaper and magazine readers to ignore their weekly or
monthly dose of "financial pornography" and just hold undervalued
securities or invest with good value managers for the long term.

I doubt it. The OP would probably have to enrol right from the bottom
in DFP1 and start from there. To fasttrack the qualification, maybe
enrol in DFP1 and DFP2 at the same time.

Personally I couldn't recommend anyone become a para-planner. The plan
writing tools available now/being developed reduce the role to data entry
clerk.

I strongly disagree with that. It may be true in the lower quality
firms, but these firms don't bother with properly trained paraplanners
anyway, but in the good firms a very high level of skill is required
now and always will be.

Post by EEEK
With the downwards pressure on commissions in Australia planners will need
to cut costs and doing their plans themselves is an obvious area to reduce
costs.

Not at all. For a start, the majority of commission based advisors do
not work in the high quality end of the market so their "paraplanners"
are receptionists. Even shonky financial planners find it more
economical to have their receptionist prepare the basic generic plans.

High quality FPs are usually fee based, and there has been a strong
swing of consumer preference to this model. There has been no
reduction in fees, in fact I've noticed more and more that people are
willing to pay lots of money for good honest unbiased high quality
advice.

In my personal situation switching to a firm with very good
paraplanners means I make a lot more money. I spend more time on high
value activities talking to my clients and doing research while
somebody else is spending hours and hours doing basic number crunching
and preparing a document.

Evidence I've seen from industry surveys has confirmed that FPs who
have paraplanners tend to make a lot more money than FPs without,
simply because an FP's time is usually worth a lot more than a
paraplanner's time.

Post by EEEK
My 2c worth

I demand a refund!

Travis
www.travismorien.com

EEEK

2004-06-17 22:14:55 UTC

Good points about the trainee financial planner role I should have included
those for the purpose of providing a complete answer I didn't do so because
I sensed the client interaction role wasn't something Rowena wanted

Post by Travis Morien
* Professional firms that produce proper advice, as opposed to the
mediocre "sausage factory" places that only change the names and
addresses on their documents and keep flogging the same "plan" over
and over. Many of the firms that advertise in the Yellow Pages are
"sausage factories" because it takes so much time to prepare proper
comprehensive advice that the best advisors are kept busy by small
numbers of referrals, rather than needing a dozen leads a week.
There is an enormous amount of technical knowledge required to be a
good para-planner in a good firm.

The problem is that for many clients and people joining the industry is that
identifying the good firm which does good para-planning as opposed to those
who are committed to effective career development of staff is not simple.

Generally it's not politic to ask

'are you a sausage factory firm employing underqualified receptionists' ;-)

The good ones will say no and may be insulted (no job) the bad ones will say
no also give you a job (which is worse)

Often the client and employees only find out after a substantial commitment

Post by Travis Morien
It is the para-planner who usually
runs the numbers on various scenarios and has to find the optimal
solution taking into account tax, social security, risk etc. The best
financial planning firms prefer their advisors to have worked their
way up as a para-planner for this very reason, it is felt that the best
advisors are highly experienced and technically competent.

There are also the 'premium grade sausage factory' outfits that do more than
just change the name on the word template. A lot only rely on the options
available in the software they have. In some cases that software is provided
by a platform provider.

Post by Travis Morien
If you want to see which firms to AVOID as a para-planner (or as an
FP), check out the job ads for rookie financial planners and see which
ones recruit absolute beginners with no previous experience in ADVISOR
roles. These are usually the firms one should avoid as both an
employee and a client because they unleash poorly trained people on
the public essentially in a sales role. They are the 70% that give
the other 30% a bad name.
(The big insurance company's and bank's dealer groups are the ones
that tend to employ the most rookies as absolute beginners and my
first employment, which was not an experience I remember with
fondness, was with such a group.)

I think most financial planners can point to some stay in one of these
organisations ;-). While most do not have fond memories they are often the
only places to start a career in the industry. They are good places to find
out what sausage factory financial planning is all about, get some basic to
good grounding in financial concepts and sales skills.

Post by Travis Morien
It is partly my job, as a financial planner, to coach the para-planner
to prepare plans the way I want them done. The para-planner is
required to have a high level of skill and understanding of the
technical aspects of the job, including an ability to effectively use
the more advanced features of sophisticated modelling tools like
Visiplan.

Of course in some firms a high level of skill and understanding of the job =

1. turnaround a plan in 24 hours
2. read this months OnTrack Article and answer 6 questions (pass or ask your
mate for the answer)
3. try to stay awake during the PDSessions video because I'll need the
answers from you later

Post by Travis Morien
There are of course junior and senior para-planner, those who don't
feel they could bring in new business and just want a nice back office
job can stay in that role for many years, becoming a highly
experienced technical guru who is supposed to know the business inside
out. Such para-planner are paid very well, as you would expect.

I suppose that depends on your definition of very well (refer Simpson's
episode when Bart gets run over by a car)

I doubt it. The OP would probably have to enrol right from the bottom
in DFP1 and start from there. To fasttrack the qualification, maybe
enrol in DFP1 and DFP2 at the same time.

Rowena might get some credit if she goes to SIA for some of her quals but
nothing she had listed was on the ASIC Register

Post by EEEK
With the downwards pressure on commissions in Australia planners will need
to cut costs and doing their plans themselves is an obvious area to reduce
costs.

Not at all. For a start, the majority of commission based advisors do
not work in the high quality end of the market so their "para-planner"
are receptionists. Even shonky financial planners find it more
economical to have their receptionist prepare the basic generic plans.

Can we agree that these people should be excluded from our definition of
para-planner

Post by Travis Morien
High quality FPs are usually fee based, and there has been a strong
swing of consumer preference to this model.

Not sure I agree with this Travis

I think that if you are established in the high end of the market people
would normally come to you knowing what service is offered and the terms on
which it is provided. These people would have a strong preference for fee
based service.

People with a lot of invest-able assets aren't interested in a commission
based model because while accumulating these assets they worked out that
there is no direct correlation between the amount of work required to
provide good advice and the amount of money to be invested

Post by Travis Morien
There has been no
reduction in fees, in fact I've noticed more and more that people are
willing to pay lots of money for good honest unbiased high quality
advice.

I'd argue that your sample is not representative, in my experience there are
a number of groups of clients.

1. people who will pay a fee for value (your sample)
2 people who will pay a fee for anything providing it's sold well (Henry
Kaye's sample)
3. people who hate paying fees but accept it's a fact of life
4. people who hate paying fees but are to stupid to understand what an
entry fee represents
5. people who can't afford a fee but accept the commission structure offers
them access to financial products

Post by Travis Morien
In my personal situation switching to a firm with very good
paraplanners means I make a lot more money. I spend more time on high
value activities talking to my clients and doing research while
somebody else is spending hours and hours doing basic number crunching
and preparing a document.
Evidence I've seen from industry surveys has confirmed that FPs who
have paraplanners tend to make a lot more money than FPs without,
simply because an FP's time is usually worth a lot more than a
paraplanner's time.

Post by EEEK
My 2c worth

I demand a refund!

Please forward your tax invoice to

***@HenryKAyeSethicsfoundation.com.au

With an 8 x 10 of yourself and a para-planner in a compromising position.

Expect your refund in 7 to the power of 14 days

EEEK

Travis Morien

2004-06-18 03:23:31 UTC

Post by EEEK
The problem is that for many clients and people joining the industry is that
identifying the good firm which does good para-planning as opposed to those
who are committed to effective career development of staff is not simple.
Generally it's not politic to ask
'are you a sausage factory firm employing underqualified receptionists' ;-)
The good ones will say no and may be insulted (no job) the bad ones will say
no also give you a job (which is worse)
Often the client and employees only find out after a substantial commitment

Which is what happened with me at my first firm. They all looked
perfectly alright at first, and entry level people often don't get
much of a choice of firms and you're left with a "take it or leave it"
choice, but it wasn't until the boss told me off for telling a client
to leave their money in their industry super fund because the fees
were good and the insurance was cheap that I really realised what type
of people I was with.

(Though an earlier hint came when I was tagging along with the boss to
his client appointments in my first few weeks on the job and heard him
use Robert Kiyosaki's "don't work for your money, make your money work
for you" quote, which filled me with disgust.)

I don't know if anybody has read the June edition of Asset Magazine,
but they did an article on three financial planners (one from a bank,
one an independent, one from a dealer group), I was the independent.
I thought they dealt with my comments on my first employer with great
skill and tact, watering it down for a family audience. ;)

The ones that rely on software by a platform provider generally aren't
in the "premium" tier. Most of the good firms use either Macquarie or
BT Wrap, neither of which provide plan writing software.

Post by Travis Morien
(The big insurance company's and bank's dealer groups are the ones
that tend to employ the most rookies as absolute beginners and my
first employment, which was not an experience I remember with
fondness, was with such a group.)

I got no good grounding in investment skills at that firm, the day I
started I realised I knew more than my boss. This was confirmed as a
more general observation at the DFP workshops, where the training
supervisor struggled to explain basic financial concepts to advisors
with 20+ years of experience. I realised I not only worked for an
idiot, I was surrounded by them.

Of course in some firms a high level of skill and understanding of the job =
1. turnaround a plan in 24 hours
2. read this months OnTrack Article and answer 6 questions (pass or ask your
mate for the answer)
3. try to stay awake during the PDSessions video because I'll need the
answers from you later

Sure, but that doesn't count as "premium".

I suppose that depends on your definition of very well (refer Simpson's
episode when Bart gets run over by a car)

$50K for somebody with a few years experience, rising to $100K or
sometimes more if the paraplanner has supervision responsibilities.
Self employed paraplanners who cater to the outsourcing market can
make a lot more money than that.

Post by Travis Morien
I doubt it. The OP would probably have to enrol right from the bottom
in DFP1 and start from there. To fasttrack the qualification, maybe
enrol in DFP1 and DFP2 at the same time.

Rowena might get some credit if she goes to SIA for some of her quals but
nothing she had listed was on the ASIC Register

Only for partial units I suspect. I'm doubtful that she'd get an
exemption from a whole unit, but I'm not sure how the SIA recognition
of prior learning system works in practice.

Post by Travis Morien
Not at all. For a start, the majority of commission based advisors do
not work in the high quality end of the market so their "para-planner"
are receptionists. Even shonky financial planners find it more
economical to have their receptionist prepare the basic generic plans.

Can we agree that these people should be excluded from our definition of
para-planner

Sure, but then we'd have to exclude their bosses from the definition
of "financial planner". Hmmm... works for me!

Post by Travis Morien
High quality FPs are usually fee based, and there has been a strong
swing of consumer preference to this model.

By the time clients approach me they're already raving anti-commission
zealots. This is often from bast past experience, but just as often
they were won over by my arguments at my site.

Post by EEEK
People with a lot of invest-able assets aren't interested in a commission
based model because while accumulating these assets they worked out that
there is no direct correlation between the amount of work required to
provide good advice and the amount of money to be invested

From my engagement letter:
"Professional fees are rendered to reflect fairly the value of the
work performed, taking into account:
(a) The skill and knowledge required for the type of work;
(b) The level of training and experience of the persons necessarily
engaged in the work;
(c) The degree of responsibility applicable to the work; and
(d) The time of all persons engaged in the work."

Part (c) lends itself to there being some FUM component in the fee,
but the fee is not directly derived from FUM.

Post by Travis Morien
There has been no
reduction in fees, in fact I've noticed more and more that people are
willing to pay lots of money for good honest unbiased high quality
advice.

I'd argue that your sample is not representative, in my experience there are
a number of groups of clients.

I think I get a unique type of client from my web site, they tend to
be very well educated (I have several academics - one of them an
economist as clients), and quite high net worth (Average FUM probably
about a million). But even excluding myself there has been a trend in
recent years toward FFS and it is increasingly demanded by clients.

Post by EEEK
1. people who will pay a fee for value (your sample)
2 people who will pay a fee for anything providing it's sold well (Henry
Kaye's sample)

Aye, I think it was Terry Ryder that said "[Kaye] has taken the art of
getting people to pay ridiculous amounts of money for bad advice and
elevated it to a level no one else has quite managed in Australia."

I know someone who went along knowing it was a scam who nevertheless
came away mightily impressed by the sales pitch. They didn't buy of
course, but confessed that the sales pitch was incredibly good and
they found themselves wondering...

Post by EEEK
3. people who hate paying fees but accept it's a fact of life

Well that's most people. Many of this group are DIY investors who
wouldn't want to see an advisor. They often pay far more tax than
they need to and are unable to access a range of investment options
but they'd rather eat glass than pay somebody for financial services.
Not my target market. :)

Post by EEEK
4. people who hate paying fees but are to stupid to understand what an
entry fee represents

And that is the target market of many FA's, unfortunately.

Post by EEEK
5. people who can't afford a fee but accept the commission structure offers
them access to financial products

These are just a subset of 4, they are too stupid to understand that
commissions are not free.

Post by EEEK
My 2c worth

I demand a refund!

Please forward your tax invoice to

*ROTFL*

Post by EEEK
With an 8 x 10 of yourself and a para-planner in a compromising position.

Is a DVD ok?

Post by EEEK
Expect your refund in 7 to the power of 14 days
EEEK

:)

Travis
www.travismorien.com

EEEK

2004-06-18 04:09:22 UTC

Post by EEEK
2 people who will pay a fee for anything providing it's sold well (Henry
Kaye's sample)

Aye, I think it was Terry Ryder that said "[Kaye] has taken the art of
getting people to pay ridiculous amounts of money for bad advice and
elevated it to a level no one else has quite managed in Australia."
I know someone who went along knowing it was a scam who nevertheless
came away mightily impressed by the sales pitch. They didn't buy of
course, but confessed that the sales pitch was incredibly good and
they found themselves wondering...

Henry Kaye is the modern example of natural selection at work.

It reminds me of ASIC's warning last year when they launched that Don't Kiss
Your Money Good-bye. They used as an example the guy who had sent $50K to
Thailand after getting a phone call late one night.

Naturally they said the person on the phone was very convincing.

The speculation around the office moved quickly from 'how can they get away
with ripping people off?' to 'How did this guy accumulate 50K in the first
place!'

We decided it must be an inheritance from a distant relative

I love the Current Affair/Today Tonight's 'battler ripped off' stories when
you can see they working real hard trying to make the 'battler' look like
they have half a brain.

I really wish the reporter would ask - So what did you think was going to
happen!

Another favourite from ACA

Two blind people who went into the caravan rental business. Guess what -
people didn't return their vans.

'Can you describe the person who stole the van'

'No Officer'

'Can you describe the van'

.....

Gregory Toomey

2004-06-17 23:43:39 UTC

Post by Travis Morien
1. Large numbers of articles arguing that "value" was "overvalued",
so investors should swing back into growth stocks and managers.
Clients questioned my heavy tilt to value funds, especially the
Dimensional Fund Advisors Australian Value Trust. Twelve months on,
DFA Aust Value outpaced the general market by more than 10% and my
value managers (PM Capital, Platinum, Maple-Brown Abbott, Investors
Mutual etc) have delivered very good returns.

Is this available to retail investors? I thought DFA was an advisor &
offered wholesale funds.

gtoomey

Travis Morien

2004-06-18 13:35:37 UTC

Post by Gregory Toomey

Is this available to retail investors? I thought DFA was an advisor &
offered wholesale funds.

"Dimensional Fund Advisors" is a fund manager (not, as their name
would seem to imply, an asset consultant or financial advisor), they
specialise in "passive" funds but do not believe passive necessarily
has to mean "index hugging", so they instead create diversified
portfolios with certain desired characteristics such as "Large caps"
or "small caps" or "value" or "emerging markets" etc. They don't
believe in index hugging because they think indexes are arbitrary
things and having to maintain a low tracking error would get in the
way of being able to exploit low risk value adds like block trading or
investing in DRPs.

To access DFA directly you must use a DFA approved advisor. Minimum
investment is $500K per fund, I have a few clients who use them
directly but as you'd expect they're only the really wealthy ones.
Everyone else has to use a wrap or master trust, my preference being
Macquarie of course because they have very competitive fees.

www.dimensional.com.au

Travis
www.travismorien.com

Post by Gregory Toomey
gtoomey

Gregory Toomey

2004-06-17 23:57:48 UTC

Post by Travis Morien
I've had a few clients who read these magazines, but after a couple of
years they get the message that journalists are not very good
financial advisors!

Senor Skase was a journalist before Qintex.

gtoomney

tallgeese

2004-06-18 01:57:19 UTC

Hi im new to this group, Your message was very informative- thanks
alot Travis.

I'm a uni student who is graduating soon (finance and accounting
major), and the FP industry seems to appeal to me as a great career
path.

However I'm unsure of the best way of entering the industry. I would
like to eventually become a Financial Planner, firstly I'm looking to
become a paraplanner and work my way up into a financial planner so
that I can develop a full skill set to become a competent FP.

Problem is I'm unsure of how to get a entry level position as a
paraplanner in a "quality" firm. Ive read your FAQ (which is very
good) and it seems that working within a Bank is not the best option.
Browsing through job recruitment sites seem to reveal very few entry
level positions within paraplanning, although there seems to be a ton
of jobs for experienced paraplanners.

So how do "quality" financial planning firms go about recruiting for
entry level paraplanning positions? Should I be cold calling various
FP firms asking for a job?

Any input/advice you have for a uni student looking to break into
Financial Planning would be greatly appreciated, even just small facts
and thoughts.

Thanks for your help!

Post by EEEK
The second type is a more interesting role where the para-planner is better
educated and skilled than most of the advisers serviced. Here the
para-planner is more of a trainer/coach.

I don't know about the trainer/coach bit. The firm I'm moving into
shortly employs paraplanners who are unlike either of the descriptions
you have given above.
Many paraplanners from the more professional firms that produce proper
advice* are on a career path that makes them essentially trainee
financial planners. New recruits, usually uni graduates, are taken
into the firm with a view to training them as paraplanners, getting
them up to a particular level of experience and skill and then letting
them become advisors after a while.
* Professional firms that produce proper advice, as opposed to the
mediocre "sausage factory" places that only change the names and
addresses on their documents and keep flogging the same "plan" over
and over. Many of the firms that advertise in the Yellow Pages are
"sausage factories" because it takes so much time to prepare proper
comprehensive advice that the best advisors are kept busy by small
numbers of referrals, rather than needing a dozen leads a week.
These graduates are generally expected to study toward the Diploma of
Financial Planning while they work, many firms insist (although this
isn't a legal requirement) that their new recruits be PS146 compliant
(which means the first four units of the eight unit DFP should be
complete).
Paraplanning can be either a stepping stone to a career as a full
financial planner, or it can be a career in itself. There are many
paraplanners who have no intention of ever working direct with clients
so they instead concentrate on technical proficiency.
There is an enormous amount of technical knowledge required to be a
good paraplanner in a good firm. It is the paraplanner who usually
runs the numbers on various scenarios and has to find the optimal
solution taking into account tax, social security, risk etc. The best
financial planning firms prefer their advisors to have worked their
way up as a paraplanner for this very reason, it is felt that the best
advisors are highly experienced and technically competent.
If you want to see which firms to AVOID as a paraplanner (or as an
FP), check out the job ads for rookie financial planners and see which
ones recruit absolute beginners with no previous experience in ADVISOR
roles. These are usually the firms one should avoid as both an
employee and a client because they unleash poorly trained people on
the public essentially in a sales role. They are the 70% that give
the other 30% a bad name.
(The big insurance company's and bank's dealer groups are the ones
that tend to employ the most rookies as absolute beginners and my
first employment, which was not an experience I remember with
fondness, was with such a group.)
In my firm paraplanners are not coaches at all, nor are they clerks.
They are highly skilled future financial planners who's job is to turn
detailed notes and fact finding information into a comprehensive
financial plan (or at least a final draft) which is then passed on to
the planner who will check it and make changes if required, before
handing it back for a final check and printing.
It is partly my job, as a financial planner, to coach the paraplanner
to prepare plans the way I want them done. The paraplanner is
required to have a high level of skill and understanding of the
technical aspects of the job, including an ability to effectively use
the more advanced features of sophisticated modelling tools like
Visiplan.
There are of course junior and senior paraplanners, those who don't
feel they could bring in new business and just want a nice back office
job can stay in that role for many years, becoming a highly
experienced technical guru who is supposed to know the business inside
out. Such paraplanners are paid very well, as you would expect.

Post by EEEK
The main focus of the role is to assist advisers by increasing their
knowledge of strategies and their application.

I'm generally more knowledgable in technical issues than the
paraplanners, the requirement is that a paraplanner be technically
good enough to understand the strategy I've designed (which they must
number crunch and optimise) so I can spend more time speaking to
clients and generating business.
In a good financial planning firm there is no room either among
planners or paraplanners for technically inept people who try to bluff
their way through.
Paraplanners aren't there to teach me anything, they are there to
crunch the numbers and produce written reports on strategies I've
designed.
Of course in the "sausage factory" firms nobody really bothers with
high levels of technical competance. The paraplanner may be an
ex-receptionist with no formal qualifications, the planner might even
be a CFP but this doesn't amount to much if the advice being given is
all just product flogging.
It matters a lot whether you are working for a really good firm or one
of those firms that give the minority a bad name.

Well that is certainly the truth. A very good financial planner I
know here in Perth once threatened to charge a client a "Personal
Investor" fee, for all the time she wasted answering his questions
every month after he'd read whatever crap PI was writing in that
particular issue.
I've had a few clients who read these magazines, but after a couple of
years they get the message that journalists are not very good
financial advisors!
1. Large numbers of articles arguing that "value" was "overvalued",
so investors should swing back into growth stocks and managers.
Clients questioned my heavy tilt to value funds, especially the
Dimensional Fund Advisors Australian Value Trust. Twelve months on,
DFA Aust Value outpaced the general market by more than 10% and my
value managers (PM Capital, Platinum, Maple-Brown Abbott, Investors
Mutual etc) have delivered very good returns.
2. Much criticical journalism of Challenger International, a stock I
was at that time (Nov 02 - Jan 03) recommending to clients. Every
idiot and his idiot dog was accusing them of being Australia's answer
to Worldcom due to their "dodgy accounting". Soon after that Packer
took over the company and clients made very good money. The
accounting concerns were massively exaggerated.
3. Enormous volumes of print spent bashing the agribusiness sector, I
was recommending Timbercorp (then about 50c) and Great Southern
Plantations (then about 60c), which if you believe the press was sheer
madness. Twelve months on: Timbercorp is about $1.50, Great Southern
is about $3.00 and I still think they're undervalued.
I can't even begin to explain how much grief I've had trying to get
regular newspaper and magazine readers to ignore their weekly or
monthly dose of "financial pornography" and just hold undervalued
securities or invest with good value managers for the long term.

I doubt it. The OP would probably have to enrol right from the bottom
in DFP1 and start from there. To fasttrack the qualification, maybe
enrol in DFP1 and DFP2 at the same time.

Personally I couldn't recommend anyone become a para-planner. The plan
writing tools available now/being developed reduce the role to data entry
clerk.

Post by EEEK
With the downwards pressure on commissions in Australia planners will need
to cut costs and doing their plans themselves is an obvious area to reduce
costs.

Not at all. For a start, the majority of commission based advisors do
not work in the high quality end of the market so their "paraplanners"
are receptionists. Even shonky financial planners find it more
economical to have their receptionist prepare the basic generic plans.
High quality FPs are usually fee based, and there has been a strong
swing of consumer preference to this model. There has been no
reduction in fees, in fact I've noticed more and more that people are
willing to pay lots of money for good honest unbiased high quality
advice.
In my personal situation switching to a firm with very good
paraplanners means I make a lot more money. I spend more time on high
value activities talking to my clients and doing research while
somebody else is spending hours and hours doing basic number crunching
and preparing a document.
Evidence I've seen from industry surveys has confirmed that FPs who
have paraplanners tend to make a lot more money than FPs without,
simply because an FP's time is usually worth a lot more than a
paraplanner's time.

Post by EEEK
My 2c worth

I demand a refund!
Travis
www.travismorien.com

Travis Morien

2004-06-18 14:37:23 UTC

Post by tallgeese
Hi im new to this group, Your message was very informative- thanks
alot Travis.
I'm a uni student who is graduating soon (finance and accounting
major), and the FP industry seems to appeal to me as a great career
path.
However I'm unsure of the best way of entering the industry. I would
like to eventually become a Financial Planner, firstly I'm looking to
become a paraplanner and work my way up into a financial planner so
that I can develop a full skill set to become a competent FP.

Good for you, I find it a very rewarding profession (in, er, a
spiritual sense, I'm not talking about my income).

Post by tallgeese
Problem is I'm unsure of how to get a entry level position as a
paraplanner in a "quality" firm. Ive read your FAQ (which is very
good) and it seems that working within a Bank is not the best option.
Browsing through job recruitment sites seem to reveal very few entry
level positions within paraplanning, although there seems to be a ton
of jobs for experienced paraplanners.

My first job was with a big dealer group. They were, unfortunately,
the only people hiring at the entry level.

Most people "do their time" in such a firm, unless you were a
particularly gifted graduate and attracted the eye of a top firm
through their recruitment process you'll probably have to accept a
role as a fund flogger.

You can either sink into that and learn to flog funds and insurance
(as opposed to advise people as a professional) or you can try to do
your best under difficult circumstances and try to move over to a fee
for service position before eventually finding a better place to work.

I made almost no money during my first year as an FP. In some ways it
was the crapness of the firm (their only method of business generation
was telemarketing!!! You can't imagine how bad the leads I got were,
or how bad my "hit rate".) I made less than the tax free threshold.
Lucky I'm frugal... :)

After a year of that I had completed most of the DFP (with
distinctions) and approached a recruiting agency. I was offered
several positions which appeared to be very good but by this time I'd
grown wary of dealer groups and I turned them down. (To my wife's
enormous disgust, I might add. Surely I'd be willing to do a bit of
fund flogging with a salary like THAT? No chance...)

I then joined up with a small accounting and FP practice, where I've
been for the last couple of years. I've recently been invited to
become one of four partners in a new firm now and have done everything
except actually move in. The new firm has paraplanners and back
office people, which is nice because ever since I left my old dealer
group I've been writing my own plans AND doing all my own paperwork,
admin and compliance stuff.

My site has been very successful for me in terms of bringing in new
clients and I've also been asked to give a number of seminars and
lectures on investment to various groups (in July I'm giving a lecture
on value investing to the Perth chapter of the Australian Shareholders
Association for example) and I've appeared in magazines and newspapers
a few times (my site is excellent Google-bait I think) and a lot of
this has translated into a steady stream of new clients, but I've been
unable to capitalise on a lot of this business because of the slowness
of doing everything myself.

Some clients have waited a number of months to get their plan done,
for me finding clients has never been a problem, it was getting
everything finished. With a team of back office people hopefully I'll
be able to follow up all the leads I've already got.

Post by tallgeese
So how do "quality" financial planning firms go about recruiting for
entry level paraplanning positions? Should I be cold calling various
FP firms asking for a job?

You should be, but it will take some detective work to find the good
firms. You could start with the FPA's list of FPs and maybe the
yellow pages, perhaps even the Asset Magazine register of FPs, but
bear in mind that many of the top firms operate only by word of mouth.

The Asset FP directory is at the following link.
http://www.assetmag.com/

My tips would be that you have to be persistent, find out what you can
about the firm and explain to them why you think you're the person for
them and they're the firm for you. When I got my first job I just
accepted the one that offered it to me. I get people email me all the
time about this and I'm consistently told the only people hiring
rookies are the big (and crap) dealer groups.

Another tip I could give you is to call a few fund managers and ask to
be put through to a BDM (business development manager). They can't
offer you a job, but they know everybody and might give you a few
tips. Vanguard's BDM gave me a good list of fee for service firms and
even put a good word in for me.

Some of the recruiting agencies can also be helpful.

The problem is that the firms who employ inexperienced FPs tend to be
the ones with high staff turnover and also the most sales (as opposed
to advice) oriented. You may have no other choice but to accept a
role at such a place and then hang in there for a year or so, trying
to get "experience" and developing some good plans before the better
firms will talk to you.

If I were wanting to get into the industry again today I'd probably
try to get in via the paraplanner route rather than the FP route.
After a few years as a paraplanner you can either ask to be be given a
chance to get clients. This is the most painless route because
paraplanners tend to be salaried, so you won't have to starve for your
first 12 months if you refuse to fund flog.

Post by tallgeese
Any input/advice you have for a uni student looking to break into
Financial Planning would be greatly appreciated, even just small facts
and thoughts.

Hope this helps.

If you're still just a uni student maybe you could start looking for
good firms right now and try to get some sort of administrative job.
You'll pick up a few things and be considered for paraplanning if you
ask for it eventually.

Travis
www.travismorien.com

unknown

2004-06-18 12:28:08 UTC

Thanks Travis. Your posts gave me some hope back. I'm really interested in
Paraplanning now and would like to have it as my career. Well then how shall
I start? I will definitely enrol a DFP course. But I think I need to get
into this industry first so that I will understand what I am learning. Shall
I start as a receptionist (which I don't like) or is it possible to start as
a Trainee Paraplanner(I don't have any relative experience so I doubt any
firm would employ me)or Assistant Paraplanner (I don't know whether some a
position exists)? Since you are already in Financial Planning industry you
might know some of these entry level job titles. Please recommend some where
I can start working towards Paraplanning and learn DFP at the same time.
Thanks very much!

Travis Morien

2004-06-18 19:05:31 UTC

Post by unknown
Thanks Travis. Your posts gave me some hope back. I'm really interested in
Paraplanning now and would like to have it as my career. Well then how shall
I start? I will definitely enrol a DFP course. But I think I need to get
into this industry first so that I will understand what I am learning. Shall
I start as a receptionist (which I don't like) or is it possible to start as
a Trainee Paraplanner(I don't have any relative experience so I doubt any
firm would employ me)or Assistant Paraplanner (I don't know whether some a
position exists)? Since you are already in Financial Planning industry you
might know some of these entry level job titles. Please recommend some where
I can start working towards Paraplanning and learn DFP at the same time.
Thanks very much!

Well as somebody else here said you should talk to the HR people at
your bank.

If you are good at your current job presumably you'll get good
references within the bank, but as an additional bonus banks tend to
pay for their staff development costs.

I've got a couple of friends that stuck with a bank while they paid
his way through the DFP and CFP and at the same time paid him a
salary, then as soon as they got their CFP they left for a position
elsewhere.

I wouldn't recommend trying to find work as a receptionis in a FP
firmt. I might recommend that to a student wanting to get a foot in
the door but not to somebody already working.

The retail bank advisors have a reputation for high volume product
flogging but several banks actually have more elite positions in their
"private bank" divisions that look after the high net worth clients.
Macquarie, ANZ, Westpac and probably the rest all have private banking
divisions where the FPs are able to recommend quite sophisticated
strategies and products.

If I wasn't having any success as an independent advisor right now I'd
probably be willing to take a private bank job, but I wouldn't want to
be one of the guys at the branch offices.

But before you get too huffy about the dealer groups, it is worth
understanding the context in which I hate them so much.

I'm a very keen investor, I entered the FP profession because I
believe I am skilled in this area and thought I'd make a good advisor.
As it happens, so far I have been, although FP's are about more than
just investment I've easily "beaten the market" with my portfolios
since I left my first firm. My clients are very happy, those who had
direct stock recommendations saw that portion of their portfolio more
than double.

I'm into what is known as "value investing", as well as being very
conscious of costs, since I know that all things being equal the lower
the costs I can achieve for my clients (by selection of inexpensive
products) the better the returns I'll get for them.

You can read about all of these at:
www.travismorien.com/investment.ppt
www.travismorien.com/portfolio.ppt
www.travismorien.com/higherreturns.htm

As you'll see from reading all three articles, I like to pick my own
managers my own way. I like index funds and I like aggressive value
oriented "boutiques". I also like to choose my own asset allocations.

At my first dealer group there were no index funds on the recommended
product list, though we could access index funds via the parent
company's master trust.

That should come as little surprise, index funds have never been
popular among advisors. But what was really terrible was that there
were no value managers on the version of the recommended product list
that junior advisors were able to use. There I was at the start of
what I believed would be a bloodbath for "growth" managers and a
golden age for "value" managers (and as it turns out, I was right) and
I couldn't recommend any value managers.

Nor could I recommend any boutiques. As a junior advisor it shouldn't
be surprising that there were no boutique managers available to me but
even the senior ones couldn't recommend them because the recommended
product list consisted only of the big brand name managers like
Colonial First State and Credit Suisse. The research manager, who I
thought was a great guy despite his employer, explained to me that for
a large dealer group boutiques present a real problem because of the
sheer weight of inflows and outflows a dealer's recommendations could
create. Due to this liquidity constraint, we only had the big,
non-indexed, mainly "growth" managers that I really don't like.

Also, we didn't have much of a choice of super funds. Again, the
recommended product lists were biased in favour of the parent
company's products and we could not use other products. I wanted to
use Macquarie Super Manager because it was cheaper than our product
and had a better selection of funds, but it wasn't on the RPL.

So I was forced to recommend only products that I didn't like. I
would imagine many of that dealer group's clients would have suffered
badly during the bear market, since they were to a large extent
invested in active growth funds via a relatively expensive master
trust.

But the main problem wasn't even the products, it was the culture.
The group was decended from an insurance background and most of the
more experienced advisors had been insurance salesmen for the last 20
years. These were the guys that used to knock on doors selling high
commission savings and super products, the ones that today everyone
regrets due to their huge exit fees.

Their culture has improved somewhat, but still see it as a sales game.
My firm employed telemarketers advertising a non-existent "special
deal" on insurance (I asked about the special deal, they were
referring to some promotion where certain bulk clients like members of
a professional association could qualify for a discount - but this was
never really discussed). The culture was like any direct selling
organisation, you were supposed to do a certain number of appointments
and hopefully get a certain number of sales. It was all commission
based, the principal of the firm thought I was a weirdo for wanting to
move to fee for service and at any rate refused to give up his trail
commissions.

Numerous comments backed this up. One day toward the end of my time
there he was looking through the commission statements and chastised
me for recommending so many group rate life and income protection
insurance policies (via super funds). These only pay a level
commission of about 15% to 20% of the premium, compared to retail
insurance policies that pay usually more than 100% up front and about
8%pa. Needless to say the insurance companies have to recover these
payments which is why retail costs a lot more than group rate.

Disappointed, he took me aside and said "Travis, look, at the end of
the day, we're only salesmen. It is all about commissions...". I was
more or less ordered to stop using those types of products and focus
on the high commission stuff.

Before leaving the dealer group I looked for other practices within
the same group that I could switch to. I soon found that although the
guy I worked with was one of the worse ones, the majority of the
others weren't much better. I'd seen highly experienced advisors
unable to answer even basic financial and technical questions during
the DFP workshop, so I knew that the dealer group probably wasn't the
place for me.

Before settling down in my next dealer group I looked at other
options. I talked to several dealer groups and was told I was too
much of a compliance risk by one (they were upset when I asked if they
had Streettracks index funds on their RPL, such independence of
thought was obviously a liability). Others thought my web site was
going to be a problem as it raised the spectre of compliance risks for
the dealer. One told me to go talk to a stock broking firm instead,
perhaps my investment skills would be more welcome there.

When I did approach the stock brokers I wasn't much happier. I saw an
even more aggressive commission culture, complete with (in many cases)
monthly performance targets. I had this image in my mind of being
told "Travis, it's the 20th already and you're $5,000 under target.
Now lets have a look at these portfolios and see which stocks we
should trade."

Another stock broking firm though was unhappy that I was a value
investor. I produced an essay on value investing for them at my first
interview where I wrote all about my methods of stock picking. They
told me this stuff was great but more suited to funds management.
They told me I was "overqualified". (Bear in mind I was only half way
through my DFP at that time and had a Bachelor of Science (chemistry)
with honours, not an MBA in finance or something).

They explained that their clients liked a bit more excitement in their
portfolios. Stock picking and trading was more of a hobby for them
than a wealth building strategy, so they liked all the high PE specs
and growth stocks. He named a few, none of them stocks I would touch
because of their high prices. They included stocks like CSL and
Billabong, stocks which took a massive haircut during the bear market.

It was never easy for me to find the right firm and many regarded me
with scepticism. I was given a lot of encouragement by people but
told I probably wouldn't be able to fit in with the culture of their
groups.

Anyway, I eventually found my way to a decent independent group and
things are going well for me. I'm now managing director of a new
company that was formed in conjunction with two very good accountants
and a banker who just left his banking job of more than 25 years (as a
branch manager) to start a banking services and finance broking
consultancy. This is coming together officially in July but I'll
probably not completely sever myself from my current arrangements
until August or maybe even September.

Many aus.invest people, with bitter past experience of financial
advisors, should be able to share with you their own feelings about
the industry, and I certainly do have a lot of sympathy with them.
(Despite many people, especially new readers, automatically assuming
I'm one of the shonky sales types of advisors and hence I get special
attention from the trolls... I think I'm the only member of this
newsgroup with his own full time dedicated cyberstalker.)

Anyway, I think I've already said enough. Between this and the other
posts you should have a reasonable idea of what the industry is like
and how you can get into it (or maybe IF you want to get into it).

I can assure you that there ARE good firms out there who are
scrupulously honest and highly professional. Not all of them are able
to use the term "independent" due to their ties to product
manufacturers via dealer group ownership, but even so most of the fee
for service firms offer a good service. In Perth I can name at least
four very good fee for service firms other than my own (three of which
are genuine "independent" firms who are FFS and independently owned).

There are a few others around Australia. If you want a good advisor
I'd say the ones that use DFA are among the best because DFA only deal
with the most professional FFS advisors, you could try asking for
referrals of advisors near you and you could call them up to see if
they could help you.

But probably they wouldn't take someone who was inexperienced, so
trying internal bank jobs would probably be a good start, at least
until you're a DFP or CFP at which time all the recruiting agencies
will have plenty of positions for you. I could get a $100K plus
bonuses salary tomorrow if I wanted one, but I don't.

Good luck.

Travis
www.travismorien.com

Gregory Toomey

2004-06-17 05:05:24 UTC

Have you considered stockbroking within the bank?

Its fairly well paid & could lead to a good career path. Its customer
contact (but could be mostly telephone) but less "intensive" than financial
planning.

gtoomey
www.ausinvestor.com Australian Investor Forum

unknown

2004-06-17 05:59:37 UTC

Dear Gregory,

Thanks very much for your suggestion. Unfortunately I don't know much about
Stockbroking. Is there any website you can recommend where I can find more
information about this career and what's involved there?

Rowena

Post by Gregory Toomey

Have you considered stockbroking within the bank?
Its fairly well paid & could lead to a good career path. Its customer
contact (but could be mostly telephone) but less "intensive" than financial
planning.
gtoomey
www.ausinvestor.com Australian Investor Forum

Tom N

2004-06-17 06:36:36 UTC

Post by unknown
Dear Gregory,
Thanks very much for your suggestion. Unfortunately I don't know much
about Stockbroking. Is there any website you can recommend where I can
find more information about this career and what's involved there?

Have a look at http://www.myfuture.edu.au

A couple of suggestions:

financial markets analyst e.g. analyzing stock or other markets working for
fund managers (and most of the big banks now own fund managers, so you
might not even have to switch employers)

IT areas of banks or brokers or e.g. Computershare

talk to your HR people - a good HR person will want to keep good workers so
it is better for them to put you where you are happy than to have you
leave.

Travis Morien

2004-06-17 15:25:27 UTC

Post by Gregory Toomey

Have you considered stockbroking within the bank?
Its fairly well paid & could lead to a good career path. Its customer
contact (but could be mostly telephone) but less "intensive" than financial
planning.

I'm not sure that would really be the job the OP is after, having
specified that she wants minimal client contact and mostly just
backoffice tech work.

I once applied for a job at a stock broking firm and was turned down
on the grounds of being "overqualified". In our conversation it was
made quite clear to me that my analytical abilities and my skills as a
value investor were more appropriate for a fund management position.
Brokers are given "research reports" by somebody within their
organisation which then form the basis of sales calls to clients.

It was intimated that the type of contrarian value stocks I was into
were very hard to sell to clients, even if they performed very well.
For this reason, the firm had very much a "growth" focus. He named a
number of stocks they "liked", all of them in my opinion very
overvalued at the prices at the time, all of them underperformed the
market in the year after my interview.

I think paraplanning (for a good firm) would be an appropriate career
for "Rowena" given the nature of the work asked for, as would some
sort of credit analyst job somewhere within the bank.

There are probably good broking firms out there that value good
research for their retail clients, but I'm yet to find one. Broking
appears to me to be very much a "gift of the gab" type stock selling
job, not anything like the job description Rowena wants.

Travis
www.travismorien.com

2004-06-17 06:28:56 UTC

Post by unknown
I've been working for three banks for three years as Retail Clerk and Trade
Finance Officer ....blah...blah........

Even though banking and FP are both in the financial field, there's
quite a big gap between them. With the coming of the FSRA, all roles
are governed by strict procedures and processes. Don't believe for one
minute that by being a Para planner, you'll escape these restrictions.

Have you tried requesting a sideways move within the bank to say a
credit role as an analyst? Plenty of numbers, spreadsheets and
financial modelling etc.

Remember the grass is not always greener on the other side...

J

Darrin

2004-06-20 10:57:29 UTC

Just some quick comments on your questions...

I work for a financial planning dealership and know that every office
is run differently. The roles, level of service, procedures etc etc
can differ dramatically. As a result, financial reporting and the
required technical work will differ.

For example, one paraplanner may simply enter numbers into a software
program and print the results. Another paraplanner may delve into
financial modelling, social security eligibility calculation and be
involved in producing a comrpehensive financial plan. One may deal
with client's to a degree (initial client meeting) or have no contact
at all.

I note you said "I believe I have a good academic background and
potential in figures and analysis" and "I don't want a too
customer-focused position as I prefer a quiet job"....

Well financial planning is very much client focused. You work every
closely with clients and other people along the way. The analystical
side of things are just a drop in the ocean. There area lot of areas
financial planning 'can' cover. So depending on the organisation, the
technical side of things will be important, but not a major facet of
the business. Also, maybe this only applies in smaller firms, but the
progression from paraplanner may be to financial adviser, which is
ultimately dealing with client's. How much tehcnical work you take on
from there is your own decision.

Not sure if investment analysis is down your alley? If your interested
in modelling and the analytical side of things, many dealership
groups, brokers and alike have investment research divisions. It would
be worthwhile researching your current organisation to find what they
offer under financial planning and investing.

Post by unknown
2. What exactly do I need before I can become a paraplanner? I learned that
I need a DFP and need to be PS146 compliant and of course, some experience.
But what experience is enough to get to be a paraplanner?

Find out if any of your current courses and units completed meet the
requirements. Speak to ASIC. If you're looking to work in financial
planning the DFP is the way to go. It is not really a requirement if
you're not providing specific advice to clients, but being PS146
compliant would be seen as a major plus for potential employers.

With recent legilsative changes, there is demand for people who meet
the educational requirements of PS146 and DFP.

I recommend you find out what units you can get an exemption from, as
you may find your finance background you can skip some of the basic
units. A lot of the course gets repetitive after a while, but a good
introduction to the industry.

If you do enrol, you DO NOT have to do the course through Deaken/FPA.
The course work through them is very time consuming. Depending on your
work and after hours, you can probably handle 2 units per term. Course
is via correspondence.

I am not sure what skills you posses and how transferrable they are. I
guess what level you enter on will depend on your technical and
generic knowledge of the industry. I know many of the super admin jobs
require a good knowledge of superannuation.

I would be approaching larger organisations - banks, investment firms,
fund managers. Call some dealerships and ask their opinion on your
skills.

Good luck with it.

stan the man

2004-06-24 07:48:20 UTC

Read what Alan Bond has to say about graduates in his autobiog BOND when he
was morivated to create the Bond university.
Bottom line -real education is not in the academic circle ,real world
experience adds so much more to your productivity.
Self expression self confidence a positive attitude and a big picture view
is worth three degrees (AND i HAVE THREE )

Stan

Post by unknown
I've been working for three banks for three years as Retail Clerk and Trade
Finance Officer and feel it very boring working like a machine following all
the strict procedures not using my brain. I have a Master degree of Commerce
in Business Information Systems and Finance and a Bachelor degree of
Economics in International Finance. So I believe I have a good academic
background and potential in figures and analysis. I want to develop a career
in a more analytical or mathematical or research area. I did a bit research
for a few months and found out that a Paraplanner might be what I want to
be. As I don't have any experience in this industry I would like to seek
some advice. I have the following questions to ask and would appreciate it
1. Are there any more advanced analytical or mathematical or research
positions that I might suit? I learned that Financial Planner might be a
higher position and might earn more money but I don't want a too
customer-focused position as I prefer a quiet job, I mean, not too much
talking involved.
2. What exactly do I need before I can become a paraplanner? I learned that
I need a DFP and need to be PS146 compliant and of course, some experience.
But what experience is enough to get to be a paraplanner?
3. What is a good entry into this industry? I have developed a bit far in my
banking career and my current salary is obviously more than entry level. I
would consider an entry level position in this industry if the salary is
reasonably lower than my current salary. What kind of positions can I
choose? Financial Planning Assistant/Admin? Superannuation Admin? Funds
Admin? or Life Insurance Admin?
Thanks very much for any advice.

g***@gmail.com

2018-06-19 00:50:52 UTC