Susan Edmunds, at Goodreturns, raises the Code Working Group's proposal that compliance requirements may be met by a combination of systems and training. I don't really see how Angus Dale-Jones and the rest of the working group could reach any other conclusion. MBIE having already decided that the new Financial Services Legislation Amendment Bill would allow for digital advice - in effect decreed that systems could meet 100% of the requirements - it would be hard to argue that in a systems-human hybrid the systems contribution should be rated at zero.
Even after the dust has settled on the Code Working Group's proposals to recognise the contribution of systems to an overall delivery most people working as financial advisers will still get the level five certificate. Those concerned that the 'big end of town' will have an advantage because they can deploy capital to develop compliant systems and have them operated by cheaper, less qualified, staff have a point, but it is a point that started to be made with protests against mechanical looms at the very start of the industrial revolution. Also, it is not as large as the one might think. After all, the small end of town uses plenty of computer systems too: Quotemonster is a way to share the cost of a large, complex, system between two thousand advisers. Other advantages will be procured through dealer groups, and other third-party systems and service providers. But I back up Fred Dodd's suggestion that advisers, even if you find a financial advice provider that offers lots of systems, will enjoy more freedom to move if they do the study.