I'm going to ignore the usual way of writing a blog like this and answer the question in the headline straightaway: of course not.
It wasn't my question, by the way, but one put to a panel or paraplanners at the Institute of Financial Planning (IFP's) second paraplanner conference in Nottingham yesterday.
The panel didn't really respond to it, but answered another question about the evolution of their profession.
But it struck a chord with me because it chimed with what one or two of the more cynical readers on IFAonline have remarked in the past.
Are paraplanners simply 'glorified typists'?
These cynics - who have obviously never used a paraplanner in their life - have questioned advisers' need to delegate tasks, suggesting some must be insecure in their abilities.
One even branded paraplanners as "diluted advisers" (see comments under this story).
I wonder what these people would have made of this week's conference.
What would they have made of the FSA's assertion that paraplanners should challenge advisers on suitability?
What would their reaction have been to people like Richard Allum and Kim Bendall, who say paraplanners should have better technical knowledge than advisers?
Having witnessed an excellent presentation by Technical Connection's Eddie Grant and Scottish Widows' Robert Cochran, would they not see the possiblity that a bit of guidance and support on tax and pensions might improve their propositions?
Of course, a conference like the one I attended was always likely to attract paraplanner-evangelists.
But I got the impression this is a profession riding on a wave of confidence.
This article continues...
What made financial headlines over the weekend?
To promote 'long-term investment'
Switching 'hard and expensive'
Smaller funds still packing a punch