As The Advisers Association chief executive Neil Macdonald wrote in an opinion column for ifa, existing advisers with no degree must have an approved degree or another qualification by 1 January 2026.
Mr Macdonald wrote that unless the requirement is addressed, the industry will see a “mass exodus of financial advisers that will make the current stream of exits look like a trickle in percentage terms”.
The article has received overwhelming feedback, with a number of comments coming from advisers who said they are indeed planning to exit by January 2026 due to the requirement.
“As it stands, I’ll be amongst the cohort reaching for the exit door handle on New Year’s Eve, 2025 even though I have no wish to, and my clients would all prefer I wasn’t,” Wayne Leggett commented.
Malcolm Bell commented: “How well said is that – I am one such adviser who will not want to leave the industry good health permitting but will have to start planning my exit in the next two years – some reassurance that this will not be necessary would be a welcome message from the regulators that the [clients’] interest is being considered and acknowledgement given to those who have created the very valuable advise industry we have today.”
Another commenter claimed to be 60 years old and a certified financial planner for 20 years and despite meeting the requirements, still needs to complete six more subjects “to be worthy to remain in the business”.
“That’s not happening as I value my personal time and the time needed to look after my existing clients too much,” the comment read.
“Add me to the statistics of those reluctantly leaving on 31st December 2025.”
While the majority of feedback was in support of Mr Macdonald’s viewpoints, there were some who disagreed.
One commenter, JJ, wrote: “No [I] don’t agree. Our industry was and is plagued with problems and raising the minimum education standard to that of any other normal profession is the obvious choice. Stop hanging onto the past we must improve this industry to stay relevant.”
Another wrote: “There is a very big difference between someone who doesn’t have a relevant degree and someone who can’t be bothered obtaining one.”
Mr Macdonald’s column came after it was revealed in September that the total number of advisers in Australia has dropped below 19,000.
In October, ASIC said that transition plans for FASEA to be wound up and responsibilities passed to the regulator in support of the recently passed Better Advice Bill will be announced imminently.
Over the past 11 months I have completed and passed the four bridging units to complete FASEA’s education requirements. I can confirm that the additional knowledge has not added one iota to my financial planning capabilities nor the ability to provide caring, timely and professional service to my clients. The only persons to have benefited are the conflicted academics and public servants that are part of the corrupt scheme and the institution that charged me $12,000 for the privilege.
Congratulations on wanting to stay in the industry enough to pay the price (literally and figuratively) anyway. It may not have made you a better planner but it probably made you think about whether you really want to be doing it. More planners in the industry who really want to do it and less who don’t may not be the worst thing. However, I’m well aware of the challenges that a shrinking adviser pool will pose to the accessibility and affordability of advice for the average Aussie.
Agree 110%…But the rest of your peers thank you for helping to prevent further Government intervention into this sector and for moving the pendulum to professionalism. It was only a few years ago Advisers were being mocked for having educational qualifications lower than hairdressers and that lead to significant poor legislation impacting Australians and Advisers. You’ve left the industry in a better place and I thank you.
Can’t we just move on from resisting necessary change to improve the industry’s reputation. I’m disappointed but not surprised by the number of “older or longer serving” advisers who won’t move on. No, a degree does not guarantee a good adviser but neither does 25 or 30 years experience.The environment and legislation for financial advice has becoming more sophisticated at an exponential rate and we need more technically qualified advisers and an critical part of the of the future. And frankly earning CPD points by online sessions or PD Days really doesn’t count as quality on-going education. I must have attended 100s of PD sessions and am always amused by the number of advisers glazing over or even doing a Joe Biden. Just scanning in doesn’t mean you learned something.
I agree with your sentiment completely but your logic is flawed. If anything, tax, social security and super legislation has become far more simpler. RBL’s, Surcharge, salary sacrificing 100% of your salary, using trusts to get better Centrelink, 8 different components when doing a super withdrawal was complex. When we had that complexity everyone needed advice.
Education doesn’t make people more ethical. Ethics are learnt as a child to the age of 7 . It’s common sense , this is just a money grab . Anyone who says otherwise is ignorant
Understand some of the comments and the intent of the article however each to their own.
I’m 50, run a business, and have 23 years experience as an adviser. Have completed 5 units in last 18 months and now have my Grad Dip . If they change the rules around qualifications I will be seeking a refund as it has been considerable time on my personal, business and Family time. At the end of the day people need to ask themselves how much do you want to be in the industry and why are you in it? Some short term pain for long term gain in my view.
Best wishes to all those great advisers out there with or without their Quals at this stage.
I find it disappointing that there is this “new cohort” that come out and say that the Advisers who don’t have degrees are suddenly sub-par? This is a derogatory and narrow minded attitude, how can we sub-par? There are a lot of Advisers who have been advising clients for 20/25/30 + years, there wasn’t anything available for us until the late 90’s, then we went and did all the possible education available to us, we continued to increase our knowledge through CPD and have maintained this, what you don’t recognize is the “experience”, a degree in financial planning today gives you no experience……it gives you a piece of paper. Stating we need to eliminate sub-par planners is a disgusting comment and disingenuous..
If you cannot conform to the new education requirements, who knows what other measures you may be using to shortcut other compliance requirements…
This comment is rude and misinformed. I have been in the industry since 1996 and have the necessary qualifications. Having both the experience and the qualifications, I can say experience and on the job training are more important than those 3 pieces of paper I have displayed on my wall.
Question: Adviser brand new out of Uni versus ADVISER with brand new degree and 30 years experience…I know who I’m going to – experience does count.
A new Adviser has to go through the Professional Year and so far only 500-600 candidates over the past 3 years have either completed or are currently completing the PY. So those bunch are going to be the absolute best and brightest in the profession. They may not have the ‘soft skills’ of an Adviser with 30 years experience, but I would presume they could run technical rings around said experienced Adviser. These are people that do not cry or winge about the new regulations, they embrace them to better the profession.
So yes, I WOULD go to a ‘new’ Adviser.
I am not a school child who is refusing to do my homework, I have 32 years active experience as a Planner, managed many clients over these years and have kept up to date with all education requirements, and passed the FASEA exam, your comment is derogatory and rude, a degree does not make me compliant, it is a tick box for the Government for click bait. Typical of Junior within our Industry, you may have a degree, but zero common sense and ability to relate.
I’m doing the additional education and might retire around that time anyway. Whilst education standards are not perfect solution, they are a good start. However in a medical analogy, we are making everyone qualified like a Specialist which is a great step forward, but who is left to put a broken arm in a sling? You certainly wouldn’t see / pay an Orthopaedic Surgeon to do that just like an Adviser can no longer afford to do lower level work / insurance / cashflow etc. I guess that is what Tic Toc, Dr Google and Intra-Fund ‘Advice’ (I use that term loosely) are for….all care and no responsibility.
The bottom line is – how many people in any industry in Australia have to complete formal studies to actually keep their job in that industry?
Blatant discrimination against existing advisors supported by the FPA.
Dan how about asking how many people in any “profession” have to complete formal studies?
That’s exactly what this is all about. 🙂
Yet more legislation that will see quality advisers leave and fail to address the sub-par planners. Does the Government really think a 30 year adviser with 30 years of audits, no complaints and long list of happy clients is the adviser likely to take advantage of clients and hence should be the target? To anyone who says ‘this is what the industry needs’ ask your clients if they would prefer 30 years experience or a university degree with 12 months placement? If you built a house, did you choose a builder with history or one that solely had latest tafe course? I’m not saying we don’t need higher standards of education, we absolutely 100% do and I support this, however I disagree with the application of this to long term quality advisers.
I mean AQF7 is just a tad higher than a ‘tafe course’…
Age discrimination basically. I thinking of lodging a formal discrimination complaint with the Aust Human Rights Commission.
No surprises to see this level of support on the article – It should be simple: new entrants should be required to achieve the proper standards and quals, and existing advisers should follow re-assessment catchment on a reasonable basis to retain the good ones, not push them out – and exit the ones who shouldn’t have been here to start with. Considerable risk here – Govt must act quickly!!!
In a lot of cases the issues that garner all the media interest have been perpetrated by ‘advisers’ with the minimum level of qualifications. Allowing older advisers to stay just because they are old is hardly an argument for bringing change to the financial planning profession…
Glad you shared a more balanced view. I work with advisers well into their 50’s, with over 30 years experience, with families and a large book of clients that keep them constantly under the pump. They also value their personal time, yet completed the education requirements and started the process in 2019 when the writing was on the wall. Everyone has had ample time to meet the minimum education requirements and if it was extended the same complaints would be made two years from now I’m sure. While what is happening may not be fair, it is up to each adviser to decide if they wish to embrace the changes and continue or resist and ultimately quit. If it’s all “too hard” then maybe you just don’t want it enough. That’s your choice and nobody can blame you for making it.
Yes I completed the the education requirements too- started 2 years ago and am done with it.
Well said – this guy gets it.
It will be hard (if not impossible) to remove the education requirements now, as all the Advisers at our firm as well have completed their Grad Dip in the last couple of years. The uproar would be deafening if they backflipped on the AQF7 req and their complaints would be much more reasonable compared to those complaining about having to do it in the first place…
Having the education level elevated is a huge step forward for the profession. Planners negatively impacted are naturally going to say it’s the wrong decision because of how it affects them personally, but for the longevity of the industry it had to happen. It doesn’t mean that there arent great planners out there without degrees, but this requirement isn’t about them, it’s about the sub-par planners and how we can eliminate them both now and in the future.
What do you specifically mean by “sub-par” planners Steve?
Planners that are selfish and don’t think about the wider profession or their peers or Australians and despite having 20 years notice, going through significant regulation, being compared to hairdressers, just say stuff it. I would call them selfish and sub par.
yes, eliminate them and create less competition. Good move. Don’t agree. a piece of paper does not mean they are a good planner. utter nonsense. the smart ones will leave as there are easier ways to make money.
I wonder if you would go to a doctor that didnt have any qualifications beyond a certificate course that he completed over the course of 3-4 weeks….